Thursday, February 22, 2024

UK

Gaza ceasefire vote result: Parliament backs Labour motion – read full text and how chaos unfolded

© UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor

MPs have approved a Labour motion backing an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Israel and Gaza, with the party avoiding a widely expected rebellion after a tumultuous day in the Commons.

A planned vote in parliament on multiple motions about the conflict in Israel and Gaza descended into chaos, as the government withdrew from the debate and Scottish National Party and Tory MPs walked out in protest over the handling of the Commons vote.

It meant MPs only voted on Labour’s motion (read the full text below). Shadow minister Jon Ashworth wrote on X: “For all the Tory parliamentary games tonight the most important thing is Parliament has just endorsed Labour’s amendment for an immediate ceasefire, release of hostages, a surge in aid and recognition of a Palestinian state.”

The opposite day debate was secured by the SNP, widely seen to be seeking to exploit Labour divisions. But Speaker Lindsay Hoyle’s decision to allow a vote on Labour’s amendment before the SNP’s – against usual convention – prompted outrage from the SNP as it denied them the chance to vote on their own motion. The clerk of the Commons voiced their concern in a letter to Hoyle too.

The Conservative leader of the House Penny Morduant also condemned the Speaker, claiming he had “undermined the confidence of this House” and withdrawing the government’s motion. Labour shadow leader of the Commons Lucy Powell questioned whether the Tories had feared a backbench rebellion over their own motion, however.

Hoyle later apologised for how the vote “ended up”, but said he had wanted to give MPs the opportunity to express as wide a range of views as possible given strong feelings on the issue. Labour also faces questions about whether it pressured Hoyle.

The absence of a vote on the SNP motion means Labour leader Keir Starmer avoided a potentially significant rebellion from Labour MPs backing the SNP’s line, which shadow frontbenchers have criticised.

One Labour MP had told LabourList this morning they and colleagues planned to back both the Labour and SNP motions.

With critics calling Labour’s ceasefire call too caveated, the MP said voters “just want a ceasefire” and exact terms should not be for Labour to negotiate. They said they had received nearly as many constituent emails as the 2,500 they received in the last vote in November.

In November a number of Labour frontbenchers resigned to vote for an SNP amendment which called for a ceasefire and 56 Labour MPs backed it despite being whipped against.

The text of the final motion as amended by Labour and approved by the Commons is below:

That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children;

condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages;

supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again;

therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza;

demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures;

calls for the UN Security Council to be meet urgently;

and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.

Labour Amendment On Gaza Ceasefire Passes After Chaotic Day In Commons





Nadine Batchelor-Hunt


MPs have passed a Labour amendment calling for an "humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza after a dramatic day in Westminster which saw SNP MPs walk out of the chamber.

The day began with House of Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle breaking with convention and selecting both Labour and the government’s amendment to the SNP’s opposition day motion for a ceasefire, which proved to be a divisive move. 

In the ensuing chaos, leader of the House of Commons Penny Mordaunt announced that the government would no longer be participating in the vote despite having tabled an amendment of their own. 

But as agitated MPs prepared to head to the voting lobbies, Hoyle was nowhere to be seen. Westminster SNP leader Stephen Flynn made a point of order three times to ask the deputy speaker Rosie Winterton where Hoyle was, and insisted the SNP's motion should be voted on before Labour's amendment. Earlier it was made clear that if Labour’s amendment passed, the SNP’s original motion would be amended before being voted on.

In his third point of order, Flynn eventually asked for the House of Commons to be suspended until Hoyle returned to the chamber – to furious shouts of support from MPs frustrated with Hoyle’s decision. When it became clear Flynn's requests would not be acted upon, the SNP appeared to walk out of the chamber in protest before later returning. 

After multiple points of order from MPs from all parties, which saw Winterton struggle to control MPs as they shouted over each other, a vote was held on whether the house should sit in private – with access to the public and press galleries in the House of Commons closed and cameras switched off. MPs voted against sitting privately. 

Hoyle subsequently returned to the chamber, and issued an apology for the way events had unfolded – saying the reasoning behind his decision was out of concern "about the security of members, their families and the people that are involved".

"It was my wish to do the best by every member of this House," he said. 

Labour's amendment was set to be voted on first, then the government's, and then the SNPs original ceasefire motion – all of which come ahead of Israel's planned offensive in Rafah, the only part of Gaza still under Hamas control and where more than one million Gazans are seeking refuge from the fighting. 

According to the Hamas-run health ministry, almost 30,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war, which began after Hamas killed more than 1,200 Israelis in a largescale terror attack on southern Israel on 7 October.

The key difference between Labour's amendment and the SNP's motion was Labour specifying any ceasefire as "humanitarian". Labour also does not mention “collective punishment” of the Palestinians, whereas the SNP motion does. The difference between Labour's amendment and the government's was clearer, with the government calling for a "humanitarian pause" with a view towards "a permanent sustainable ceasefire" in Gaza. 

Had Hoyle stuck to convention – which dictates the government's amendment should take precedent – Labour's amendment may not have been chosen at all, forcing Labour MPs who still wanted to vote for a ceasefire to break their party whip, which was to abstain, and vote for the SNP's motion.

PoliticsHome understands one of the arguments made to Hoyle by Labour figures was concern about backlash from the public if its amendment wasn't included as an option for Labour MPs. 

However, the Speaker's decision has triggered anger among some MPs – with senior Tory MP William Wragg to submitting an Early Day Motion expressing no confidence in the Speaker, and a senior Tory MP telling PoliticsHome they are considering supporting his motion. 

Labour MP Ian Lavery expressed unhappiness that his name had been included on the order paper for Labour's amendment without his "consent". 

Ahead of the vote, a Labour source told PoliticsHome multiple Tory MPs were considering rebelling and supporting a Labour amendment ahead of the vote. 

Senior Tory MP Tobias Ellwood also told PoliticsHome ahead of the vote he did not need to vote to state his support for "a workable ceasefire", describing the days events as "painful". 

Responding to parliament voting to support a ceasefire, Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey MP said: “The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an immediate bilateral ceasefire for months now, in order to stop the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, get the hostages out and provide the space for a path towards a two-state solution.

“Today’s debate should have been about Parliament coming together with one voice on this horrific conflict. Instead it’s turned into an embarrassing row about the selection of amendments.

“A ceasefire is urgently needed so that there is time to facilitate the delivery of aid into Gaza, the opportunity to release the hostages, and provide space to intensify diplomacy so that Hamas is out of Gaza, a two state solution is agreed and a lasting peace.”

Ian Paisley criticised for heated contribution to Gaza debate as Westminster descends into chaos
THE RAND PAUL OF NORTHERN IRELAND



Ian Paisley (photo by Andrew Aitchison / In pictures via Getty Images)


Brett Campbell
BELFAST TELEGRAPH


DUP MP Ian Paisley has been criticised for his heated contribution to the Gaza ceasefire debate in Westminster, prompting a warning from the Deputy Speaker.

