Hands Off Lebanon – Stop the Genocide in Gaza

25th September 2024Leave a Commenton Hands Off Lebanon – Stop the Genocide in Gaza

“David Lammy’s response to the escalation against Lebanon has been to place the issue outside of Israel’s war on Palestine… Yet the link is evident & the escalation an inevitable product of the continuing war.”

Steve Bell writes on why Labour’s policy on Palestine must now change

On Monday 23rd September, the Israeli air force struck 1,300 targets in Lebanon. According to Lebanon’s health ministry, 495 people were killed and 1,645 were injured. Up to 100,000 have fled their homes. This was the largest military assault upon Lebanon since the Israeli invasion of 2006.

This is a direct result of the refusal of the US government to insist upon an end to Israels war on Gaza.  Netanyahu’s government has dismissed every “concern” from the US government in the past year, safe in the knowledge that arms deliveries and diplomatic support can be taken for granted. 

Predictably, the escalation has been endorsed by Biden’s government.  Additional US troops are joining the 40,000 already in the region.  US Secretary of State for Defence, LLoyd Austin, said that the US is positioned to deter regional actors from expanding the conflict into all-out war.  Israel’s recent military actions against Gaza, West Bank, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and Lebanon are not considered an expansion.

Israeli aims in Lebanon are unclear.  But the Minister for Diaspora and Combatting Anti-Semitism, Amichai Chikli, said that it was necessary to rout a “hostile Shi’ite population” by establishing a “buffer zone free of enemy population”.  Such an aim would surely require a ground invasion and extended occupation.

The failure of US policy  

From the start of the Gaza war there was a formal policy difference between the Israeli government and the US government.  The Israeli government made it clear it envisaged victory as the complete defeat of Hamas, the displacement of part or all of the Palestinian population, and a reoccupation or recolonisation of Gaza.  The US government supported the defeat of Hamas, but wanted a settlement acceptable to pro-US Arab regimes, allowing for the “normalisation” of state relations with Israel. Such a policy would exclude permanent occupation of Gaza, and require some form of Palestinian governance.

However, the US government has, at no point, applied any substantial restraint or sanction against the Israeli government.  Consequently Netanyahu’s government has crossed every red-line Biden drew.  This included the need to end the war by the new year/spring; the need to ensure adequate humanitarian aid was delivered; the need to provide safe areas for civilians; the need to avoid any major military action in Rafah, etc.  As for Palestinian governance, the Knesset voted against any form of Palestinian statehood, after Netanyahu had explained his career was based on avoiding such an outcome.  For the Biden administration, the priority remained an Israeli victory over an impoverished and almost defenceless people.  That proxy expression of US power overrode all the humanitarian feints that passed as US diplomacy.

This week the Wall Street Journal reported that it understood there will be no ceasefire in Gaza before Biden’s term ends in January 2025.  At least the pretence has been dropped.

The failure of Labour’s policy

Having shadowed US government policy, Labour shares in the failure of a policy it endorsed in opposition, and now in government.  The central plank has been Israel’s right to defend itself.  This is a right not extended to the Palestinians, who are subject to an illegal occupation by the most powerful armed forces in West Asia and North Africa.  For the Labour leadership support for Israel’s war has dominated all other concerns. Witness the horrendous interview where Keir Starmer defended the cutting off of water and fuel to Gaza.  Witness the refusal of the leadership to support the ceasefire resolution before Parliament on November 15th 2023, by which time 11,000 Palestinians had already been killed.

The Labour leadership had not anticipated how vacuous US policy was.  When Biden shifted to supporting a ceasefire, as did the Tory government and so followed Labour.  But Biden never pressed Israel.  The war has continued because the US, and Labour, supported  its continuation – the rest has been rhetoric.

The failure of Labour government policy

In government there have been some timid steps away from simply continuing Tory policy.  Funding has been restored to UNRWA – with Britain being the last country to do so before the US did.

After much heart searching, Labour has withdrawn the previous government’s opposition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into Israeli war crimes.  But here there remains a fearful concern that Labour may have to act against Israeli ministers.  There has been no positive move, such as joining the South African case at  the International Court of Justice (ICJ) proceedings on investigating the “plausible case” of genocide in Gaza.

Similarly, there have been some sanctions imposed on some leaders of the settlers movement, again following the US action.  This limits their international travel and freezes some assets.  Yet in fact these settler activists are being armed by Israeli government ministers, and operating under the protection of Israeli armed forces.  The dispossession of Palestinians in the West Bank continues unhindered.

And, notably, a suspension of 10% of licences for arms exports has been imposed.  This was done becase of fears about potential breaches of international humanitarian law.  This motivation should surely cover the entirity of arms transfers.  The Israeli government has not been discreet in the use of weapons against the Palestinians – over 17,000 children killed confirms that.

All these policy shifts have achieved is irritating the Israeli government.  None of these actions hinder its war.  They are a substitute for actions which would have a substantial impact upon the functioning of the Israeli government.  Banning all arms trade would be effective in military terms.  Recognising the Palestinian state would also have an impact – certainly in the sphere of diplomacy.  Instead, the reality of political continuity was displayed on September 18th when Britain abstained while the UN General Assembly voted to demand an end to the Israeli occupation.

Abandoning diplomacy?

Indeed the Labour government appears to have accepted Israel’s rejection of diplomacy, at least by omission.  The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh was an attack on the political and diplomatic leadership of the Palestinians.  He was the key negotiator in the ceasefire talks.  His murder was an expression of absolute disinterest in the political process.  The silence of the Labour government and refusal to condemn the action amounts to acceptance if not endorsement.

Further, the recent attacks in Lebanon through rigged pagers led to 39 deaths and 3000 wounded.  The significance of this action was made clear by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk.  He stated, “If the attacker is unable to assess the compliance of the attack with binding rules of international law, notably the likely impact on civilians then the attack should not be carried out.  International humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby trap devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.  It is a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians.” 

Such clarity ought to be expected from a government led by a lawyer with experience of human rights law.  Instead, Labour’s silent tolerance is a further retreat from diplomacy to support the Israeli government’s war.

