That George Galloway has won the Rochdale by-election is not, in my view, the most significant aspect of the results. He stood a good chance of winning even if the Labour Party had not withdrawn their support for their official candidate for some foolish and ill-considered remarks. Galloway very nearly did it here in the (now revised ) Batley and Spen Constituency in 2021. Given the make-up of the Rochdale population, his skills on the stump, and the heightened awareness of the Israel/Palestine situation, his victory was almost a foregone conclusion,.
I doubt very much if his win will have the effect he claims on the domestic political debate, or, if rumour emanating from his previous wins in Bethnal Green and Bradford West have substance, on the quality of life in Rochdale – and still less on life in Gaza.
It’s odds on that Labour will regain the seat in less than twelve months and the Galloway circus will move on to different pastures.
The result which could be of lasting significance is the massive slump in the Conservative vote. Their candidate was pushed down to third place by a politically unaligned and apparently inexperienced local businessman, Mr David Tully, who won second place with 21.3% of the vote. This was almost double the percentage, 12%, gained by the official Conservative candidate. It was a drop in voter share of nearly 20%. Under the old rules he would have lost his deposit.
Given that the slump in Labour’s vote was the result of the party’s official support being withdrawn from him, it has no particular significance for the future. But there is no parallel explanation for the dramatic fall in the Conservative vote. Clearly the Tory supporters, who normally rustle-up something like around 30% in the constituency, have lost confidence in the party and have been prepared not just to stay at home (the usual excuse for those who argue that “normal service” will be resumed when the chips are down in the general election) but to turn out and vote for another candidate, in this case the local businessman.
If this is an indication of the mood in the rest of the country, and I earnestly hope it is, then the Tories could be in for a dramatic (and well-deserved) drubbing when they have the courage to call the election.
This could be the reasoning behind Rishi Sunak’s extraordinary use yesterday evening of all the panoply of the Downing Street background and logo-decorated podium to warn the nation of the threat to our democracy from “extremists.”
To up it mildly, that’s a bit rich from the man who not forty-eight hours earlier had been describing largely peaceful demonstrations as “mob rule” and whose henchpersons Lee Anderson(while deputy party chairman) and present or former ministers Liz Truss and Suella Braverman spoke glibly of “Islamists” taking over London and the “danger” immigrants of other cultures bring to our “British” way of life.
Sadly Sir Keir Starmer has tended to support the prime minister’s view but, thankfully our Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has had the courage to call him out.
“Playing the race card” has a long history in the Tory party. The most notorious example in my lifetime was in the 1964 General Election when the Conservative Candidate for Smethwick, Peter Griffiths, won the seat after using the slogan “If you want a N****r Neighbour vote Labour.” The then Labour Leader, Harold Wilson, displayed more courage than the present one by calling Griffiths a “parliamentary leper.”
Two more recent examples are Norman Tebbit’s “cricket test” and the 2016 election of London Mayor, in which Tory Zac Goldsmith’s campaign against Sadiq Kahn was, as Wikipedia put it “marred by accusations of Islamophobia."
It is surely the function of responsible politicians and public figures to do their best to calm inter-group tensions rather than exacerbate them. I am inclined to see Sunak’s extraordinary performance as a last desperate attempt do the opposite in order to hang on to power.
On a Liberal Democrat site a few days ago Nigel Jones, who occasionally comments on this blog, posted the following:
“It is one of the greatest sins of humankind to say that you are either with us or against us on the basis of your political allegiance, group identity, or belief label.”
I think that sums up a requirement for all public (and for that matter, private) comment.
On top of that Mr Sunak should reflect that the greatest danger to our democracy in recent year has come from the Tory Party itself. They have, (in no particular order):
Introduced a totally unnecessary requirement for voter ID
Removed the second preference vote in election for executive mayors
Repealed the fixed Term Parliament Act
Prevented universities from registering their students automatically
Illegally prorogued parliament
Increased the level of permitted expenditure pre-election from £19m to £34m
Placed additional restrictions on the right to demonstrate and protest.