The House of Commons later descended into chaos as the Government and SNP condemned Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle for his handling of the debate.

Labour’s amendment pushing for an immediate Gaza ceasefire was approved by the Commons.

Earlier, SNP MPs and some Conservatives walked out of the chamber in an apparent protest at the state of affairs as the debate reached its conclusion.

Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt claimed Sir Lindsay had “hijacked” the debate and “undermined the confidence” of the House in its longstanding rules by selecting Labour’s bid to amend the SNP motion calling for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza and Israel.

It had been expected that Sir Lindsay would select just the Government’s amendment seeking an “immediate humanitarian pause” to the Israel-Hamas conflict, which could pave the way for a more permanent stop in fighting.

But instead, he decided that the Commons would first vote on Labour’s calls for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” before moving on to further votes on the SNP’s original motion, and then the Government’s proposals if either of the first two were to fail to garner enough support.

Conservative MP William Wragg, who called for Sir Lindsay to resign, later tried to make the House of Commons sit in private.

SNP MPs were understood to have headed to the voting lobby after the walkout from the chamber.

The debate sparked passions on all sides. DUP MP Mr Paisley recalled a recent meeting with Adi Efrat, who was kidnapped by Hamas on October 7 after her house was scorched to the ground.

The 51-year-old was taken from Kibbutz Be’eri where 120 neighbours — including men, women and children — were killed during the murderous rampage.

Mr Paisley branded the motion — which he said doesn’t contain a single word “about the rape of women and murder of children” — as “vile”.

“It’s as if, Mr Deputy Speaker, it didn’t happen,” he said.

“It’s as if it was invisible.

“It’s as if like other people in the 20th century who denied what happened.

“It is utterly vile.”

The North Antrim representative said the “awful” war in Gaza is a consequence of “the unjustifiable attack” on Israelis and Jews on October 7.

Mr Paisley insisted moral responsibility lies with Hamas as he warned Israel is already facing enemies on eight fronts.

“The SNP wants us to open up another front, that is the Parliamentary front, against Israel,” he said.

Following his remarks, SNP MP Steven Bonner appealed to the Deputy Speaker to intervene.

“I’ve just been called [an] antisemite by the honourable member from the north of Ireland,” the SNP member said.

“It’s an absolute disgrace that that is where he is bringing this debate today.”

The Deputy Speaker, who said he didn’t hear the comment, instructed MPs to use “temperate” language.

SDLP MP Claire Hanna, who previously worked for a relief and development agency, told the Commons she has never encountered a humanitarian crisis as “hellish” as what the people of Gaza are facing.

“Our constituents are watching in devastation and distress and feel powerless to the point of complicity,” she said.

While stressing that she stood in “full solidarity” with the Israeli victims of the Hamas attack, the South Belfast MP said the scenes coming from Gaza filled people with dread.

“I feel that way,” she continued.

“I look at my six-year-old sweet, smiling innocent daughter, and I see a six year old trapped in car for days with nobody listening to her cries and the bodies of all the people she loved — those scenes will never leave people.”

Ms Hanna objected to the “slurs and distortions” put on those who show empathy as she branded the October 7 massacre as “wicked” and “vile”.

She described Hamas as a “cynical organisation” and said she believes in Israel’s right to exist.

“Comparisons between the Middle East and NI are shallow,” she added.

“But the one [lesson] that can be learned is the first step is stopping the killing... if we don’t support a ceasefire now, when will we?”

Later, Sir Lindsay apologised to the Commons amid shouts of “resign” from some MPs.


Sir Lindsay told the Commons: “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up.

“I do take responsibility for my actions, and that’s why I want to meet with the key players who have been involved.”

Shouts of “resign” could be heard from both sides of the House.

Additional reporting by Press Association


The view of the ceasefire vote from a Birmingham mosque

Ever since the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October, interested parties have been watching not only the UK government's response to Israel and Gaza, but the opposition's stance too.


Serena Barker-Singh
Political correspondent @serenabarksing
Wednesday 21 February 2024 

Green Lane mosque in Birmingham

It's a rainy day in Birmingham and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the vote tonight in the House of Commons over support for a ceasefire in Gaza is not the first thing on people's minds.

But make no mistake, this is a huge issue here for voters of all stripes - and particularly important to the Muslim community.

Politics live: Speaker sparks fury with amendment decision

Ever since the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October last year, interested parties have been watching not only the UK government's response to Israel and Gaza, but the opposition's stance too.

This is partly because the Muslim community is one of Labour's most loyal voter bases, which has almost exclusively stuck with the party in recent elections.

But potentially, no more.

I'm invited into the Green Lane mosque where there are several events going on in the expansive and beautifully preserved Victorian building.

There's a cancer support awareness event in the basement, and in one wing of the building, a coffee morning for women to gather and chat.

Mustafa Hussain, the imam here, says the issue has been coming up repeatedly at the mosque. They've even had fundraising events and collections for donations towards aid going to Gaza.

But he says there's only so much he can do, and he believes it is leaders who have the biggest responsibility.

Image:Birmingham city centre

"What we're doing is to make our voices loud enough so they can make the right decisions," he told me.

"You saw how the streets were filled all over Europe, in London, you would think that with that amount of noise being made on a local level, or a community level, the decision to help save lives would have been made earlier?"

But while Imam Mustafa says he believes this should have come earlier, he will take Labour at its word.

"When I hear Labour is going to be calling for a humanitarian ceasefire, I mean, great," he said. "But I hope this is not just optics and will lead to actual change."

Labour has been reportedly worried about losing voters in their stronghold with a high Muslim population for some time.

A recent survey by Survation added to that fear when it indicated only 60% of British Muslims who voted Labour in the last election would back the party again.

The politically active organisations in Birmingham say that figure could even be an underestimate.

Azhar Qayum, chief executive of the Muslim Engagement and Development organisation, worries about the wording of the Labour amendment.

He said the addition of the word "humanitarian" in "immediate humanitarian ceasefire" allows for "further quibbles" and even some "wiggle room".

Mr Qayum added: "What does it even mean? It's too much politicising this, it should be simple. The fighting needs to stop."

So it seems this could be about a lack of trust for him and the delay from Labour to come to this position means he's unable to take Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer at his word.

He will be watching closely at which Labour MPs vote for what he says is a "simpler" SNP amendment, calling for an immediate ceasefire, and he says this will "undoubtedly" have an impact on the Labour vote from British Muslims.

'Do the right thing'

Back in the mosque, a community organiser named Sidrah tells me why she welcomes Labour's position today.

Calling for a ceasefire was important because of what she hopes for next: more aid into Gaza, more medics allowed inside and more equipment for hospitals.

"It has been a lot for the community to deal with," she said.

It's clear Labour has work to do to retain support among Muslim voters, but today at the Green Lane mosque, Imam Mustafa accepts this is a start.

"Lest we start assuming that decisions are being made for voters," he said. "I'd like to believe decisions are being made to save lives.

"At the end of the day I don't want you to win my vote, I want you to do the right thing and I think that's the message from our community. Do the right thing."