Links in a chain

Labour’s refusal to act to end the war also defines their ineffective response to the situation in Yemen and Lebanon.  The actions of Ansarallah (“The Houthis”) and Hezbollah are their attempts to end the genocide in Gaza.  They have both made it clear that their actions will end once the war on Gaza ends.  Both abated their actions during the short ceasefire that took place between 24 – 30th November 2023. 

Instead of grasping the linked nature of these actions, Labour is pursuing a policy that isolates events in the Red Sea and Lebanon from Gaza.  Hence it is ineffective.

In the Red Sea, the Labour government is continuing the policy of Biden and the Tories in bombing Yemen.  This is supposed to be “defending the freedom of navigation” and “degrading Ansarallah’s arsenal”.  In reality it is doing neither.

On 11th September, the IMF’s Portwatch reported that, on a seven day moving average, transit through the Red Sea averaged just under 1 million metric tons.  This compared to 4.7 million in the same period September 2023.  Today, just 21% of last years traffic is moving through the Red Sea.  The shipping companies are not persuaded by politicians bluster, or the bluntness of bombing Yemen.  They have voted with their rudders, diverting their ships around the Cape.

Nor is there any sensible evidence that Ansarallah has lost the ability to replenish its arsenal.  The recent deployment of a hypersonic missile that reached Tel Aviv demonstrates the opposite.

Unfortunately no lessons are being drawn from this failure.   David Lammy’s response to the escalation against Lebanon has been to place the issue outside of Israel’s war on Palestine.  He suggested an “immediate ceasefire” by Israel and Hezbollah, without demanding an immediate and permanent end to Israel’s action in Gaza.  Yet the link is evident and the escalation an inevitable product of the continuing war.

Ansarallah and Hezbollah will not retreat from their support for Gaza.  None of the military strikes, threats, or even the incentives being floated will change their actions.  Instead of talking vapidly about seperate ceasefires Labour must go to the source in the continuing war on Gaza.

A real political solution

The prospect of a “political solution” is held out by Labour leaders as the end result of supporting Israel’s war.  The assumption is offered that when peace comes the real negotiations begin.  But past experience is that the Israeli government will bank the support and continue dispossessing Palestinians.

The Oslo process has not brought peace or justice to the Palestinians.  “Final stage negotiation” on issues such as a Palestinian state, the right of return for refugees, etc., were supposed to be completed by 1998.  Instead the Israeli government’s refusal to adhere to this has been completely without consequence.

It has maintained the apparatus of Oslo – especially the PA’s commitment to Israel’s security – whilst refusing to take any action which could actually lead to the creation of a Palestinian state.  Post 1998 there has been a peace process with all process and no peace.  These recent years there hasn’t even been a semblance of process.  This state of affairs is very favourable to the successive Israeli governments’ extension of the colonisation of occupied Palestinian territory. 

Labour should demonstrate a change in policy.  It must recognise that the current Israeli policy is an obstacle to a just peace.  It must finish with the interminable defence of indefencible actions by the occupying power.  At the center must be a determination to aid the dispersed, dispossessed and stateless Palestinians.  That means ending diplomatic blank checks.  It means an end to arming an illegal occupation.  It means recognising a Palestinian state, without further deferment.

---

• Steve Bell is Treasurer of the Stop the War Coalition. You can follow Stop the War on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X.
• Join the emergency protest this Thursday 26 September at 6pm at Downing Street – to demand an End to Genocide in Gaza – Hands Off Lebanon and Yemen. Info here.

UK

Right-Wing Watch

Is the media now the real opposition?

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Yesterday

LEFT FOOT FORWARD


The Conservatives' ability to hold Labour accountable has disappeared down the same rabbit hole as the Party itself. As the Tories struggle with their own identity crisis, the press has stepped up to fill the gap.

TweetShareWhatsAppMail


“A honeymoon period will be very, very short. Almost non-existent,” said the former Sun editor David Yelland. Some right-wing newspapers may have briefly endorsed Labour during the election, but Yelland, who led the Sun from 1998 to 2003, warned that these outlets would never truly support Starmer. He stressed that Starmer and his team must understand that the two most influential media groups – News UK and Associated Newspapers, the parent company of the Daily Mail – are not their allies.

This became evident immediately after the election when the Sun – despite Starmer’s efforts to cosy up to the Murdoch press by attending the media mogul’s summer party and visiting the Sun HQ, much to the ire of the left – swiftly issued a challenge to the new prime minister. “Better times? Let’s see them … While we wish Labour luck, we will scrutinise every decision and hold their feet to the fire,” wrote the newspaper the day after the election.

And nine weeks into Labour’s leadership, the newspaper has stayed true to that promise.

On September 16, the Sun attacked Starmer and his wife, accusing them of hypocrisy. In a comment piece, assistant editor Clemmie Moodie criticised them for “private jets, cronyism, and free clothes,” eagerly reviving the familiar “champagne socialist” trope often used against Labour figures perceived as wealthy, or hypocritical because they do not live out a ‘socialist’ life as imagined by the likes of Moodie.

The Daily Mail followed with its own sensational headline: “Starmergeddon, after just 68 days,” accompanied by an image of newly freed prisoners celebrating with champagne. The lead article asked, “Who voted for all this?” implying that the country was already descending into chaos after only two months of Labour governance.

These early and relentless critiques from the right-wing press signal that the media, particularly these powerful newspaper groups, may now be acting as Labour’s most vocal and influential opposition. Of course, we would expect the usual right-wing, Tory-loving media to take aim at the new Labour government, recycling the usual attacks – “Labour’s in the pocket of the unions!”, “they’re lying about the ‘black hole,’” etc. But beyond the predictable criticisms, there’s a growing sense that the media in general is taking on a more central role in opposing the government.

The Conservatives, weakened and navel-gazing after years of internal battles and declining public support, seem to have gone AWOL. Consequently, their ability to hold Labour accountable has disappeared down the same rabbit hole as the Party itself. As the Tories struggle with their own identity crisis, the press has stepped up to fill the gap. Publications like the Mail and Express are driving the narrative, scrutinising every move the government makes, but even traditionally more centrist outlets, like The Times newspapers, seem to have adopted a more mocking tone.