Further limited workers’ right to strike.
Let’s hope for a new government with sufficient Liberal input to put some of these wrongs to right.
PS. I'm pleased to see Carolyn Lucas, the Green MP, covering many of the above points in today's (03/03/24) Observer with her customery verve. See:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/03/sunak-speech-protest-tories-friday-no-10-caroline-lucas
It is one of the greatest sins
This could be the reasoning behind Rishi Sunak’s extraordinary use yesterday evening of all the panoply of the Downing Street background and logo-decorated podium to warn the nation of the threat to our democracy from “extremists.”
ReplyDeleteCould be. Or, it could have been because last week normal Parliamentary procedure was suspended because several MPs had had their lives threatened by Islamist terrorists, and the Speaker considered these threats worth taking seriously because:
* in 2017, an Islamist murdered three people on Westminster Bridge before murdering another within the grounds of the Houses of Parliament
* also in 2017, Islamists murdered seven people on London Bridge
* also in 2017, an Islamist detonated a bomb on a District line train — not killing anyone, but not for want of trying
* in 2018, an Islamist attempted murder by car of several people just outside the Houses of Parliament
* in 2019, an Islamist murdered two people on London Bridge
And perhaps weighing heaviest on the Speaker’s mind was that in 2021, an MP was murdered by an Islamist; and the Speaker thought that there was a very real chance that if he did not capitulate to the Islamist terrorists’ demands another MP might be murdered.
Maybe that was what the reasoning was. Do you think that could have been it?
(I also note that apparently an ex-police chief has said that if these ‘largely peaceful demonstrations’ are stopped, there is a risk of reprisal terrorist attacks. Nothing says ‘peaceful protest’ like ‘if you try to stop us we will bomb another concertful of teenage girls’)
Yes, it's a grim picture, but see this article in today's Observer for a moire constructive approach:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/02/labour-rattled-by-galloway-win-as-sadiq-khan-slams-pm-over-racist-poison
a moire constructive approach
DeleteThere’s no approach in that to dealing with the threat of Islamist terrorism at all, constructive or not.
"perhaps weighing heaviest on the Speaker’s mind " was the likelihood of a Labour government fairly soon, and the risk of losing his position if he didn't do as Starmer wanted.
ReplyDelete"perhaps weighing heaviest on the Speaker’s mind " was the likelihood of a Labour government fairly soon, and the risk of losing his position if he didn't do as Starmer wanted.
DeleteThat may have been a part of it; but putting myself in his place, the thing I would have been most scared of was having to stand up and express my regret for, perhaps, the killing of Annalise Dodds (to pick one MP who has now to have round-the-clock security because of the Islamist threat) as a result of the vote. Which was, and remains, a real possibility.
So perhaps it’s over-charitable, but I think that that was the Speaker’s main concern.
@ anonymous: One possible more constructive approach would be for the Tories to stop playing the racist card when hey get into a tight corner.
ReplyDelete@Jenny: We can't know what was in the Speaker's mind. I like to think he wanted to give the MPs the chance to vote on the complete range of options
I like to think he wanted to give the MPs the chance to vote on the complete range of options
DeleteThat was certainly his first attempt at an explanation. But that is not what Opposition Days are for; they are for the designated opposition party (in this case, the SNP) to get to choose what MPs can vote on, not the Speaker.
When this was pointed out to him he said instead that he had broken convention because of his (well-founded) fears about the security of MPs.
One possible more constructive approach would be for the Tories to stop playing the racist card when hey get into a tight corner.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly would that end, or even reduce, the threat to both the public in general and to Members of Parliament in particular from Islamist murderers?
Quiet calm deliberation may not disentangle every knot, but it could reduce the temperature at which extremism is fomented
DeleteQuiet calm deliberation may not disentangle every knot, but it could reduce the temperature at which extremism is fomented
DeleteThat’s not an answer to the question: How exactly would that end, or even reduce, the threat to both the public in general and to Members of Parliament in particular from Islamist murderers?