Tories and Labour unite to protect Israel in ceasefire vote


Tory Leader of the Commons Penny Mordaunt said the government would 'play no further part in today's proceedings'

By Charlie Kimber
Wednesday 21 February 2024
SOCIALIST WORKER Issue 2893

Anger at Israel—and its backers in the Labour leadership—outside parliament (Picture: Mandy Brown)

A cynical stitch-up—with the Tories trusting Keir Starmer to act in the role of a “national” leader—stopped MPs voting on Wednesday evening on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

Amid chaotic scenes in the commons, the Tories and Labour combined to shield Israeli genocide. And, particularly in Labour’s case, they tried to slither away from a clear indication on whether its MPs backed a ceasefire or not.

Just before the crucial votes began, Tory Leader of the Commons Penny Mordaunt said the government would “play no further part in today’s proceedings”. Tory whips told their MPs to abstain on a Labour motion. This meant it passed—without a vote.

Therefore the Scottish National Party’s motion—which was supposed to be the subject of the debate—was not even put to a vote.

Just before the votes began, SNP and even some Tory MPs walked out of the Commons chamber in a protest over the way the speaker—the chair of the Commons—had handled the debate. The speaker then went missing.

All of these anti-democratic manoeuvres required trampling on parliament’s traditions (see below) something which British stuffy and conservative sham-democracy usually rejects. But they did it as their united service to imperialism.

The debate came as Israel had begun a countdown to slaughter in Rafah in the south of Gaza. It says its ground offensive against the area where over 1 million people are sheltering could begin 18 days from now. And it follows the International Court of Justice finding there is a plausible case that Israel is carrying out genocide.

But despite this, British MPs put their loyalty to imperialism and Zionism first and voted against an unconditional call for an immediate ceasefire. The SNP motion had called for a ceasefire without caveats and loopholes. The Labour alternative used words about a ceasefire but in practice did not push for one.

It supported “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts”. That’s a shift to using the word ceasefire because of the pressure of the millions-strong movement in Britain and recent changes in the US’s language.

But Labour’s motion made any ceasefire conditional, “noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again.”

So it defended Israel’s right to murder Palestinians if Hamas does not surrender. For Starmer, Palestinians can live only if they cease to resist extermination, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and dispossession. For Labour to oppose their deaths, Palestinians must become compliant with Zionism.

Labour leadrs said they were particularly angry that the SNP motion called for “an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people”.

How else to describe Israel’s murder of at least 30,000 people, its policy of starving more than 2.2 million Gazans and driving three-quarters of them from their homes?

A few hours before the debate began, Andrew Gilmour, UN’s Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights from 2016-19 said Israel’s onslaught against Gaza is “probably the highest kill rate of any military killing since the Rwandan Genocide of 1994”.

And a British International Development Committee parliamentary delegation has just returned from a visit to report on Gaza’s conditions. Its chair said, “Nothing that has been reported braces you for the true scale of the horror in Gaza. We’re simply not getting accurate information about the levels of destruction and brutality.”

The SNP’s Anum Qaisar told MPs during the debate, “Gaza is under siege from the air” and mentioned the F-35 bomber and other weapons being made in British factories. She added these weapons may be “used by Israeli authorities in the massacre of families and children in Gaza”.

Shadow foreign secretary David Lammy accused the SNP motion of being “one-sided”, saying Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence.

Previously Lammy has rammed home his party’s cowardice, opportunism and desire to suck up to imperialism. He said Labour doesn’t “want to do anything in an election year, in which the Labour Party might have the privilege of serving, that cuts across our ability to do that.”

There was one sensible Tory contribution. Conservative MP Kit Malthouse said there can be no military victory over Hamas. That is widely accepted across the world and “whispered even in Israel,” he added.

Around 3,000 pro-Palestine supporters gathered in the rain outside parliament before the vote. Reshma from East London told Socialist Worker, “I’ve always supported Palestine, I am angry and upset when MPs have a chance to vote for a ceasefire and don’t try to protect Palestinian lives.”

Josie who works in the music industry said, “Britain has blood on its hands, I felt helpless to be able to do anything but joining the protests has been something I can do.

“My MP said she’d vote for a ceasefire in November but at the last minute didn’t. I’ve no faith she’ll vote for a ceasefire tonight

“Britain has spread war across the Middle East for decades. Britain needs to stop arming Israel and bring in sanctions like we did against Russia.”

After this shameful day in parliament, the movement needs to stay active and militant. Campaigners, for example, need to be on the streets this weekend. The fact that it’s the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s (PSC) annual general meeting should not mean there isn’t a huge day of protest—particularly as the bloodbath in Rafah nears.

And the next scheduled national demo on 9 March is too far away. Let’s be on the streets, build for a militant workplace day of action on 8 March, encourage action such as this weeks’ student occupations—and try to find ways to make Britain ungovernable.

Speaker bends rules for Labour

Earlier in the day, the speaker—the chair of the House of Commons—overthrew normal procedure to help out Starmer.

Senior Labour figures told BBC’s Newsnight programme that they made clear to Commons speaker Sir Lyndsay Hoyle that they would remove him from his position after the general election unless he called their party’s Gaza amendment.

John Craig, Sky News’s chief political correspondent said it was Starmer and Labour chief whip Sir Alan Campbell who had applied the pressure.

In almost every previous case, when the opposition puts forward a motion—as the SNP did on Wednesday—no other opposition party is permitted to put forward an amendment.

That would have meant Labour MPs would have been forced to choose between the SNP motion or the government’s one. Starmer feared lots of his MP, might have felt forced to back the SNP one.

But Hoyle tore up the usual methods and allowed a vote on Labour’s amendment. This gave its MPs an excuse not to back the SNP one.

The Clerk of the House, Tom Goldsmith, who’s the chief adviser on matters of parliamentary procedure in the Commons, wrote a letter putting on record his belief that Hoyle’s decision was a “substantial breach” of procedures.

These weird rules might not seem to matter. But the episode underlines Starmer’s fears of rebellion.
Hands up for genocide from the United States

The United States has again vetoed a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

The move on Tuesday was the fourth US veto of such a UN motion. It came a day after the US circulated a measure that would support only a temporary ceasefire—and linked to the release of all Israeli detainees captured by Palestinian resistance groups.

The vote on a ceasefire in the 15-member council was 13 to one. Britain abstained—an act almost as vicious as the US, but with a dash of added camouflage and cowardice. Britain is nervous about alienating Arab regimes that it relies on for juicy contracts. It has also feared in recent years to use a veto in case other countries, rightly, seek to dump Britain from the UNSC. Its last veto vote was in 1989.

Britain and the US are urging on the genocidal logic of the Israelis. Their sighs about the number of civilian deaths are hypocritical and empty.

Hamas said, “President Joe Biden and his administration bear direct responsibility for derailing the resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza.

“The US position is considered a green light for the occupation to commit more massacres and kill our innocent people through bombing and starvation.”


