Don't Vote Labour (Part 5)
Opposition Day; Tuition Fees; BLM
The 'opposition day' incident
Labour were heavily involved in the most chaotic day Parliament has seen since the Brexit deadlock. On 21st February, the SNP used an 'opposition day' to put forward a motion that the government should push for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel. Convention has it that on an opposition day only the government can put forward an amendment to the motion. Other parties usually cannot. However, on this occasion, Speaker Lindsay Hoyle was 'urged' by Labour MPs and Starmer to allow a Labour amendment. Labour's was similar, but much more detailed and without the SNP's reference to 'collective punishment' of Palestinians. It also explicitly said that Hamas had to stop its own violence and release the remaining hostages, and stipulated a two-state solution. In truth it was a much better statement, but rules are rules, and Labour and Hoyle joined forces to subvert them.
The government amendment was not much different from Labour's, except that it asked for a humanitarian pause, not a ceasefire, and demanded the removal of Hamas from government. Labour previously supported such a pause, but in recent weeks had faced concerted pressure from protesters and its Muslim voter base to back a ceasefire. This included MPs and shadow ministers being harassed by activists on the campaign trail, sometimes in quite an ugly manner. More seriously, a Tory MP's office had been firebombed over the issue and he announced he was standing down.
If we're being charitable, perhaps the increasingly horrific scenes from Gaza and the planned assault on Rafah had shifted Labour opinion to some degree, but it's clear political concerns were the main factor. Labour were desperate to back a ceasefire, but the SNP motion was problematic for them because it was rather one-sided and not tough enough against Hamas. The pro-Israel lobby influential within Labour would not wear it.
Many believe the SNP had scheduled the motion to split Labour between both camps, and that the government's amendment was similarly tailored. Starmer would have had to whip his MPs to back the government's 'pause'. Many Labour MPs would have broken ranks and voted with the SNP. That would have seriously undermined Starmer as leader, and given fuel to the popular notion Labour is anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic. On top of this, those obeying the whip would have risked the ire of Muslims and pro-Palestine demonstrators - of which, incidentally, there were large numbers surrounding Parliament that day.
With such a quandary in mind, Labour MPs - and unusually Starmer himself - lobbied the Speaker to allow their amendment. The meetings were allegedly very bad tempered and animated, even described as a shouting match. It is claimed MPs told Hoyle they would get him removed when Labour came to power, which Starmer later did not deny (he just said he didn't make such threats personally). Labour were citing the 'safety' of their MPs from demonstrators, perhaps out of genuine concern, but perhaps to manipulate Hoyle. Hoyle went along with it and announced his decision to the House, soliciting much anger from the government and SNP benches.
The tense atmosphere came to a head later when the voting approached and the government pulled its amendment in protest - according to them, anyway. Some say the government thought it could lose the vote on its amendment. Others say the Tories were trying to push the SNP and Labour into public conflict, because it would mean that Labour's amendment would go through and nullify the SNP's motion.
If the latter was the government's intention, it played out perfectly. Already put upon by Labour's amendment being allowed, the SNP now exploded in fury, and another 'shouting match' erupted between the SNP and the Deputy Speaker. The Speaker would come back into the chamber and apologise, admitting he had made a mistake, but only after the Commons had become a complete circus. Meanwhile the war thousands of miles away would carry on, and the deaths would continue, no matter what the result of this politicking.
Labour does not come out of this well however you cut it. They pressured (some would say threatened) the Speaker into breaking Parliamentary convention. They had done this partly because of intimidation and the threat of violence. You could argue their whole policy change was down to this, or at least fear of losing Muslim votes - not because of genuine care for the people of Palestine. Indeed, they had months to oppose Israel’s campaign and put down a motion in Parliament, but chose not to. You could also argue they could have voted for either motion, rather than insisting on their own, and their focus on saving Starmer embarrassment was more important to them. Discussion of a highly serious issue thus descended into petty procedural bickering - simply to assist Starmer.
It also appeared that Hoyle, a Labour MP before he became Speaker, was favouring his former team and supporting their shenanigans. There seems to be a pattern with Labour and supposedly impartial officials as the Sue Gray affair will testify (indeed some Tory MPs alleged Gray was behind the pressure on Hoyle, which Hoyle denied). Sir Lindsay may have done himself irreversible damage by his actions, although if he hangs on until the election and Labour win, he'll clearly be golden…
Tuition fees
When Starmer ran for the Labour leadership, as part of his scheme to mislead the Corbynite wing he promised to abolish student fees. Once he was leader, he backtracked on this citing - yes you've guessed it - the 'changed economic situation' since Covid.
BLM
In 2020 the death of George Floyd caused a wave of 'Black Lives Matter' protests and riots all over the western world. Starmer and Rayner, and many Labour MPs, took it upon themselves to kneel down in the popular gesture of 'solidarity' with the BLM movement. Only one very liberal Tory MP did the same. What they didn't consider was that BLM was an avowedly Marxist organisation wanting to abolish the police, subvert the nuclear family and end capitalism in all its forms. BLM chapters have since been found to have embezzled the money they collected, and one even supported Hamas after the attacks on Israel. Even a cursory appraisal of the group's website would have made kneeling down for them seem unwise. But Starmer wanted to get on a woke left-wing bandwagon, so he did the photo opp.
Kneeling was a meme before Floyd's death, at first used by black athletes refusing to stand for the American national anthem. Because Floyd's death involved a knee on the neck, that meaning took over. In general terms, though, kneeling before someone is a sign of submission to them or humbling yourself before them. Rather than a sign of respect or solidarity, many of the public saw the kneeling as a submission to another race, or to BLM and rioters. For a prospective Prime Minister of this county, such a gesture shows weakness and does not inspire confidence.
When violent riots had flared up in London and there was a public backlash against BLM (and indeed BLM UK made comments critical of Israel) Starmer tried to distance himself from it. He said the kneeling was 'a moment' in the fight against racism, neither apologising for the gesture, nor vowing to continue that supposed fight. Again, both sides of the debate have been thrown under the bus by Starmer's Labour.
We should consider, also, the reaction of Labour politicians to the tearing down of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol. The monument to the local philanthropist and, of course, slave trader, was an early casualty of the BLM mania. Many Labour figures were supportive of the crowd that tore it down - again backing an act of antidemocratic lawlessness. The initial statement of the Labour mayor of Bristol, Marvin Rees was: "I know the removal... will divide opinion. However it's important to listen to those who found the statue to represent an affront to humanity. Let's make the legacy of today about the future of our city, tackling racism and inequality". Right out the gate he was choosing the side of the debate the vandals were on. There was no acknowledgement that the destructive act had been a crime, rather that it was some kind of opportunity. Yet more supported the statue being put in a museum without the graffiti being cleaned off. Some welcomed those charged with the act being acquitted in court; the court considering the crime legitimate because the protesters believed they were in the right.
Starmer was careful to point out the statue “shouldn't have been taken down in the way it was" but that it "should have been taken down a long long time ago" following the proper process. David Lammy had a similar line. This was quite reasonable, but clearly the memo was not received by many within their party.
The trouble over Colston could have been averted had the Marvin Rees not vetoed a compromise whereby a plaque highlighting Colston's role in the slave trade was proposed. Two drafts for the sign were rejected by Rees.