I guess back in the day you would have been arguing that paying the Danegeld could reduce the temperature at which Danish extremism is formented, wouldn’t you?
DeleteA strategy famously just as successful as all your other policy ideas…
To take a more recent example, confrontation with the IRA did not produce "peace" in Northern Ireland, but talking to them has certainly calmed things down.
DeleteTo take a more recent example, confrontation with the IRA did not produce "peace" in Northern Ireland, but talking to them has certainly calmed things down.
DeleteOn the contrary. It was only the near-total military defeat of the IRA, and the complete compromise of their communications by the intelligence services, that brought the IRA to the point where they were willing to negotiate; and it was the unwillingness of the British government to push on to defeating them completely that has led to the present situation where the IRA is still active, still killing.
https://www.thearticle.com/gaza-britain-and-rishi-sunak
ReplyDeletePlease read this. It sums up my point of view nicely.
Please read this. It sums up my point of view nicely.
DeleteI’ve read it. It does not contain any suggestions at all as to how we deal with the threat of murderous Islamist extremism, which far from being ‘marginal’ has killed hundreds, including 23 on that night in Manchester seven years ago. Without any plans as to how to end that threat for good it is worse than useless.
(Unless, I suppose, you count ‘just accept that the occasional act of mass murder at a pop concert is a price worth paying, in the same way we accept a certain number of deaths on the road as a price worth paying for not banning cars’ as a suggestion for how to deal with the threat. But I don’t think that is a price worth paying; do you? If so could you say that explicitly, please, that you think we just need to learn to put up with acts of mass murder by Islamists every so often?)
DeleteAlso I find it quite sickening, though not really surprising and sadly not shocking, that you should point to an article which makes the argument ‘antisematism is bad, but totally understandable when you look at the actions of Israel; so when you think about it, aren’t those Jews really bringing all this trouble on themselves?’
DeleteUnlike most of the things inaccurately described as such nowadays, that really is like something you would have heard in Germany in the 1930s.
It sounds like you agree with Roald Dahl when he said: ‘ There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere.’
Because that’s basically the claim the article you say represents your views is making, isn’t it? That antisematism didn’t just pop out of nowhere; that it was an understandable reaction to something in ‘the Jewish character’ (in this case, support for Israel's right to try to stop its citizens being murdered; though one suspects that the article’s author would regard the massacre of the 7th of October last as ‘perfectly understandable given the actions of Israel’).
And: ‘Even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.’
Ar Mr Guterres said, "October 7th did not happen in a vacuum."
ReplyDeleteAr Mr Guterres said, "October 7th did not happen in a vacuum."
DeleteOh, wow, you’re doubling down on ‘the Jews deserved to be raped and murdered’.
The cry of the antisemite throughout the centuries: ‘Yes, I hate Jews, but when you look at what those bastards get up to, wouldn’t you?’
Did those teenage girls in Manchester deserve it too, or were they just acceptable losses in the cause of… what?
I wish I could say I was shocked, but no, just sickened.
I guess the pogroms didn't happen in a vacuum, either. And nor did the doctors' 'plot'.
DeleteWhat about the Holocaust? Did it happen in a vacuum?
Of course not; all that's happened is that after the Nazis gave antisematism a bad name for a while it, like flares or big scrunchies or basically any awful thing, has become cool again; and so dedicated, vapid, shallow followers of intellectual fashions have jumped on the same old jew-hating bandwagon once more, just like they have done time and time again in centuries past.
Of course if there's one lesson history teaches us above all others, it's: never mess with the Jews. It doesn't end well for you and the Jews always survive despite your best efforts.
You've moved a long way from "quite calm deliberation" so I'll leave it here
ReplyDeleteYou've moved a long way from "quite calm deliberation" so I'll leave it here
DeleteCan I recommend a depiction of some ‘quite calm deliberation’ that I think you might sympathise with?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/