Labour’s call for an ‘immediate humanitarian ceasefire’ shows Starmer’s scared of the Palestine movement

Labour’s amendment on Wednesday night backs a ceasefire—so long as the Palestinian resistance surrenders


A protest against Starmer in London last November (Picture: Guy Smallman)

By Charlie Kimber
Tuesday 20 February 2024
SOCIALIST WORKER
Issue 2893

The Labour Party—rocked by mass protests, internal splits and the threat of electoral punishment—has changed its language about a ceasefire in Gaza. But it is still refusing to go against Israel’s genocidal assaults.

In advance of a parliamentary vote set for Wednesday, it put out a new line on Tuesday. Labour still won’t back the Scottish National Party’s motion for an immediate ceasefire. Instead, it tries desperately to move away from its overt support for the killing while sticking with the Israeli state.

Labour’s amendment backs “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts. But it makes this conditional, “noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again.”

So there could be a ceasefire so long as the Palestinian resistance surrenders and there is no longer opposition to Zionism.

It admits “an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place” but immediately “condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages”.

As well as the pressure from the millions-strong movement for Palestine, another factor weighing on Keir Starmer will be a shift from president Joe Biden.

The resilience of the Palestinians, the scale of the global movement and the fears of wider revolt in the Middle East have shaken his administration. It is now using the word “ceasefire”.

The US has drafted a UN Security Council resolution that calls for a “temporary ceasefire” in Gaza “as soon as practical” and based on “all hostages being released”. It also warned against what it described as a “major” ground offensive in Rafah, “under the current circumstances”.

That’s not a pro-Palestine motion, but where the US leads loyal supporters of imperialism—such as the Labour Party—follow.

As Starmer is on the defensive, it’s time to increase the pressure. Let’s drive home the confusion and the fear on the other side.


Full coverage of the struggle in Palestine

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign said on Tuesday, “The Labour Party leadership has tabled an amendment seeking to water down the SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

“This amendment seeks to dilute the clear call for an immediate ceasefire by handing the Israeli government a veto over whether or not a ceasefire should happen, at a time when Israel is on trial at the ICJ for the crime of genocide.

“Labour’s amendment amounts to asking for another pause—allowing Israel the option to continue with the slaughter unless its preconditions are met.

“Pointedly, the Labour amendment removes all reference to the collective punishment of Palestinians —a crime under international law.

“This is not an accident. While some shifting of the Labour position is testament to the hundreds of thousands who have campaigned for more than four months for an end to the killing of Palestinians by Israel, this amendment indicates that the Labour leadership is still trying to excuse Israeli war crimes and not willing to put pressure on Israel to end its atrocities.

“It is grotesque to play parliamentary word games with the lives of Palestinian people. All MPs should vote for the SNP motion clearly calling for an immediate ceasefire and against this and any other amendment that seeks to weaken this urgent demand.”

Pressure from the streets makes a difference—let’s have more of it.

Parliament fails to call for a ceasefire: political games as genocide presses on


London, 21st February 2024– This evening, MPs failed to come together to pass a motion in favour of an immediate ceasefire – as Members of Parliament prioritised partisan party interests above the protection of Palestinian lives.  The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) condemns wholeheartedly the failure to support the immediate cessation of Israel’s genocidal campaign against Gaza, which has so far claimed the lives of at least 29,313 Palestinians, including 118 in the last 24 hours alone. The collapse of parliamentary procedure is a damning indictment on the ability of the Conservatives and Labour to demonstrate leadership.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) tabled an opposition day motion calling for an immediate ceasefire, to condemn any military assault on the refugee camp of Rafah and the collective punishment of Palestinian people. Ultimately, our MPs were unable to support the bare minimum needed for the alleviation of Palestinian suffering. In an ideal situation, each MP should be calling for Palestinian statehood, self-determination, the upholding of Palestinian rights and prosecution of those violating them – on top of an immediate ceasefire.

The debate was overshadowed by the departure from parliamentary procedure which saw both Labour and the Conservatives initially permitted to table amendments, both of which sought solely to deflect from their refusal to back an SNP-instituted motion. The Conservative Party withdrew from the House after disagreements with the breaking of precedent, not voting nor tabling their initially-raised amendment, while the SNP were forced to withdraw after their motion would’ve – in essence – been usurped by a poorer, less definitive ‘humanitarian ceasefire’ call. This left Labour’s amendment put to the House ahead of the initial motion, the latter of which was not voted on, with chaos ensuing and an embarrassment for our Parliamentary democracy.

The Labour Party’s amendment significantly watered-down the original SNP motion: declining to call out Israel’s use of collective punishment and offering the state of Israel – currently facing legal proceedings under the Genocide Convention – to set forth its conditions for the cessation of its campaign. This amendment served one purpose alone: with 66% of the British public overwhelmingly backing a ceasefire, Labour MPs were offered a convenient excuse for their failure to back the original call for an immediate ceasefire.

Laying bare Labour’s shameless conduct, today’s vote brought about the first time that the Party has dared to use the term ‘ceasefire’ – albeit with qualifications attached. Labour had their own opposition day on the 6th of February – rather than putting forward their own motion for ceasefire, in the manner they find most suitable to them and their constituents – the Party decided instead to put forward a motion on Ministerial severance pay.

The Conservative’s amendment called for a ‘humanitarian pause in fighting’, allowing for aid delivery and hostage releases. Another humanitarian pause instead of a ceasefire is an unsustainable solution, given the fact that Israeli aggression in fact escalated after the seven-day pause in fighting in November. With a motivation existing to redirect the debate away from their government’s complicity in Israel’s atrocities, it is no surprise that the Conservatives are taking the opportunity to change the debate to one regarding the upholding of Parliamentary procedure. All the while, the situation worsens for Gaza: since Labour and the Conservatives first called for a ‘sustainable’ ceasefire instead of an immediate ceasefire, Israel has killed over 10,000 Palestinians.

In sum, this afternoon has showed that the House has failed to vote in accordance with the demands of international law, forgoing the opportunity to support the International Court of Justice’s provisional measure stating that Israel must cease all acts which lead to the deaths of Palestinians, the group at imminent risk of irreparable prejudice. This vote has come before an anticipated ground invasion of Rafah – a refugee tent city sheltering over one million Palestinians – with it being impossible that there could be a more urgent need, or more timely opportunity, for international leadership by the British Parliament.

If an escalation occurs, 85,750 more Palestinians will be killed by the 6th August as a result of traumatic injuries, infectious and non-communicable disease, according to modelling by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Johns Hopkins University. In the continuation of current conditions, this would be 66,720. The implementation of an immediate ceasefire would reduce this figure to 11,580 – an abhorrent prospect, but a mitigation that would still save tens of thousands of lives. It is a sobering prospect for MPs who are searching their consciences ahead of this ceasefire vote, rather than those playing party politics.

The UK’s abstention on yesterday’s UN Security Council ceasefire motion, not to mention the United States’ despicable invocation of its veto power, demonstrates the same failure in leadership. Amidst these ongoing atrocities and the worsening humanitarian consequences, Britain and America risk further alienating themselves on the world stage, being perceived as obstacles to – as opposed to upholders of – international justice.

