It was always a question of when, not if, the Labour party would start tearing itself apart over the Israel-Hamas war. The only surprise is the scale and speed with which the veneer of party unity has crumbled. It has revealed deep and vitriolic divisions between the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer over his support for Israel, and the pro-Palestinian views of some of his Muslim MPs and others in the wider party.
Starmer knows he has a big problem. But he doesn’t necessarily know what to do about it or indeed how best to keep a lid on it.
The internal party rift shows no signs of healing any time soon
The scale of the dissent and unhappiness over the Labour leader’s pro-Israel stance appears to have taken the party high command by surprise. Anger began to mount after Starmer’s LBC radio interview two weeks ago – let’s call it his original sin – where he said Israel had a right to cut off water and power to Gaza.
A clip of the interview, which took place on 11 October, four days after the Hamas attacks, was widely shared. It prompted a predictably furious response from some Muslim MPs and local councillors. As anger started to spread to other wings of the party, Labour officials appeared gripped by paralysis. It was not until 20 October, and in the wake of several Labour councillor resignations, that Starmer finally ‘clarified’ his position.
‘I was saying that Israel has the right to self-defence, and when I said ‘that right’ I meant it was that right to self-defence,’ he told broadcasters. ‘I was not saying that Israel had the right to cut off water, food, fuel or medicines.’ His belated explanation was not enough to quell the growing mutiny.
A group of Labour Muslim MPs met Starmer and his deputy, Angela Rayner, in the Commons on Wednesday, demanding that he tone down his support for Israel and back an immediate ceasefire in Gaza – in direct contravention of the official party line. More than 150 Labour Muslim councillors wrote a letter to Starmer and Rayner making similar demands. Worryingly for the leadership, increasing numbers of Labour MPs support the idea of a ceasefire (reports suggest it amounts to almost a quarter of the total parliamentary cohort). London Mayor Sadiq Khan has also piled pressure on Starmer by calling for just that.
The internal party rift shows no signs of healing any time soon. Starmer stands accused of being indifferent to the plight of Palestinian civilians. It is faintly absurd to suggest a former human rights lawyer like Starmer is immune to their suffering. He has been consistent in condemning Hamas and insisting Israel has the right to defend itself, alongside calling for aid for the people of Gaza.
Starmer is now backing wider calls for humanitarian ‘pauses’ in the conflict so that critical supplies can be delivered. That is in line with the position taken by the British and American governments as well as European Union leaders. Unilaterally demanding a ceasefire might pacify Starmer’s party critics but would change little on the ground, where Israel is determined to eradicate the threat from Hamas and free the remaining hostages. Talk of ceasefires, motivated by a genuine compassion for the scale of human suffering in Gaza, is understandable but politically unrealistic. For the moment.
Even so, there is an unmistakable whiff of panic in Labour circles. MPs in Labour constituencies with large numbers of Muslim voters are feeling the heat over their leader’s Israel stance. The crisis in Gaza presents a challenge for Labour because traditionally Muslims vote for the party in large numbers: there are believed to be up to 30 parliamentary seats where victory hinges on the Muslim turnout. This could prove the difference between a Labour majority and a hung parliament after the next election.
Recent political history shows, though, that such fears can be overblown. There were similar worries about Muslim voters deserting Labour en-masse, after Tony Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq. Yet, in the subsequent 2005 election, Blair won for a third consecutive time, with a comfortable majority of 66 seats.
This is not to underestimate the scale of this self-inflicted Labour crisis and the critical lessons it holds for Starmer. He and his leadership team badly misjudged a brewing crisis in the party ranks. His top team looks and feels thin, lacking in wise and experienced voices to alert him to potential political bear traps. Far too often there is too much ambiguity in what he says and how he says it. Words matter in politics and in times of war.
Starmer has undoubtedly made huge strides in recent years in his efforts to present Labour as a party ready for government. Restoring Labour’s reputation with the Jewish community has been a key part of this transformation. Starmer has no real choice but to stand firm against the dissenting voices in his party.
Comments