The Sunday Times, like The Sun – both owned by Murdoch’s News UK – had endorsed Labour ahead of the general election. In a June 30 editorial, it stated that the Conservatives had “in effect forfeited the right to govern” and that it was “the right time for Labour to be entrusted with restoring competence to government.”

But post-election, the paper’s coverage of the new Labour government seems more exaggerated and critical. On September 15, the newspaper led with a sensational headline: “Starmer breached rules over clothes that donor gave wife,” plastering it on the front page as if it was a major political scandal. While the allegation that the prime minister violated parliamentary rules by failing to declare clothing donations is indeed a legitimate public interest story, the headline appeared unusually tabloid-like for a publication known for its typically serious and measured tone. It seemed more designed to provoke controversy than to provide a balanced account of the situation.

In a commentary piece the following day, the Times Leader called for Starmer to apologise: “Ministers are demanding painful sacrifices by Britain’s pensioners this winter. For most, there will be no one to buy them a warm coat, let alone a designer one. Sir Keir should apologise.”

But did these newspapers take the same moral stance when Boris Johnson, as prime minister, accepted freebies, including the extravagant renovations to his Downing Street flat? On X, author Peter Osborne highlighted this apparent hypocrisy: “Powerful Times leader. I can’t remember any Times leaders making the same point about Boris Johnson’s free holidays, free meals from donors etc. I can remember the Times suppressing Simon Walters’ story about Johnson wanting to make Carrie Symonds his £100,000 pa chief of staff.”

Even the Financial Times, a reputable and respected publication, appears to be following this broader opposition trend. ‘More than half of Britons disapprove of Labour government, poll finds,’ was a recent headline. Polls are of course a legitimate tool for gauging public opinion and reporting such findings is a standard journalism practice, but the FT’s choice to lead with this particular headline simplifies a complex issue into a negative snapshot of public opinion. This editorial decision may be seen as part of a broader shift, with even traditionally neutral or business-focused outlets like the FT leaning into more critical coverage of the Labour government. Whether this is a conscious choice or not, such coverage can substantially shape public perception, especially when it comes from a publication as influential as the FT.

Farage and the press

As the centrist press adopts a more critical stance in its coverage of Labour, seemingly amplifying more minor issues to undermine Starmer’s leadership, the tabloids appear to be rallying behind Farage.

Following the general election, Yelland cautioned that tabloid coverage might increasingly be influenced by the Reform Party in the months ahead. “Farage says he’s coming for the Labour party. He’ll work with the tabloids to control the agenda,” he said. “Most of the tabloids are at least 50 percent pro-Reform now, if not more. Three areas that the right will push are immigration, what they call ‘the war on woke’, and net zero. The tabloids are going to use these tools of the right to oppose the government.”

Farage has said that he aims to become the “real opposition to a Labour government” in the years ahead, and it seems that the right-wing press may be furthering his ambition. This week, the Express ran a headline: “Keir Starmer issued urgent Farage warning as Labour on ‘far shakier ground’ in Red Wall.” The article references a pollster who claims that Farage’s party may have helped deliver an emphatic Tory wipeout, but it could “spell trouble for Labour’s hopes of re-election.” The piece also quotes Reform UK Chairman Zia Yusuf who told GB News that his party is planning a major push in seats currently held by Labour. With Reform targeting key Labour seats, and media outlets amplifying these threats, Farage and Reform could present a significant challenge to Labour in the years ahead.

The rise of far-right media: Paul Marshall buys the Spectator

As the tabloids shift towards Reform and centrist outlets mock Labour, the far-right media is on the march. GB News, created to challenge mainstream UK media, has become a platform for populist right-wing views, focusing on culture wars and immigration, and attacking what it perceives as a disconnected establishment. In an FT article entitled Why GB News is Angrier than Ever, Henry Mance, the FT’s chief features writer, noted: “GB News hoped to reshape British TV news in a post-Brexit world — to provide an alternative to the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News, which pride themselves on impartial journalism, but which, to some, are guilty of liberal metropolitan bias. Critics worried it would have the same impact that Fox News did in the US: undermining truth, dragging voters to the right.”

A prominent figure at GB News is Sir Paul Marshall, a hedge fund tycoon, owner of the right-wing news site UnHerd, and a major investor in the channel. Earlier this month, Britain’s media landscape was rocked with the news that Marshall had bought the Spectator, which has always been considered the “house journal” of the Conservative Party, with its editorship often used as a springboard to political prominence, most notably Boris Johnson. The Telegraph remains for sale, and Marshall is believed to be in the running to buy it, as he continues his bid to build an empire of right-wing media outlets. The purchase also led to the dramatic public resignation of the magazine’s chair, Andrew Neil, who expressed concerns that Marshall might not fully grasp the importance of the magazine’s hallmark – editorial independence.

Having been bought by a buyer who has a history of providing a platform for hard-right narratives, where the likes of Lee Anderson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Esther McVey are let off the leash, there is concern that Marshall’s acquisition of the Spectator and possibly the Telegraph will take the outlets even further to the right. As Guardian columnist Zoe Williams writes in a piece about the Spectator, “You only have to look at GB News, in which Marshall is a major investor, to know exactly what makes Marshall tick, and that his project does not set out to excel in ratings and profits, and its impact can’t be measured in those terms.”

This development could pose a real threat to the Labour Party, as these platforms have the potential to amplify opposition voices and shape public opinion in ways that may undermine Labour’s messaging.

But the media’s rightward shift and its bias in marginalising the left is nothing new. The demonisation of Jeremy Corbyn in the media is perhaps the most glaring example. Research by the London School of Economics (LSE) showed that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader. According to LSE, this process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: through a lack of or distortion of voice; through ridicule, scorn, and personal attacks; and association, mainly with terrorism.

“All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served,” wrote LSE.

The rise of populist platforms like GB News and Paul Marshall’s growing media empire further consolidates the right’s control over influential outlets, allowing them to set the narrative and fuel opposition against Labour on topics like immigration, cultural issues, and climate policies. The press, emboldened by its own political agendas and less concerned with traditional impartiality, is stepping into the role of a primary opposition force. With the Conservatives weakened, the media has filled the void, and Labour faces an unrelenting barrage of criticism from across the spectrum, suggesting that in today’s political landscape, the media is indeed the real opposition.

Goodness knows what would happen if Labour actually tried to do anything at all radical, or even slightly socialist!

Right-wing media watch – Press fuels absurd claims about Kamala Harris

Deciding whether to have children is a deeply personal choice and no one else’s concern. One would think that this would be universally understood, but recent events suggest otherwise. A grotesque term, the “childless cat lady brigade,” has been doing the rounds, pushed by Republican figures and their media allies.

This phase originated from Senator JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. After Donald Trump named Vance as his running mate, an old 2021 interview resurfaced in which Vance claimed the US was being run by “childless cat ladies” like Kamala Harris – women, he said, with no “direct stake” in the country’s future.

The remark understandably sparked outrage among most people, but the right-wing media was quick to defend it. Vance had “meant it as a joke” and that it had been “wilfully misinterpreted by Democrats,” claimed Fox News.

This week, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders joined the vile assault. Sanders previously served as press secretary in the Trump White House. During an event in Detroit with Trump this week, Sanders criticised Harris for not having children of her own, saying: “The most important job I have; the greatest title I have is that of being a mom.” She added, “My kids keep me humble. Unfortunately, Kamala Harris doesn’t have anything keeping her humble.”

In response to the smear, a satirical movement has been gaining momentum, with childless women voicing solidarity with Harris. Taylor Swift, who has three cats but no children, recently endorsed Harris, posting a photo of herself with her cat Benjamin Button and signing it “Childless Cat Lady.”

Right-Wing Media Watch might not have picked up on this grotesque smear had it not been reported by the Daily Mail. The tabloid ran a headline this week that read: “Sarah Huckabee Sanders slams Kamala for not having kids after Taylor Swift joins childless cat lady brigade supporting Harris.”

Sadly, this is just the latest in a series of desperate attacks on the vice president. With Harris’s popularity rising, Trump’s camp seems intent on seizing every opportunity for personal attacks. The ugly ‘childless women’ smear followed unfounded accusations that Harris has a drinking problem. The unsubstantiated rumour was reportedly started by Trump campaign insider James Blair on X.

These childish and slanderous tactics are all too familiar with Trump’s campaigns, despite concerns from Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham, who worry that focusing on personal attacks rather than policy may harm Trump’s election chances.

Most sensible observers can see these smears for what they are, a juvenile attempt to tarnish Harris’s reputation by campaign officials mirroring the impulsive immaturity of their leader

Yet, the Daily Mail couldn’t resist joining in, even reporting the baseless claim that Harris appeared drunk during several public appearances, though they admitted there was no evidence of a drinking problem.

They also dredged up a nearly 30-year-old DUI incident involving Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, Harris’s VP pick, though it had absolutely no relevance to the story.

One might expect more from a national newspaper than digging up irrelevant scandals to stir controversy. But the absurdity doesn’t stop there. The article entertained suggestions that alcohol was to blame for Harris’s so-called “lunatic” laughter and her occasional off-script “word salads,” even pointing to a speech where she repeated the word “democracy” three times in 30 seconds.

A Vice President emphasising democracy in a speech? Surely it would be more concerning if she didn’t?

Smear of the week – From swans to strays – Trump’s baseless immigrant smear echoes absurd right-wing media myths

Do you remember when the Sun sensationally claimed that asylum seekers in London were poaching and eating swans? In July 2003, the newspaper published a story about the disappearance of swans in Beckton, alleging that the police had caught asylum seekers preparing to roast them. After complaints, the paper issued a small clarification, admitting that no arrests had been made. But they stood by claims that locals had accused Eastern European refugees of killing swans for food.

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) deemed no further action necessary, as the Sun had published a retraction, a decision that was criticised by Presswise, the media ethics charity, as “disgraceful.”

This lack of accountability likely did little to curb right-wingers’ fixation on immigrants and the bizarre notion that they are eating domesticated, or, in this case, protected animals.

Fast forward to today, and this strange narrative has found new life in an even stranger claim from Donald Trump. During his first presidential debate against Kamala Harris, Trump echoed a conspiracy theory promoted by his running mate, J.D. Vance, (him again) stating that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating cats and dogs.

Kamala Harris wasn’t the only one left bewildered by Trump’s comments, anyone watching with a hint of normalcy was similarly stunned. The jokes and memes quickly flooded the internet. A parody song by the South African musician David Scott mocking the former president’s outrageous claim went viral. A video, entitled “Eating the Cats” by Scott’s band Kiffness, used an edited audio clip of Trump’s viral comment, composed in a Reggaeton-beat style. In the satirical song, Scott urges the people of Springfield not to eat his cat and dog and suggests alternative food options.

A flurry of Bart Simpson memes did the rounds. The BBC’s Have I Got News For You X account shared an image of Homer Simpson and his dog writing: “US Presidential debate: After Trump claims people in Springfield are eating dogs, there’s concern about where he’s been getting his news from.”

Jokes aside, just as the Sun’s nonsensical swan story showcased a low point in media accountability, Trump’s baseless claims show how far political discourse has strayed from serious, substantive issues.

It’s a sad commentary on the current state of politics, where misinformation and sensationalism overshadow meaningful discussion.



Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

UK

Right-Wing Watch

Could Nigel Farage become PM?

If Labour wants to hold onto power, it must deliver on its promises. Otherwise, a Farage-led Britain might not be as far-fetched as it sounds.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead

Yesterday
LEFT FOOT FORWARD

Discontent is growing among unions, MPs, and the public over the government’s sudden decision to restrict winter fuel payments to only the poorest pensioners. The lack of consultation and the fact that it wasn’t part of Labour’s manifesto have left many voters feeling betrayed. Some have vowed never to vote Labour again.

But where will those disillusioned voters turn? Some warn they could be drawn to the far right.

The winter fuel payment cuts could aid the rise of the far right and Nigel Farage, the TUC president warned this week. In a stark message to Keir Starmer, Matt Wrack noted that the PM’s mandate for power stems from a collapse in support for the Tories, “not love for Labour.” He further warned that a second wave of austerity would encourage the rise of the far-right in Britain’s left-behind communities, bolstering Farage’s push for power.

“People are in despair, and that’s how [far right] elements have won support here in the UK and elsewhere in Europe,” he argued.

Former shadow chancellor John McDonnell issued a similar warning. Speaking to Left Foot Forward at the Trade Union Congress in Brighton this week, he warned voters could be pushed towards the far right if the Labour government pursues austerity policies.

“We’ve said time and time again that austerity is a political choice, it’s not an economic necessity. If we keep on coming through with proposals like scrapping the Winter Fuel Allowance, and not tackling the two child [benefit] limit, it will disillusion our own support. And that support could go to the far right,” he said.

As Labour risk alienating voters by threatening to usher in an austerity era reminiscent of George Osborne’s, Nigel Farage has made his ambitions clear. He’s openly gunning for the highest office in the land, declaring that his “real ambition” is to become prime minister at the next election. Given Farage’s persistence, having won a parliamentary seat on his eighth attempt, his potential rise has sent ripples of anxiety through the political establishment.

But just how likely is it that Reform’s leader, who, only a few weeks ago admitted to sharing misinformation that contributed to far right riots in towns and cities across the UK, will become prime minister?

Like most things related to Farage, his goal “to storm to power in 2029” set the media alight. Before the election, ITV’s Talking Politics dedicated an entire episode to the question, “Could Nigel Farage be prime minister in five years?” The consensus among panellists Robert Peston, Anushka Asthana, and Tom Bradby, was that the prospect seemed highly unlikely. This sentiment was echoed by a YouGov poll conducted after the programme, in which only 23 percent of respondents considered a Farage premiership within the next decade to be “fairly likely” or “very likely.”

But Farage’s right-wing Reform Party was underestimated in the election. Securing over 4 million votes and placing second in 98 constituencies, 89 of which were won by Labour, suggests a stronger base of support than many anticipated. With support for his insurgent party on the rise, it’s difficult to disagree with Matthew Levine’s view in ConservativeHome, that while the path to a Farage premiership is undoubtedly long, it is not impossible.

“There is a certain level of comfort that comes from believing that Farage could never take the post once occupied by William Gladstone and Winston Churchill. But dismissing the possibility that he might one day inhabit Number 10 is an instinctive reflex belonging to a long-gone political era,” writes Levine.

And other commentators agree. “A shattered Conservative Party post-election may be ripe for a Faragian revolution,” wrote iNew’s Richard Vaughan and Kitty Donaldson.

The most obvious route to No. 10 for Farage would involve staging a takeover of the Conservatives. As the embattled Conservative Party engages in yet another painful leadership contest, and membership numbers continue to plummet, as newly released figures suggest, Farage and his team are working diligently. To address criticism that Reform is more of a company than a political party, a constitution has reportedly been drafted to transform the limited company into a formal political entity, with safeguards in place to prevent the kind of infighting that plagued UKIP. Following several controversies involving candidates and derogatory remarks, Farage has vowed to “professionalise” the party. Additionally, plans are in motion to establish Reform UK branches nationwide to “build on electoral success,” as Chairman Richard Tice stated in early July.

“We’re going to grow just like any startup in the corporate world. The equivalent would be Apple or any of the tech startups that have grown and grown. Microsoft was founded in a garage, for goodness’ sake,” Tice told the Telegraph.

Stephen Harper x2?

While striving to professionalise and expand the party, Farage has been actively promoting a blueprint for a coup within the Conservative Party. In an interview in June, the Reform leader referenced former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper’s successful campaign to take control of the Canadian Conservatives after their devastating defeat in the 1993 elections. During that election, the Conservatives were nearly wiped out, dropping from 156 seats to just two, as the centre-left Liberal Party won by a landslide. Harper managed to rally socially conservative and disillusioned voters who felt betrayed by what they thought of as the ruling class. The parallels are hard to ignore.

Speaking to ITV, Farage said: “[Canadian] Reform did a reverse takeover of the Conservative Party, rebranded it, and Stephen Harper – who was elected as a Reform MP – became the Canadian prime minister for 10 years. I don’t want to join the Conservative Party. I think the better thing to do would be to take it over.”

The potential rise of Reform UK at the Conservatives’ expense may have gained a lot of media attention, but not all coverage has been favourable. Labour-aligned media outlets have been more doubtful about the party’s prospects. A report in the Mirror in late August focused on concerns raised by Reform UK’s former deputy leader about Nigel Farage’s increasing dominance over the party, casting doubts on its future. Ben Habib emphasised that Reform needs to become more democratic, especially after Farage’s grip tightened further with the dismissal of the party’s chief executive. Habib warned that it is unhealthy for Farage to have “absolute control.” In an interview with Times Radio, the former deputy leader said: ” I fear for the future of Reform UK, if it isn’t properly democratised.”

His remarks came after Paul Oakden, who had been CEO since the party’s inception as the Brexit Party, was asked to leave. After Oakden’s exit, his shareholding in Reform UK Ltd was transferred to Farage, increasing the leader’s controlling share from 53 percent to 60 percent.

Another important factor when assessing Reform’s potential rise is that, unlike Farage’s idol Stephen Harper, Reform UK’s support base appears more thinly spread. The party won only five seats, lagging far behind the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Of the 98 constituencies where Reform finished second, the majority were in Labour strongholds.

A Reform/Tory merger as Conservatives lurch further to the right?

Though less likely, there is a possibility of a Reform/Tory merger. As Levine noted in ConHome, a political landscape with the Liberal Democrats in opposition and Labour in government could force the Conservatives and Reform into an uneasy electoral alliance, with Farage likely leading this new right-wing coalition. Such a scenario becomes more credible as the Conservatives appear to be drifting rightward. Senior right-wing Tories like Suella Braverman have previously called for an ‘accommodation’ with Nigel Farage and recent polling by YouGov of Tory Party members showed that most believe that a merger with Reform UK would lead them to an election victory. Half of members (51%) believe the party should move towards the right under the next leader, against a third (34%) who think it should move towards the political centre and one in eight (12%) who feel the party should ideologically stay where it is.

And then there’s the youth vote to consider. In the latter stages of the campaign, aided by a TikTok campaign that clearly outperformed the other parties on a per-video basis, there was speculation that Reform might achieve a “mini youthquake”. A JLPartners poll found that Reform appealed to 16- and 17-year-old voters and mock school elections saw Reform winning a great deal of support among schoolchildren across the country. However, a YouGov survey showed that this “youthquake” did not materialise in 2024. Although Reform has seen some success among under-30s from poorer households, it faces stiff competition from the Liberal Democrats, Greens, and nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales

.

Much will depend on how well Keir Starmer’s Labour performs over the next five years. If the change that Starmer has promised doesn’t deliver real results, Britain’s youth may become even more inclined to support parties offering more radical solutions. Historically, Labour has been the party of the young, but they tend to take the youth vote for granted, a habit they may need to break by the next election.

In a political landscape marked by growing disillusion with the major parties, fringe parties like Reform are on the rise. Farage’s vision for his party may seem ambitious, but it’s impossible to ignore that his party won almost 15 percent of the vote in the general election, whilst Labour secured a massive majority with just 34 percent of the vote. This, coupled with the far right riots over the summer, should be a loud wake-up call for Labour, as warned by the TUC president. The electorate require many things from their governments and prime ministers, but chief among them are economic competence, policies that meet some of their needs, and the appearance at least, of being part of the real world. The brutal demise of the Tory Party stands as a warning of what happens when politicians forget these things. If Labour wants to hold onto power, it must deliver on its promises. Otherwise, a Farage-led Britain might not be as far-fetched as it sounds.

Right-Wing Media Watch – Paul Marshall tightens his grip on Conservative media with Spectator takeover

In a year-long saga filled with bidding wars between moguls and sheiks, the Spectator magazine has a new owner – hedge fund titan Paul Marshall. The climax? A £100 million deal that puts Marshall even deeper into the heart of Britain’s media landscape. His acquisition of the world’s oldest weekly through Old Queen Street Ventures (OQS) cements his status as a rising conservative media baron.

The Spectator, a 106-year-old publication, is not just any magazine. With former editors like Boris Johnson and Nigel Lawson, it’s arguably Britain’s most politically influential magazine among thinking Conservatives. For Marshall, who’s already behind the right-wing channel GB News and owns the online platform UnHerd, this purchase is about more than just profit.

While the previous owners RedBird IMI bought the Spectator and Telegraph for £600 million combined, the current editor Fraser Nelson hailed the sale price as proof of faith in the Spectator‘s potential. On the other hand, Andrew Neil, former editor and long-time chairman, voiced concern earlier this year over Marshall’s hedge fund background. Following the acquisition, Neil announced his departure as chairman.

“At a time when most ‘legacy’ publications are struggling to retain anything like their pre-digital worth, this is an unprecedented increase in value,” he said.

But it’s not money that seems to drive 65-year-old Marshall, as he continues to expand his media empire. His motives are arguably more ideological than financial. Media analyst Claire Enders argues that this latest acquisition is about having a stronger hand in shaping the Conservative Party’s future, a move he’s been positioning for over the years.

Interestingly, Marshall’s political evolution has been as complex as his financial manoeuvres. Once a Liberal Democrat supporter who chaired a liberal think tank, he switched sides at the time of the EU referendum, donating generously to the Brexit cause and the Conservatives.

If you thought Marshall was done, think again. He’s rumoured to be eyeing the Telegraph next. If he snags the “Torygraph” too, Marshall could very well become the most politically influential hedge fund manager in the world.

Woke-bashing of the week – The British Red Cross, the Daily Mail and its band of anti-woke warriors’ latest target

In the latest instalment of “woke-bashing of the week,” the British Red Cross – a humanitarian organisation with a 154-year history of aiding people in crisis – has been accused of the unthinkable – striving for inclusivity. The Daily Mail, never one to miss an opportunity to attack what it nonsensically deems as “woke nonsense,” has taken aim at the charity, citing claims that it has been “hijacked by political extremists.”

The charity, which proudly counts King Charles as a patron (a fact the Mail was quick to mention), recently updated its internal language guide. The guide, conveniently leaked to the right-wing newspaper, encourages staff to use terms like “person in search of safety” instead of “illegal migration.” The Migrants’ Rights Network describes the phrase as “dehumanising, immoral, and contributes to the demonisation of migrant communities.” But the reasoning behind the British Red Cross’ change, which is perfectly aligned with the charity’s mission of connecting human kindness with human crisis, was unsurprisingly ignored by the Mail. Instead, the newspaper opted to quote a few well-known anti-woke crusaders who seem blissfully unaware of the real-life experiences of migrants, non-binary individuals, and other marginalised groups.

Esther McVey MP, former Tory minister for common sense, expressed her regret that the British Red Cross has “fallen victim to such woke nonsense.” She bemoaned that the charity should return to “spending their money on helping people” rather than being “hijacked by political extremists.”

Not to be outdone, former minister Sir John Hayes MP (don’t you just love all the ‘former’ references) joined the chorus, lamenting that the beloved charity has “stooped so low” and warning that pandering to “politically correct nonsense” would surely damage its reputation. Because, of course, nothing says “reputation damage” like treating all people with dignity and respect.

John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance – aka, a Eurosceptic right-wing lobby group that does not declare its donors – pointed out that the charity receives tens of millions of pounds from the government. “Ministers need to ensure taxpayers’ cash is being used to fund frontline services and not radical activism,” he added.

Because, naturally, calling people by humane and respectful terms is now considered radical! It seems that in the eyes of the Daily Mail and its band of anti-woke warriors, the real crime here isn’t dehumanising language or disrespecting people’s identities. No, the true outrage is that the British Red Cross dared to evolve in a way that aligns with its core mission – helping people. But perhaps, in this new era of woke-bashing, simply being decent and inclusive is the most radical act of all.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Keir Starmer vows to scrap Conservative-era laws which limited the right to strike as PM pledges no more vindictive and cheap attacks on the trade union movement

By Martin Beckford

DAILY MAIL
 9 September 2024 |

Sir Keir Starmer will today announce an end to 'cheap and vindictive' attacks by central government on the trade union movement.

In the first speech by a Prime Minister to the Trades Union Congress (TUC) conference in 15 years, he will vow to scrap Conservative-era laws that limited the right to strike.

He will promise the biggest expansion of workers' rights in a generation, insisting that unions and businesses need not be at odds.


Sir Keir will also claim that he will not risk economic stability by giving unions everything they want in pay, despite having agreed bumper deals for train drivers and junior doctors.

The PM is expected to tell delegates at the TUC in Brighton: 'It is time to turn the page - business and unions, the private and public sector, united by a common cause to rebuild our public services and grow our economy.

Keir Starmer (pictured on Sunday) will be the first Prime Minister in 15 years to give a speech to the Trades Union Congress (TUC) conference

Tory business and trade spokesman Kevin Hollinrake warned Labour risked rewiring the economy back to a time where union bosses held the country to ransom in the 1970s

'Higher growth, higher wages, higher productivity. The shared purpose of partnership as the path through the mess the Tories made and onwards to national renewal.'

But last night Tory business and trade spokesman Kevin Hollinrake said: 'If Keir Starmer cared about working with businesses he would listen to the howls of opposition from business leaders about his plans to strengthen the unions and force unworkable proposals on employers that will cost jobs.

'Instead, he is just doing his union paymasters' bidding, raising taxes and drowning businesses in a tidal wave of new French-style rules and red tape.

'Labour must change course now or they risk rewiring the economy back to a time where union bosses held the country to ransom.'

Mr Hollinrake added: 'Labour are plotting to rip up vital protections for workers who want to keep working, dragging Britain back to the dark days of the 1970s.'

Labour’s 1978-79 Winter of Discontent saw strikes by waste collectors which led to rubbish filling London’s streets

Aslef picket line outside Reading Station in April during crippling rail strikes

In his speech, Sir Keir will set out details of the Employment Rights Bill promised in the first 100 days of his administration.

It will give workers the right to demand flexible hours from their first day in new jobs as well as the 'right to switch off' at evenings and weekends.

And the legislation will also be used to repeal the 2016 Trade Union Act, which required at least half of members to take part in a vote before a walkout could be allowed, as well as last year's Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, which attempted to keep key public services running during industrial action by ensuring skeleton staff were on duty.

The PM will say: 'Let's be clear why we need this Bill. It's because this Government is committed to driving up living standards, improving productivity and working in partnership with workers.

'And as part of that Bill we will repeal the 2016 Trade Union Act, we will get rid of Minimum Service Level legislation, end the cheap and vindictive attacks on this movement and turn the page on politics as noisy performance - once and for all.'

However he will also claim that his Government 'will not risk its mandate for economic stability' with union leaders demanding above-inflation pay deals for their members.

'With tough decisions on the horizon, pay will inevitably be shaped by that,' the PM will warn.

Starmer firm on winter fuel payment cuts amid potential Commons revolt

The Government could face a backbench rebellion over plans to scale back who is eligible for the winter fuel allowance for pensioners.


The move has been met with unease among some Labour backbenchers

Helen Corbett

Sir Keir Starmer said he recognised that scaling back the winter fuel payment was a “really tough decision” but said Labour must “secure the foundations” of the economy as he faces a potential backbench revolt over the plans.

The Prime Minister has faced criticism from unions and some Labour MPs over the policy, which will see all but the country’s poorest pensioners stripped of the winter fuel payment.

The move has been met with unease among some Labour backbenchers who have said they feel unable to vote with the Government on Tuesday.

Sir Keir told Scottish lobby journalists in Downing Street: “Let me first recognise this a really tough decision that we’ve had to make.”

I absolutely recognise the tough decision

Sir Keir Starmer

But he said that Labour had been “elected into government on the basis of economic stability, that we would secure the foundations”.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the squeeze in July as part of a series of measures aimed at filling what she called a £22 billion “black hole” in the public finances.

Sir Keir said: “If you’re asking whether I recognise it’s a tough decision I absolutely recognise the tough decision. If you’re asking, would I want to make this decision, the answer is no, but I did not want to inherit a £22 billion black hole, and I’m not prepared to walk past that.”

Some 17 Labour MPs have now signed a motion put forward by Neil Duncan-Jordan calling on the Government to delay implementing the cut.

The motion has also been backed by six of the seven MPs who lost the party whip in July after voting against the King’s Speech over the Government’s refusal to abolish the two-child benefit cap.

Sir Keir told the BBC at the weekend that whether or not Labour MPs will be suspended from the party for voting against cuts to winter fuel payments is “a matter for the chief whip”.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the squeeze in July (PA)
PA Wire

A Number 10 spokeswoman said there was no dissent among ministers over the planned cut in a Cabinet meeting on Monday.

And a spokesperson for the Chancellor said that MPs showed “strong support” for the planned cut during a meeting of the parliamentary party on Monday evening.

Ms Reeves urged Labour MPs to back the move during that meeting, saying: “We stand, we lead and we govern together.”

She added: “I’m not immune to the arguments that many in this room have made. We considered those when the decision was made.”

Under the plans, the winter fuel allowance for pensioners will be limited to only those claiming pension credit or other means-tested benefits.

It is expected to reduce the number of pensioners in receipt of the up to £300 payment by 10 million, from 11.4 million to 1.5 million – most of whom claim pension credit – saving around £1.4 billion this year.

Unite union general secretary Sharon Graham has accused Labour of deciding to “pick the pocket of pensioners” and called instead for a wealth tax to raise funds.

The Prime Minister said that measures to stabilise the economy are “the foundation for the triple lock, which in the end means that the state pension will increase in a way that outstrips the winter fuel payment”.

The Chancellor wrote in The Telegraph on Monday that the Treasury estimates maintaining the triple lock will make a state pension worth around £1,700 more by 2029.

The triple lock guarantees the state pension will rise each year by the highest of either inflation, wage increases or 2.5%.

Why Starmer and Reeves cannot back down on pensioner squeeze


Robert Peston
Monday 9 September 2024 
Peston's Politics   

ITV

Governments get into a mess when pragmatic decisions that go wrong become tests of authority and principle. This is the tragi-comic fate of the Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer following their decision to abolish universal pensioner entitlement to the winter fuel payment.

The chancellor announced the controversial welfare saving to prove to investors that she is serious about improving the health of the public finances.

Her logic was that if she was having kittens about the £22 billion current year “black hole” that she says the Tory government bequeathed her - and my goodness she doesn’t tire of telling us how anxious she is - so too would be the City of London and investors.

That is why she engaged in a “lite” version of Osborne’s 2010 austerity. And her advisers and colleagues keep telling me she was only doing what Treasury officials told her was essential to prevent a fall in the price of government debt and an associated rise in market interest rates.

This justification however is laughable, as I normally tell them. And I mean that literally. Because when I talk to City investors controlling gazillions, they snort and giggle at the idea they would have turned against the self-defined iron chancellor if she hadn’t taken £1.4 billion from pensioners.

Majority of pensioners below poverty line ‘could lose winter fuel payments’

Reeves defends move to cut winter fuel payments as 'right decision'

The point is that tens of billions of pounds will be needed to fix UK public services, and that £1.4 billion is smaller than a rounding error.

The idea that Reeves’s fiscal credibility - which is high in any case - would be made or broken by the pensioner raid is absurd.

Even on the basis that it is an inefficient use of public money, because rich pensioners don’t need it, she could have waited till her October budget before deciding whether to means test the energy subsidy - and she could have announced the change in a strategic fashion along with assorted tax rises and spending re-allocations.

If her Treasury officials told her otherwise, as her political colleagues insist they did, then its market intelligence is rubbish and it is not the institution it once was.

As it happens, Treasury sources tell me Reeves’s defining characteristic is she is more old-school, small “c” conservative Treasury than they are, and that the pensioner squeeze was all her.

Either way, the argument is no longer about market economics, if it ever truly was.

It is now about competence and who is in charge.

If Starmer and Reeves are bullied into a u-turn by left wing MPs, the Tory press and trade union leaders, despite their enormous commons majority, then there would be a question about their ability to do what Starmer calls “tough, unpopular” things.

So early in his term, that would be a problem.

This is why, in their every utterance, they now talk about taking cash from pensioners as the very bedrock of their big ambitions to restore confidence in the UK and generate world-leading economic growth.

The point is that a gambit that was never at inception necessary to keep the confidence of investors has now acquired market significance: investors would look more warily at UK government debt and sterling, if Starmer and Reeves cave when the political heat is turned up, however ill-conceived the initial policy.

 

 

Not one Labour MP spoke out against winter fuel allowance cut at tonight’s PLP meeting

BySKWAWKBOX (SW)09/09/2024

on Not one Labour MP spoke out against winter fuel allowance cut at tonight’s PLP meeting

Private meeting to allow MPs to speak their mind sees silence on issue of freezing to death 4,000+ pensioners

On Monday night, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves held a private meeting with the ‘parliamentary Labour party’ (PLP) in the Commons, a gathering of all Labour’s MPs to allow them to voice their concerns and intentions ahead of tomorrow’s Commons vote on the Starmer-Reeves plan to cut the Winter Fuel Allowance for millions of pensioners, forcing many to choose between heating and eating, or quite possibly to do neither.

Not one MP present spoke against the plan, according to one attendee.

The cut, according to Labour’s own calculations, will kill around 4,000 pensioners each winter – especially women, northerners and the over-75s – on top of the 8,000 people who already die because they live in a cold home.

Not one MP.

Those who care about starving children are no longer in the party, having been suspended because they refused to back Starmer’s decision to continue the ‘two-child benefit cap’ that puts well over a million children either into poverty or even deeper into poverty – a decision that earned him the deserved epithet of ‘Sir Kid Starver’. Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s enthusiasm for depriving pensioners of heat has made her ‘Rachel Freeze’ – and has not prevented her claiming thousands for the energy bills of her parliamentary second home.

Red Tories surrounded by more red Tories, every bit as wicked and cruel as the blue kind.

Liberal Democrats to oppose winter fuel allowance cuts

By Mark Valladares | Mon 9th September 2024 - 

Winter Fuel Allowance: Over half of pensioners say they will heat their homes less this winter

• Over half (55%) of UK pensioners polled say they will likely heat their homes less this winter due to the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Payment, while four in ten (39%) say they will cut back on essentials.

• Two-thirds (65%) say they will take cost-cutting measures due to the government’s announcement to withdraw the Winter Fuel Payment support. One in five (19%) say they will eat less this winter.

• Liberal Democrats call on the Labour government to urgently rethink cuts that will affect around 11 million people and pledge to vote against the cut in Parliament.

A new poll commissioned by the Liberal Democrats has revealed the staggering effects of the cut to the Winter Fuel Allowance this winter.

The poll of pensioners showed that three in four (75%) expect to be affected by the Government’s cut to winter fuel allowance payments.

Staggeringly, over half (55%) of UK pensioners polled said they would likely be heating their homes less this winter, while 4 in 10 will look to cut back on other ‘essentials’.

1 in 5 (19%) pensioners are planning to eat less this winter due to the cut.

Research from the charity Age UK shows the proposed cut to Winter Fuel Payments will mean two million will find paying their energy bills a real stretch and will be seriously hit by this cut.

The poll comes as there is set to be a vote in Parliament on the cut to the Winter Fuel Allowance. Liberal Democrats initially called for a vote by tabling a motion and will now take the opportunity to oppose the government.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey MP said:

The government should do the right thing and change course on this.

This decision to cut the Winter Fuel Allowance will put untold stress on pensioners, with many facing a heartbreaking choice between heating and eating this winter.

While we understand the dire state the Conservatives left the public finances in, now is not the time to be cutting support to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

We cannot stand by and allow millions of pensioners to endure another winter in a cost of living crisis, Liberal Democrats will be voting against the government’s cut.