ICJP Director Tayab Ali has stated:

“Today, MPs had the chance to finally call for the bare minimum needed: an immediate ceasefire. Despite more than 29,000 Palestinian people being killed, this is not enough, apparently, to push our politicians to overcome party divides to demand an immediate ceasefire.

Instead of acting to protect the Palestinian lives hanging in the balance, we have seen our politicians undertake political gymnastics: embarrassing themselves in their attempts to find more ways to avoid straightforwardly demanding an immediate ceasefire.

If the motion had passed, our politicians could move forward with the urgent tasks of pursuing diplomatic routes to Palestinian statehood and self-determination, defending Palestinians’ rights and pursuing accountability for those violating them. Instead, we have been left with a show of petty and callous partisanship at a time where an urgent international response is a must.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

  1. The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians is an independent organisation of lawyers, politicians and academics who support the rights of Palestinians and aim to protect their rights through the law. 
  2. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Johns Hopkins, 19th February 2024, Crisis in Gaza: Scenario-based Health Impact Projections, Report One: 7 February to 6 August 2024
  3. Kusovac, Zoran, 9th December 2024, ‘Analysis: As Israel escalates Gaza war, its ‘kill-rate’ claims don’t add up’, Al Jazeera reports on the escalation in Israeli aggression following the expiration of November’s ‘humanitarian pause’.
  4. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory (OCHA oPt), 21st February 2024, Flash Update #123, reporting on the 29,313 Palestinians killed including 118 between 20th and 21st February
  5. YouGov, 15th February 2024, British attitudes to the Israel-Gaza conflict: February 2024 update shows 66% public support for a ceasefire.
  6. For more information, to arrange an interview with a spokesperson, please contact the ICJP news desk at press@icjpalestine.com.
The rule of law has been captured by class interests

Prem Sikka
16 February, 2024 
Columnists Left Foot Forward Opinion

The evidence of class interests in shaping and reinforcing laws isn’t hard to find.



The rule of law is considered to be a pillar of neoliberal democracy but all is not what it seems. All too frequently it preserves the privileges of the wealthy, and justice and fairness seem secondary. Increasingly, the Tory government is devising laws that deny people access to the courts, and ministerial diktats are becoming the final words.

The evidence of class interests in shaping and reinforcing laws isn’t hard to find. In the UK, wages are taxed at the rates of 20%-45%, but returns on wealth in the forms of capital gains are taxed at the rates of 10%-28%. Dividends are taxed at the rates of 8.75% – 39.35%. The recipients of capital gains and dividends do not pay national insurance even though they use the National Health Service and social care.

Anyone dodging taxes faces the possibility of criminal prosecution, but dodges can be regularised by laws permitting the use of trusts or shifting of corporate profits to low/no tax jurisdictions. Such laws are the outcome of class interests deeply embedded within the state. It is hard to think of any mass marches or petitions demanding that the return on investment of human capital be taxed more highly than the return on investment of wealth.

Insolvency is another area shaped by class interests. In the event of a business bankruptcy the secured creditors, primarily banks, hedge funds and private equity, must be paid first from the proceeds of the sale of a bankrupt business’s assets. This usually exhausts the proceeds and little is left for unsecured creditors, usually connected with trade and employee pension schemes. The law favours the welfare of finance capital over other stakeholders even though banks hold diversified portfolios and are in a better position to absorb risks, compared to employees and trade creditors. The law is not based on equity or fairness and legitimises the power of big money.

There is a widely held view that powerful organisations, including governments, are answerable to the courts, in accordance with the contemporary discourses on resolving disputes and securing proper conduct. This presupposes that challengers can muster sufficient resources and parliament and courts are not neutered by suppression of information, manipulation of legal processes and frustration of accountability.

In August 2019, amidst the Brexit hysteria, the Queen with advice from Prime Minister Boris Johnson suspended the UK parliament for five weeks. In September 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that the prorogation was unlawful. The government’s response was to introduce the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 which empowers the Prime Minister to dissolve parliament without a vote to that effect in the House of Commons.

The independent Electoral Commission has overseen fairness of the UK elections and called out unacceptable practices. It has fined the Conservative Party for breaches of electoral laws. The government responded by enacting the Elections Act 2022 and the Commission is now under the control of the government.

The Elections Act 2022 also introduced compulsory voter photo ID to enable people to vote. The rhetoric was that this was necessary to control electoral fraud though there is hardly any evidence to support the claim. Critics said that the real reason was to deter the poor and disabled, normally not Conservative voters, from voting. However, it backfired. After heavy defeats in the 2023 local council elections, Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said that the purpose of the voter ID rules were an attempt to “gerrymander” the electoral system – “We found the people who didn’t have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well.”

In the 2019 general election, the Conservative government secured a majority of 80 seats in the Commons, enabling the government to push legislation through parliament with perfunctory scrutiny. A major aim has been to oust the courts and deny rights to people.

In April 2022, the UK government announced that it would forcibly transport a certain group of asylum-seekers to Rwanda and their claims for asylum would be processed in that country. If successful they would be given asylum in Rwanda, not in the UK. In November 2023, the Supreme Court judged that amongst other things Rwanda was not a safe place for asylum seekers.

Rather than accepting the judgment, the government has introduced the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill to overturn the Supreme Court’s factual determination that Rwanda is not safe. The Bill ousts the jurisdiction of domestic courts to reconsider facts. The Bill empowers the government to ignore interim orders of the European Court of Human Rights. In effect, the Bill threatens both the domestic rule of law, especially the separation of powers between the Executive and the judiciary, and the international rules-based order. Through the Bill the government is forcing parliament to say that Rwanda is safe, even when evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise and courts will have no powers to consider the contrary evidence.

The government has developed a particular penchant for disliking the rule of law and court interventions when it comes to workers’ rights. After decades of struggles, workers won the right to withdraw labour, but the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 has changed that position. Despite lawful strike ballots, millions of workers will not be able to take strike action. The law requires the relevant trade union to order workers selected by the employer to cross the picket-line. Those refusing can be sacked without any compensation or legal redress.

In March 2022, P&O Ferries dismissed 800 members of its shipping staff without any regard for the employment laws. The company admitted that it knowingly broke the law and the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: “P&O plainly aren’t going to get away with it.” However, the company faced no sanctions from the government.

Instead, in July 2022 the government enacted the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022 to enable employers to fire striking workers and replace them with cheaper agency staff. In July 2023 the High Court ruled that the Regulations were unlawful because the Secretary of State failed to comply with his statutory duty under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 to consult before making the 2022 Regulations, as well as breaching his duty under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to prevent unlawful interference with the rights of trade unions and their members. The government has announced its intention to reverse the High Court judgement.

Until 2013, UK workers could appeal to employment tribunals to protect their rights and seek redress for unfair practices. There were no fees. The Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 (SI 2013/1893) introduced fees for taking cases to employment tribunals; something which penalised the poorest workers because they would struggle to pay the fees. On 26 July 2017 the Supreme Court declared the Fees Order to be an unlawful interference with the common law right of access to justice, and quashed it. Undeterred, in January 2024 the government launched another attempt to quash the Supreme Court judgment and introduce employment tribunal fees.

So, how do we explain changing patterns in the rule of law? To be clear, there never was a golden age of justice and fairness as the rule of law is constructed by institutions colonised by the interests of the moneyed classes.

The above examples show that the rule of law is being replaced by ministerial diktats, a common practice in elected dictatorships. A minister says Rwanda is safe and therefore it is safe, akin to a minister saying that a dog is a cat and despite all the evidence no one is permitted to challenge it. Courts are being ousted not only in the Rwanda example, but also in the anti-strike legislation which denies the sacked workers the right to seek redress. The class bias of the state is abundantly evident.

The rule of law is being eroded because parliament is weak. The Executive is able to ride roughshod over political processes because legislators obediently follow the party-line. This majority needs to be diluted by replacing the First-Past-The-Post voting system with proportional representation, which holds out the possibility of creating an effective opposition in parliament. A written constitution must rebalance the powers of the government with those of the people and the judiciary.


Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.

The role of the state in profit-making today

Alex Callinicos critiques a recent argument that a new ‘political capitalism,’ where profitability is determined by political lobbying, is taking shape



Tuesday 03 January 2023
SOCIALIST WORKER Issue 2836
Alex Callinicos


The US Federal Reserve pushed up interest rates. But does this represent a fundamental change in the nature of the the state’s relationship to capital?

Looking back on 2022, one thing has become clear, and that’s a sharp turn taken by leading capitalist states. They worked to force up interest rates in response to the inflationary upsurge since 2021. One question this shift has raised is the role played by the capitalist state today.

The Covid-19 pandemic has seen an intensification of the trend since the 2007-09 financial crisis for states to intervene massively in markets. The obvious explanation is that deepening instability means that capitalist economic structures will need more and more to be propped up by state intervention.

But two noted Marxists, Dylan Riley and Robert Brenner, deny this in an article in the latest issue of the journal New Left Review. It follows an article by Brenner early in the pandemic. The title “Escalating Plunder” summed up his argument.

In response to the lockdowns, The US central bank, Federal Reserve Board and Congress adopted measures to prop up prices and incomes. Brenner dismissed this as simply an attempt to transfer wealth upwards to the bosses of the big corporations and their allies.


At the end of the article Brenner promised a “second part” that would set “these trends in their historical and global context” and explore “their sources”. The new article with Riley seems to be a step towards fulfilling this promise.

Its premiss is correct. Advanced capitalism is suffering from what Brenner earlier called the “long downturn”—slow growth caused by the low level of profitability in manufacturing industry.

The result, Riley and Brenner now argue, is “the rise of a new regime of accumulation” which they call political capitalism. “Under political capitalism, raw political power, rather than productive investment, is the key determinant of the rate of return.”

They aren’t just saying politics serves capital. They are saying that influencing politics—for example, by investing in lobbying governments—increasingly determines capital’s profitability.

They even compare this with precapitalist forms of class society. “The dramatic intensification of lobbying could be understood as a form of ‘political accumulation’, different of course from its feudal forebear, but nonetheless highly distinctive,” they say.

But, as another Marxist economist, Tim Barker, has pointed out, “every single item in the Riley/Brenner laundry list of new forms of political extraction—tax breaks, the privatisation of public assets at bargain-basement prices, low interest rates, stock market booms with irrational consequences, massive state spending aimed directly at private industry—existed at different points in the 1945-1973 ‘golden age’.”

This is when the rate of profit was much higher. States have always played a formative role in capitalist economic relations. They facilitate the exploitation of workers and help their firms compete against their rivals.

Of course, when states intervene in the economy, they materially benefit specific groups of capitalists. In March 2020 the US Federal Reserve responded to the panic sweeping through the money markets by buying up government and corporate bonds on a huge scale.

This certainly facilitated what Brenner calls the “upward distribution of wealth.” It benefitted the already ultra-rich holders of financial assets whose prices soared thanks to this programme.

But one of the main changes capitalism has experienced in recent decades is that investment and trade increasingly tend to be financed by borrowing in global money markets. Leading government bonds are used as collateral for these loans. The Fed and other central banks boosted their bond buying to ensure these crucial markets kept working.

Interventions can be contradictory. When the central banks more recently reversed this policy and pushed up interest rates, they created huge problems for some sectors, notably pension funds. But this policy turn was driven by the need to defend profits by forcing up unemployment and thereby undermining workers’ ability to defend their wages against inflation.

Capitalism remains a global system of competitive accumulation. It imposes its imperative demands on all state managers, however corrupt or deluded they may be.
What is behind Labour’s rightward drift?


17 February, 2024
LEFT FOOT FORWARD 

At the heart of the story is ‘Labour Together,' a think-tank which maintains a low profile in Westminster but is believed to be quietly guiding Starmer's path to power.


\
Rather than being a story about a byelection, the anti-semitism row over Azhar Ali, the Labour candidate for Rochdale who made controversial comments about the October 7 Hamas attacks, also says a lot about the innerworkings of today’s Labour Party. Initially, the Party supported Ali, but changed position and suspended him after it emerged that he had made further contentious remarks about Israel.

The disciplinary process was markedly different to the action that has been taken against other Labour MPs. Diane Abbott, for example, faced decisive action by Labour which suspended the party whip and launched an investigation after the MP made controversial comments seeming to deny that Jewish people faced racism comparable to other groups. While action may have been swift initially, members like Abbott have been left in a kind of limbo awaiting some final decision on their case. Abbott’s suspension has now lasted more than nine months.

In the wake of the Azhar Ali scandal, questions and concerns have surfaced about the ‘disparity of treatment’ of Labour MPs, as Martin Forde, the senior lawyer who compiled a report on culture within the party, described.

“I’m aware, from discussions with some of the MPs within the party who might be described as more left-leaning, that they feel when it comes to disciplinary action taken against them, things move rather slowly, but if you’re in the right faction of the party, as it were, then things are either dealt with more leniently or more swiftly,” said Forde.

While clearly there are some who needed to be defenestrated from the party, the inconsistency by the leadership reprimanding some and not others, could be said to be emblematic of the wider workings of the party, which is drifting ever-more to the right.

In a bid to shore up support in the left of the party and frame himself as the natural heir to Jeremy Corybn, with whom Starmer had worked closely in the shadow cabinet, as leadership candidate, Starmer promised to defend the party’s ‘radical values.’

“My promise to you, is that I will maintain our radical values and work tirelessly to get Labour in to power. Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand,” he had said during his bid to become leader.

The shift from the position he adopted in order to win the leadership of a party in the grip of Corbynism was Starmer’s first U-turn, overarching the junking of many of the policies that helped him become the leader in the first place, which are piling up.

As early as September 2021, Starmer ruled out nationalising the big six energy companies, despite promising to bring public services — name-checking rail, mail, energy, and water — into ‘common ownership.’

The rolling back of promises to abolish tuition fees, which Starmer had repeatedly pledged during his leadership bid, was followed by reneging on the two-child benefit cap policy. Introduced in 2017, the Tory government’s two-child benefit cap was supposed to incentivise parents into work. Instead, it has plunged a growing number of children into poverty, as research shows. Starmer had promised to scrap the child benefit cap when he ran for leader. Fast-forward to July 2023, and a Labour government will “not change that policy,’ he said.

Then there was the promise to ‘stop’ the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, which, during the 2020 leadership contest, Starmer said was ‘creating the horrifying humanitarian suffering in Yemen.’ In January, he sounded a lot less certain. “We will review the situation and the review will give us the answers to those questions,” he said when grilled by the BBC about arms sales to the Saudis.

Bankers may keep their bonuses was one of the latest U-turns. Ditching the bankers’ bonus cap was met with a chorus of contempt from the left. More recently still was the decision to abandon Labour’s £28bn a year green investment. Labour’s axing of its green project spending pledge made it onto many of the front pages the following day, particularly in the Tory press, which of course jumps all over a Labour cock-up. ‘Can you ever believe a word Sir U-turn says?’ asked the Daily Mail. ‘PM vows to call out Starmer’s dirty tricks,’ splashed the Daily Express.

Some worry that Starmer’s U-turns, inconsistency, and lack of clear views and vision, other than to ‘get the Tories out’ and become PM, may come back to haunt him. “Keir Starmer’s broken promises are a real problem. More of a problem than his strategists will be telling him, I suspect,” warns openDemocracy’s Adam Ramsay.

Without the backing of the right-wing press, his determination to appeal to the conservative voters may not pay off but instead risks alienating, not only the Labour left but more ‘moderate’ members as well. The current Rochdale fiasco, which was of course first leaked by the Daily Mail, has fed into the hands of right-wing media, and shows how fragile Labour’s project to gravitate to the right has become. A poll out on February 14, the same week the Rochdale scandal was reported, showed Labour’s lead over the Tories had fallen seven percentage points to its lowest since June 2023, down 19 points from a fortnight ago

.

While it is not unusual for political leaders to genuflect towards activists and grassroot members to become party leader or presidential candidate, and then move towards the centre to pick up voters, the Starmer case feels especially unprincipled. Joe Guinan, president of the US think-tank, the Democracy Collaborative, described Starmer as a ‘Manchurian Candidate, a sleeper agent for entirely other interests than was made to appear at the time,’ for his radically different position during the 2020 leadership contest.

So, how did Keir Starmer go from a leftie in his youth, writing articles for the Socialist Alternatives and Socialist Lawyer magazines; from a respected human rights lawyer with a good reputation; from a principled politician upholding traditional Labour values; to overseeing a shift some say is to the right?

A ‘right-wing illiberal’ faction


Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham, claims Keir Starmer’s party has fallen under the control of a ‘right-wing illiberal’ faction that is embarking on a ‘witch-hunt,’ not only against the Corbynite left but also anyone with an independent voice. The comments were made in July, when Neal Lawson, a party member for 44 years, former speechwriter for Gordon Brown and now head of the pressure group Compass, faced disciplinary action and possible expulsion for a tweet he made in 2021, which Labour claimed had expressed support for Green Party candidates in local elections.

“Labour is now kicking out people like Neal for upholding the democratic, pluralist traditions that created the party and lie deep within its history. It is a disgrace,” Cruddas had told the Observer.



But who are the alleged ‘right-wing illiberal’ factions penetrating the party?


Labour Together

At the heart of the story is a think-tank known as ‘Labour Together’ and, specifically, Morgan McSweeney. The strategy started in 2017 in the heat of ‘Corbynmania.’ It claimed to set out how to oust Corbyn as party leader, alongside policies needed to change the structure of Labour’s membership and a focus on a “voter-first” approach. Morgan McSweeny, now Starmer’s chief election strategy, took over as Labour Together director.

The group believed that a successful successor to Corbyn would need to have served under and backed him to win over membership. Keir Starmer was the perfect candidate and the group set its sights on him as leader of their reconstructed vision of the Labour Party.

McSweeney’s tactic of Starmer playing the ‘soft left’ candidate in the leadership contest in 2020 did of course pay off. But the then obscure organisation’s work had only just begun.

With Labour Together behind the steering wheel insisting that Labour had to win support of Tory voters rather than worry about losing votes to the Lib Dems and Greens, Starmer began rolling back on leadership policy pledges. While some Labour MPs and members of the shadow cabinet seem to have accepted the party’s change of direction (recent speeches by both Yvette Cooper and David Lammy notably focused on ‘security,’ a key emphasis of Labour Together) others are not convinced.

In the summer of 2023, Jon Cruddas left the group. It was Cruddas who had helped found Labour Together in 2015 to gather like-minded MPs together, including Steve Reed and Lisa Nandy, to prevent the party from fracturing. It was then that he expressed fears about the factional control of the party.

“There’s been a lot of ‘boasting’ on Labour Together’s work within the party. Many are reinterpreting history for their own purposes,” Cruddas said, reflecting on the group’s influence.

And, like most influential political think-tanks, this right-wing faction of the Labour Party is not short of funds. A report in the Times spoke of the ‘secretive guru’ McSweeney, who ‘plotted Keir Starmer’s path to power with undeclared cash.’ Between 2017 and 2020 McSweeney failed to declare £730,000 in donations from a slew of millionaire venture capitalists and businessmen, and misreported and underreported other payments, the report claimed. In 2021, the Electoral Commission launched an investigation. Labour Together’s lawyers blamed “human error” and did not mention McSweeney, said the Times.

As of October 2023, Labour Together had received more than £1.8 million in donations after Starmer became leader. The three biggest donors being hedge fund manager Martin Taylor, financier Trevor Chinn, and glass repair tycoon Gary Lubner.



Without any clear, coherent vision, Starmer has been easy for elements of Labour Together to capture. The irony is that the group was founded for a space within the Labour movement where people from all sides could come together to engage with each other, and to build bridges when divisions in the country, and party, seemed insurmountable. Instead, it has created the opposite, a culture that has alienated the grassroots, and left people unsure of what the party really stands for.

Successful Labour leaders, namely Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and Tony Blair, worked hard to unite the party, despite having some tough internal battles to deal with. Stamer and his acolytes don’t seem to share such quest for unity.

McSweeney and co., with their tight control of the party machinery, alongside policies and positioning that makes it tough for the Tories and media to attack Labour (though the Rochdale fiasco has made a mockery of that strategy), seem to be banking on people being so tired of the current government that they will vote for any half-plausible alternative to the Tories. And, as the Conservatives have proven, you can win without much grassroots organisation as long as you have lots of money, which Labour is managing to pull in reasonably successfully.

Under Corbyn, unions provided more than half of the party’s funding. Under Starmer, that proportion has dropped to 30 percent. Instead, after three years of wooing business leaders and wealthy philanthropists, Labour has been raking in private donations from wealthy individuals. Several New Labour-era donors have returned to the fold, optimistic that Starmer has turned the party’s fortunes around. David Sainsbury, a Labour peer since 1997 and former chairman of the supermarket chain, donated a couple of million pounds a year to Labour during the New Labour era. Under Corbyn, his donations largely stopped. With Starmer at the helm, Lord Sainsbury has firmly become a Labour donor again, having given £2m in October 2022 and then £3m in April 2023. But his association with Blair makes him a controversial figure with Labour left-wing MPs. It rouses the suspicion that Starmer could revert the party to the New Labour era, when Peter Mandelson, the prominent cabinet figure famously said he was “intensely relaxed about getting people filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes.” On the party’s current donors, Corbyn’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell said: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Trade union funding is on the basis of its members and members determine how they want their funds used. The overriding concern about donations and offers of support in kind is: what are the donors and corporations selling?”

The real question remains is how it all will pan out, if Labour get into power. How will a party with a demoralised grassroots and which some believe does not really stand for anything, get along when faced with the real challenges and crises of running the country? Whatever you thought of New Labour, it was pretty coherent and had a vision. Blair’s famous ‘education, education, education’ might not have meant much but it was better to stand behind than Rachel Reeves’ ‘fiscal rules, fiscal rules, fiscal rules.’

Right-Wing Media Watch – Faithful Tory press elates over Shapps’ ‘woke leftists’ have taken over the army comments, while completely missing the point

Bishops last week, the army this week. Anyone would think the Tories hadn’t been in charge for 14 years! In what was clearly a diversionary tactic so that people might have not noticed the complete fiasco of the $3.7bn HMS Queen Elizabeth having to pull out of the largest NATO naval exercises since the Cold War when a problem was discovered with its propeller, both the Telegraph and the Express focused their front pages on comments made by defence secretary Grant Shapps, that ‘woke’ and ‘extremist culture’ has infiltrated the Army

.

‘Shapps: Woke culture is poisoning common sense,’ splashed the Express. In its ‘exclusive,’ the newspaper spoke of how the cabinet minister warned ‘the drumbeat of those who despise Britain’ is failing the Army and the public.’

The Telegraph went on the same attack, sensationalising how Shapps had ‘raised concerns’ with military leaders about their plans to relax security checks to increase diversity in the armed forces. The article quotes the defence secretary saying it was ‘inconceivable’ that he would allow that amid the threat from Russia and the conflict in the Middle East.

You would have thought that the recent breaking down of, not one but two, aircraft carriers set for NATO exercises, and the fact that the Tories have run down the armed forces so we are virtually defenceless, might have been an important story for our national newspapers.

But no, there was nothing about the £90bn that has been slashed from defence spending under the Tories. No mention of how the Army has shrunk from 82,000 troops to just 72,500 amid years of government austerity, or how tanks have been scrapped and fighter jets stripped for parts? And nothing on how the high-profile failure of our flagship aircraft carrier has shown how Britain is struggling to keep up with first-rate navies around the world? Nope, for Shapps and his obedient and faithful press, the ‘gradual indoctrination of ‘controversial leftist thinking’ in the armed forces that threatens to ‘distract’ from its main job of protecting the country from its enemies’ is to blame.

I guess it’s all giving Putin a good laugh.

Smear of the Week – Guido accused of racism over Islamophobic slur, as right-wing media ramps up (hypocritical) anti-Semitic campaigns to demonise Labour

The right-wing political website Guido Fawkes is facing accusations of racism after it accused Labour of seeking ‘unsophisticated Muslim community support’ at the expense of ‘sophisticated Jewish support.’

In a now-deleted post on X, Guido wrote: “The thing that nobody says yet we all know, is that the Labour Party have chosen to seek unsophisticated Muslim community support for numerical reasons at the expense of sophisticated Jewish support.”

The post was made after Guido obtained a leaked recording of a Labour parliamentary candidate using the words ‘f**king Israel’ and allegedly saying that Britons who volunteer to fight for the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) “should be locked up”. The leak resulted in the Hyndburn candidate being administratively suspended from the party, pending an investigation.

Essentially saying the Jews are smart and Muslims are thick, is the latest example of the right-wing media’s long history of vilifying and demonising Muslim communities through harmful stereotypes, inflammatory language, and misleading headlines.

Research by the Centre of Media Monitoring found that almost 60 percent of 48,000 online articles and 5,500 broadcast clips, associated Islam with negative behaviours. More than one in five articles attached Islam to extremism and terrorism.

One of the most alarming examples of the Daily Mail’s penchant to peddle negative tropes against Muslims was when it sought to attack Penny Mordaunt for meeting Zara Mohammed, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain in 2021. The uncontroversial meeting took place following the election of the first woman as head of the country’s largest Muslim umbrella body. Yet the Mail engaged in its own ‘cancel culture’ by citing unnamed sources who said that the government ‘boycotted’ engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain.

Another appalling example of overt and dangerous racism was in 2021, when a MailOnline story claimed there are British towns that are no-go areas for white people.


It is interesting how a media with a long history of stirring up racism and hatred has suddenly become ardent campaigners against anti-Semitism. No doubt, they instinctively see it as a way of censuring Labour. Gravely hypocritical really when you consider the dark and deep depths of the Mail’s own anti-Semitic past. In the 1930s, Harold Harmsworth, the First Viscount Rothermere, who had launched the Mail in 1896, and great grandfather of Jonathan Harmsworth, Fourth Viscount Rothermere, and the newspaper’s current proprietor, adopted an overtly sympathetic attitude towards Hitler. As the Times of Israelreports, Lord Rothermere, who, alongside Daily Express proprietor Lord Beaverbrook was the most powerful press baron during the interwar years, was a staunch admirer of Hitler and Mussolini.

“[The Nazis] represent the rebirth of Germany as a nation,” Rothermere wrote in the Mail in 1930.

Grateful for this unusual support from the foreign press, the Mail was rewarded with exclusive access to Hitler, and published several interviews with the Nazi leader.

The Times of Israel describes Rothermere’s ‘naked anti-Semitism’ and how in its report of the boycott of Jewish businesses in April 1933, the newspaper quoted a statement from Hitler’s spokesman arguing that allegations of “the mishandling of Jews” were “barefaced lies.”

Today, the Mail, still a high-circulation right-wing tabloid, has, as far as I know, never apologised for its disreputable anti-Semitic past. Instead, it takes the moral high ground on stories involving anti-Semitism and Labour, no doubt for attempted political gain.

Concurrently, the newspaper has no shame in demonising Muslim communities through Islamophobic slurs. A tactic shared by other right-wing media, and none so less than Guido Fawkes.

But then that’s not surprising. What did Jo Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, say aboutGuido Fawkes following the ‘unsophisticated Muslim support’ at the expense of ‘sophisticated Jewish support’ comment? Oh yes, that he is a ‘straight up racist.’



Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch