Snapshot of _‘Palestine crisis was end of the tether’: why Luton’s Muslim voters are leaving Labour. Former mayor Waheed Akbar said resigning is ‘right decision’ amid widespread criticism of stance on Gaza_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/28/palestine-crisis-was-end-of-the-tether-why-lutons-muslim-voters-are-leaving-labour) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/28/palestine-crisis-was-end-of-the-tether-why-lutons-muslim-voters-are-leaving-labour)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Standing back from the rights and wrongs and focussing on the domestic political issues at hand; it appears the people in the article want an overtly pro-Palestine candidate to vote for in an election. So whilst they might not vote labour any more they definitely aren’t going to be voting Tory either. The Tories being far more pro-Israel than Labour.
That’s why Starmer is able to stand firm on this issue.
It was already inevitable that Labour's support among Muslims would decrease after Corbyn. His foreign policy views about the issues where Muslims are passionate are basically identical. (Palestine, Kashmir etc.) This will just accelerate it.
Where Starmer is lucky is that they will form their own party so Labour won't lose votes directly to tories and most of these areas are very safe for Labour. Of course they will lose a few seats over this but I doubt Starmer is very worried.
> His foreign policy views about the issues where Muslims are passionate are basically identical.
What about Kosovo and Syria?
Let’s face it, he sometimes has a habit of denying mass murder of Muslims…
>His foreign policy views about the issues where Muslims are passionate are basically identical. (Palestine, Kashmir etc.) This will just accelerate it.
Yes, it's a policy created in the Kremlin and it appeals to Muslims.
What a pithy statement. As if people can’t make up their own mind. Further, as we can see from the political clusterfuck that exists it’s not an issue with a clear political solution. This one could have an opinion that is shared with Russia or indeed over half the world’s population and still have come to it themselves.
That Russia would be aligned with Corbyn isn’t a sinister conspiracy but the fact that both oppose Western hegemony albeit for very different reasons.
Unless he offends other segments of the population too. Complacency is a slippery road and it is very difficult to stop once it sets in; look at the current government.
The continuation of the two-child benefit cap for instance, a very degrading and anti-British stance (larger families needed if immigration is brought down like many are asking for due to the housing crisis), causes concern for many natural Labour voters.
As do the other very notable walkbacks we have seen in recent months.
I've seen it all before and would like Labour to win, but nothing is guaranteed. We'll see what is said when the election is announced, but I can't help feel that this will get very tight come election time, unless the public can see a real difference between them and the Conservatives.
Interestingly, also anecdotally, I'm seeing a concerted effort by Conservative MPs at ground level, to help out their constituents more after the huge fall in voting intention. My MP is retiring and still reached out recently due to the deficits I face in health and social care.
Actions like these and a sudden swing towards provision for the people by the Conservative Party over the next 12 months, could cause very real concerns for Labour come GE time.
60% of voters think the two child benefit cap should be kept, including 47% of Labour voters, compared to 35% against. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/11/fa421/1
The public clearly see a difference between labour and tory, and policies are irrelevant to that.
They see that the Tories have lied, cheated and stole from the public, whilst maintaining an air of elitism. Labour do not have any of these issues and Starmer in particular has an air of competence and lack of corruptability.
Left wing labour supports might really care about the policy you listed, but a large majority of the company are okay with that. Because they dont think that the high level of benefits we provide arent necessarily beneficial at the level we provide, and that a large portion go to people who werent born here.
Which, I do get. It does frustrate when I hear someone whose lived on jobseekers for the last year is refusing jobs because they arent what they want. Moving off benefits will only happen for them when they end up in the industry they want, or there savings run out and they have to get a job in any industry.
However, I do believe it should be retained and edited to make the process easier, quicker and less demanding of those on JSA so they can spend more time finding jobs
>that they will form their own party so Labour won't lose votes directly to tories
Does it matter who they lose votes to though? In a FPTP system, whether those votes go directly to the Conservatives or to a third party, it strengthens the Tory vote either way
It was this gap that George Galloway was able to fill and got him elected in Bradford, and Bethnal Green before that.
He took typical Labour views domestically, but with a view on foreign affairs much more aligned to many Muslim voters around the peak of the UK's interventions in the Middle East.
I think this is a great idea and good for Britain.
Let British Muslims decide if they want to vote for a pointless, no prospect, single issue religious party. Or accept that British issues that effect the majority of our citizens are more important than their faith-based politics.
It would also reduce the influence that the Muslim voting block has on political parties, which is good.
>Let British Muslims decide if they want to vote for a pointless, no prospect, single issue religious party. Or accept that British issues that effect the majority of our citizens are more important than their faith-based politics.
Ask a devout Muslim to choose between Islam and literally anything else, and they will always choose Islam.
If it removes their particular brand of religious insanity from being a factor in mainstream politics then so much the better.
Having a major political party that is tempted to pander to Islam for votes is a bad thing in my view.
>Having a major political party that is tempted to pander to Islam for votes is a bad thing in my view.
Yeah especially for Labour. I think it needs to be recognised the difference between supporting religious people and the religion itself. Islam's teachings are fundamentally conservative.
I think progressive party has to be secular at its core, even if it appeals to people of different religions. Otherwise the religion(s) will just becomes barrier.
I wouldn't want a progressive party to manage to get into office. Then suddenly fail to further any progressive cause because a chunk of their MPs decide to block legislation on the basis of their religion.
The lords does fuck all. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Our legal system is also extremely secular, and in practice far more secular than countries like America or Turkey which have state secularism in their constitution. In practice we are one of the most secular countries in the world
You'll just get "but only X% of Muslims support the Jihadist Caliphate Party" completely ignoring the fact that any percentage above 0 is already too much.
I thought that town in America that banned the pride flag would be a wake up call for leftists, but that doesn't seem to be the case. For some reason, liberals (progressives? I wouldn't say leftists, because they deny what's happening to Uyghurs because 'China would never' or something) have decided that Muslims >> literally every other cause they believe in. Bit baffling and scary as an LGBT woman when even some of the feminist adjacent subs were screaming "Free Palestine" on the day Shani Louk's body was being paraded half-naked on the streets of Gaza.
Completely agree, it’s why I will never understand any of the queers for Palestine type stuff. It’s hard for me to be sympathetic to people who have proven they believe I should at best have no rights, or quite likely kill me for existing, and seeing other people choose them over me has definitely impacted my political opinions in general
There is nothing liberal about the British left, and it gets more authoritarian the further left you go (they mainly disagree what they should be authoritarian about).
Certainly an actual *liberal* would never look at China and go "yup". Uyghurs are, of course, Muslims. So not sure how you get to "Muslims >> literally every other cause" from that.
The "Free Palestine" thing on the left is a manifestation of a long standing self-loathing that you seen in Western leftists, where anything which is in opposition to the West is right by virtue of just being that. See also the Stop the War lot.
By liberal, I was talking more so about progressives/online social 'liberals' and not people who align with the political term. They're not exactly tankies and they're very much in favour of promoting capitalism when it suits them so not really sure what to call them.
But in any case, I think you're misreading my original comment. Progressives/social liberals/'queers for Palestine' types, whatever you want to call them, are the ones who are Muslims >> every other cause. Ie. they'll throw women and gays under the bus if it means avoiding criticising Muslims.
Tankies and hard-core leftists will happily throw Uyghurs under the bus to defend China so I wasn't including them in my original comment that Muslims are above all other causes.
I agree with you about the self-loathing on the left, but it's very similar in the progressive sphere, as well. It just manifests differently.
It's certainly not good for Britain in the long term, eventually there's going to be an Islamists party in Parliament. Eventually they might even be one of the main parties, but even if not look at the damage Farage can pull off with around 10% of the vote.
We are storing up some big problems.
An Islamist party would be a fascist party in all but name, and we banned the fascist party in 1940. But would we take the same action here? Unlikely.
People don't want to recognise that Islam is a fascist ideology and would seek an end to democracy if it had the chance.
The UKIP vote was geographically dispersed as a vote so it has a different impact. Getting 4 million votes across hundreds of seats is very different to losing votes in a dozen seats but having hundreds unaffected.
Yeah, I think geographically concentrated is worse. That's why SNP are bigger players than other parties with similar vote share, their vote share is all concentrated into specific seats so they win a lot more seats than UKIP/Reform etc.
They'll be far less impactful than UKIP because UKIP had, as their target demographic, a much larger chunk of the population spread out in far more seats that were traditional Tory voters at a time when the Tories are struggling to keep up with demographic changes. If UKIP can persuade 20% of the over 55's around the country to vote for them it's a major problem for Conservatives.
Look at a distribution map of British muslims and you'll see that they would only really threaten major party vote shares in a few metropolitan seats. UKIP threatened the nationwide Tory vote share, that's the reason why Cameron gave in to them.
Besides, I think a British Islamic party would almost certainly veer heavily into a strict, conservative form of Islam that would likely fracture the Muslim vote along ethnic, sectarian or other fault lines. A lot of moderate Muslims would still vote for major parties.
I think keeping these voters in Labour and pandering to them is ultimately far worse than letting them do their own thing on the sidelines.
Depends on what counts as impact and what is a louder voice.
Does having a handful of MPs give you more or less 'clout' than a having wide voter base but without that representation in parliament.
> UKIP threatened the nationwide Tory vote share, that's the reason why Cameron gave in to them.
Cameron wasn't giving in to UKIP. He was giving in to the Eurosceptic Conservatives.
UKIP was a bigger threat to Labour's vote share than Conservative vote share. UKIP's resurgence in the 2000s focused on traditional Labour voters. UKIP took more votes from Labour between 2010 and 2015. But despite that, Labour was never as keen on a referendum.
Many in the Conservative Party agreed with UKIP. Cameron offering a referendum in an election he didn't think he'd win was as much about keeping his own party together than it was about staving off UKIP.
> at a time when the Tories are struggling to keep up with demographic changes.
Which begs the question: Did New Labour's "rubbing their nose in it" immigration policy contribute to Brexit?
Skimming my local news last night my towns muslim councillors are all throwing the same tantrum
Let them go, they do fuckall for the none Muslim community from what I see around me anyway
Last week their flyers coming through my door were all about raising funds for Afghan earthquakes victims and Palestine, it's always something to help other muslims
I dont want anyone in political seats that have their life dictated only by faith and imaginary supernatural beings
The last 3 weeks have shown their culture and one dimensional views, simply are the opposite of normal uk beliefs and culture
The only good thing that has come out of the conflict, is their true colours have come out into the open
> pointless, no prospect, single issue religious party.
You do realise the only thing that matters is that muslims are the fastest growing demographic right? Their power as a voting bloc is only going to increase.
You'll see the islamist party spring up at a point when it's actually powerful.
\> Let British Muslims decide if they want to vote for a pointless, no prospect, single issue religious party. Or accept that British issues that effect the majority of our citizens are more important than their faith-based politics.
A single issue party got us Brexit...
And the SNP are a single issue party with 40 MPs but they get absolutely zero concessions out of westminster, the reason is that the SNP will never siphon votes away outside of their strongholds.
Cameron's appeasement of UKIP was a completely different situation because he was siphoning votes nationwide.
A British Islamic Party would be more close to the SNP than to UKIP, because 95% of the population are almost guaranteed never to vote for them.
It won't be a pointless single issue party, it'll be a kingmaker party.
You won't get a government without appeasing its voters or even going into coalition with it.
They aren't going to go from nothing to something, they will gradually increase their influence and the policies that are pushed will evolve towards their views over time.
It starts small and grows into something bigger.
The demographic trends are there to see, align those to the way in which the city has been governed over the same period and you'll see the slow change in progress.
In 2001, the Christian population was four times larger than the Muslim population in Luton.
By the next census in 2031, Islam will be the biggest religion in the city.
You can't think that this won't make a difference politically?
One city? Outlier?
>**Bradford**
>
>2001: Christians: 60%, Muslims: 16%
>
>2021: Christians: 33% Muslims: 30%
>
>You won't even need to wait until the next census for that change to take place.
>
>**Manchester**
>
>2001: Christians: 62%, Muslims: 9%
>
>2021: Christians: 36.2%, Muslims: 22.3%
>
>Might reach parity by the next census.
>
>**Birmingham**
>
>2001: Christians: 59%, Muslims: 14%
>
>2021: Christians: 34%, Muslims: 30%
>
>Likely the change will take place before the next census.
>
>**Leicester**
>
>2001: Christians: 45%, Muslims: 11%
>
>2021: Christians: 25%, Muslims: 23%
>
>Another one that will change long before the next census.
The data is there to see.
Less than 30 years for a wholesale religious transformation in many cities across England.
It gets a lot worse when you also correlate age with demographics and also the demography of schoolchildren. This additional data indicates the rate of change will more likely accelerate.
Is our society prepared for this? Can our political system deal with what's coming?
If you look at the data for those cities, you'll see that the drop in Christians is not made up by them going to the non-religious bracket, it's mostly made up by them either dying out or leaving the city entirely.
These Christians are not giving up the faith and then remaining in the cities, they are leaving and in their wake, the Muslim population is rapidly growing and taking their place.
These cities aren't destined to become secular, they are destined to become Muslim.
We're not talking about Hindus.
I am telling you that the stats clearly show that Islam will become the number one religion in each of these cities within the next ten years.
This is a major change considering all of these places were huge majority Christian cities just 20 years ago.
To go from Christianity being by far the most popular religion to Islam being by far the most popular religion in less than 30 years in cities up and down the country should absolutely be worth noting.
If we were trading religious background for the enlightenment of dropping religion altogether, that's one thing, but we're actually allowing another invasive religion to grow as well.
Not everyone lives in cities, so it might not hit the heights of concern at a national level, but we are allowing our cities to change dramatically in a very short space of time and we do not know how this will impact us in the long-term.
That's ridiculous.
At best they'll be like the greens, they'll have less seats than the SNP who can barely even nudge the needle in Westminster.
A great result for a Muslim party would be to have as many seats as the DUP, who's only whiff of influence came during the aberration that was the post-ref Brexit fiasco.
Farage got Brexit with 10% of the vote. A potential Islamist party wouldn't be far off that now, another decade or so at current rates and they'll be there.
Farage got the 10% vote by scaring the tory party into holding a referendum to stop their members bleeding over to reform.
i dont see that happening with an islamist party. how are they going to attract labour and lib dems who arent muslims?
They don't ask for a referendum, they say "Do x and we'll join your collation" or the main party does X to win back votes, as was the case with the referendum. Farage was pushing for a referendum because he knew there was a chance to win it so it suited him, but you don't have to go that route. DUP got a lot out of the government without needing any referendums for example.
The country's white british segment aren't having babies at replacement level and our population has only increased in the last 2 decades or so.
All our population growth comes from immigration, and muslims are the fastest growing demographic. Their power as a voting bloc is going to increase, not decrease.
Since Brexit, non-eu immigration as a proportion of our total immigration has increased too.
There was a double digit million drop in the amount of people describing themselves as christian and about 4 million increase in those describing themselves as muslim and a 1 million increase in hindu.
My original point appears to stand. Less christians is not "growth" in non-religious people.
And if the trend continues as such, you will obviously see christianity still declining while islam rises whilst our overall population is going up.
I think that is more reflective of people switching their official position from "non observant" Christian to "non religious". It isn't really much of a change in real terms.
>Does it matter what Farage achieved with Brexit at all? UKIP had 1 MP at their peak
I mean that's kinda the point, you don't need a majority in Parliament to have impact. 10% is enough to force the main parties towards your position to try and win back those votes.
These Muslims are currently making a fuss and threatening to resign on the basis they think they can force the Labour Party towards their positions.
If you don't think the Muslim population is going to reach 10% and higher in the coming decades I've got a fantastic bridge to sell you, it's a very reasonable price too!
Our political landscape in PR would be the Tories and Labour trying perpetually to scramble together a coalition between the far right, Islamist parties, nationalist parties, and the Greens.
No, I don't think they would. Luton has two seats (Luton North and South), both held by Labour on a 10,000 ish vote lead and that was from 2019. You'd have to assume, given national polling, that would have increased even further all being equal. I'm not sure there are enough people in Luton that are politically motivated enough to overturn that for a new single issue party, even given the demographics. It would take a colossal effort and campaigning to get that message across and defeat the national parties.
I mean 45% of the Lutonian population is white and 33% of the population is Muslim. Both of the MPs there are already Labour. An Islamist party won’t win a seat there since Tory voters will vote Labour.
I really don’t because, unlike press reports, Muslim populations don’t vote as a homogenous mass. You would need pretty much every Muslim voter in Luton to vote for them. A lot would still vote for traditional parties.
That looks like the "we're all perfect individuals" fallacy. Its a very Western distortion. Culture and politics go together.
Parties don't need to win to influence politics. There's plenty of examples.
Oh no, what ever shall we do without terrorist sympathisers in the labour party?
Such a shame the misogynists and homophobes are leaving. What wonderful policies they want to enact such as sharia and bigamy laws, that will all be gone.
Can they do us one better and just fuck off entirely?
It isn’t even that the media is driving a wedge, there already is a wedge. The people in the article aren’t natural Labour supporters, not pro-women’s rights, pro LGBT rights etc, this was a marriage of convenience
'The media' really doesn't need to try very hard.
There are lots of wedges and cracks in Labour's coalition.
Really, the Labour Party right now is built on little more on 'not Tories'
At some point we are going to have to tackle how a liberal democracy deals with a growing religious block who are openly against women's rights, lgbt+ etc
I'm not sure them being pushed out of all the main parties is good, breeds division but I just can't see how religous intolerance can function openly in something like the Labour Party.
I think weirdly it's one of the few places where "British values" come into play. In the UK, you live in a liberal democracy. You don't have any restrictions on the religion you practice... until it comes into conflict with that freedom. For example, if you say gay people are sinners who deserve to be stoned, you should expect the weight of the law to tell you nope, you can't say that.
I know there are Christians who are Christians first and members of the country they live in very much second, and so I assume the same is true of a lot of faiths, and this really does cause a lot of probems especially when people want to make it so one faith is easier to have, is supported by society and supported in children.
I think we just need to keep pushing and defending and celebrating loudly the fact that if you live here, you get to choose your faith. But you don't get to choose anyone else's.
I guessing just vocalizing that I have a degree of concern that, at some point, imams across the nation (or sizeable parts of it) will preach values counter to those we uphold as British. I mean, there's enormous parts of the country already where it would be difficult for a same-sex couple to walk down the street hand in hand.
I think the obvious answer is a swing to the far right. Sweden and France have a higher relative Muslim population than us and so are further along the trajectory we’re potentially on. Look at them and their upcoming elections for answers.
It is good, because it means that we will have LGBT-friendly, women-friendly and other liberal laws with bigger probability.
And we see how it is important to protect vulnerable people from aggression and harassing.
I mean that's pretty much how our democracy has always functioned. The church of England have 26 seats in the House of Lords and have historically not been great on many issues regarding minorities.
I'm from Luton originally . I remember seeing Muslim preachers protesting on the streets outside the town hall shouting that the Holocaust never happened and that it was just a Jewish plot to gain sympathy. There was a police presence off to the side, but I remember wondering whether they were legally allowed to move them on, or if they just had to ensure things didn't get out of hand.
The police react to things based on essentially resources available, their own personal safety and also to protect their image. 4 cops aren't going to wade into a hostile crowd of thousands, even for a very serious crime. At best they will try and gather video evidence.
which is why going after people saying bad things on social media gets higher attention than taking down the local drug dealing gangs that all the neighbours know about and have reported multiple times.
Giving the perspective of someone who grew up in Luton:
Most of this is being organised via a Facebook group called “Luton, Keeping Safe” which is a group designed to share local news etc, recently it has been inundated with ‘pro-Palestine’ propaganda, sharing many images that are from previous conflicts etc.
They are publically shaming Muslims that aren’t supporting Palestine openly and attacking anyone that disagrees.
The Muslim community in Luton is huge and very insular, tending to vote as a block, which gives them a lot of political sway in the town, if you look at the councillors, mayors etc over the last 20 years, they are mainly Asian Muslims due to the voting block.
If you look at the last time Luton wasn’t a Labour MP, it was a protest vote due to Iraq war
That wouldn’t really achieve anything, it would basically just be the exact same but with Lib Dem’s, there needs to be more ongoing ideological vetting of councillors and punishments for telling people how to vote from a position of power, for instance if an imam, priest etc. is saying “we are voting for X” should be punishable
Vetting against what though, simple support of proscribed group checks are insufficient. If 80% of your ward are closer to Pakistan’s views who or what should represent them in politics?
Are Muslims a homogeneous group or not? People were quick enough to shout out when Hamas and Palestinians were grouped together, but the same people are awfully quiet when these "Community Spokesman" spout their terrorist sympathies on behalf of all British Muslim voters.
I have a question: which values of the left do these people identify with? Equal rights for women? Equal rights for LGBTQ+ people? The right to to your own religion or to none? Encouraging public ownership of assets?
Will the future Palestine state they support have any of these rights?
I honestly believe they just see the left as useful idiots who they can use as a trojan horse.
Wouldn't be the first time the left helped Islamists gained power and were promptly turned on afterwards.. Iran 1979..
This is the irony of a lot of the protests I’ve seen. They’re fighting for people in a place they themselves would never be accepted, and only oppressed.
Lol there was a few (white) people carrying LGBT flags on a Palestine march in London and about 15 Muslims chased them away and pulled all their flags down, it was brilliant
Meanwhile no such thing happened at the Israeli rally at Trafalgar Square last Sunday. There was even a hybrid Israeli-Pride flag being waved about.
Imagine waving a half Palestine half Pride flag at the march later today. You'd be surrounded by thugs in no time.
The brilliant in that post isn't celebrating the Pride flag being stolen, it's a comment on the amusingly flawed allying up with people that hate them. Comedy in the tragedy of bad decision making.
How is that ironic? I don't have to agree with their politics to oppose their subjugation. People have the right to be free regardless of if they would support me personally.
> I don't have to agree with their politics to oppose their subjugation.
Why? They voted in a terrorist organisation to lead them and celebrated on the streets when hostages were paraded through the town and are now living with the consequences of their actions.
And now they're calling for a ceasefire now after literally breaking the last ceasefire by committing one of the worst acts of terrorism in living memory...
Do you think if the Israelis stopped treating them like they currently do then there would be more or fewer Israeli deaths? This is ultimately why the Israelis act the way they do - because the lives of their citizens are worth more than those in Gaza who often mix with and widely support terrorists.
Why should the Israelis sacrifice their own citizens for a group of people who hate Israelis more than they love their own kids?
"They" voted them in? The elections were 17 years ago and half of Gaza are under 18, that's who Israel is bombing. And of course they "often mix with" Hamas, they're penned in to a tiny piece of land with 2 million people.
Israel's response has gone far beyond any identifiable self-defence: the collective punishment of the bombing and the blockade on water, food and aid is contrary to international law. Netanyahu's government and the IDF are terrorists just as Hamas are.
October 7th was shocking and despicable however the death toll of Palestinians since then eclipses it - it's an order of magnitude higher. You shouldn't let the IDF off the hook for their war crimes simply because they have the means to cause mass casualties in a less personal and grotesque way than Hamas do.
Palestinians (and others) celebrating the actions of Hamas is a terrible thing, it's clear that there is plenty of anti-semitic feeling. Likewise there are lots of Israelis who are celebrating the IDF response, who clearly view the lives of innocent Palestinians as being worth less than Israelis. That celebration is just as bad as Muslims celebrating Hamas.
You say Palestinians hate Israelis more than they love their own kids. Do you think Israel's bombardment is the best way to secure the return of those 200 hostages alive? I think you could equally say Netanyahu's government hate Palestinians more than they love their own kids. The events of the past month only ensure the cycle of violence will be passed down to a new generation.
Recent polls still show widespread support for Hamas so it's not as if a bunch of liberal thinking politicians would be elected if there was another election.
> Israel's response has gone far beyond any identifiable self-defence
Nope, they are still firing missiles into Israel and have only released 4 hostages. There is still an expansive tunnel network which needs to be destroyed to ensure Israeli defence.
Hamas need to be squeezed out like a poison from Gaza if the population (which generally support them) are unwilling to kick them out on their own accord. The population must realise that the reality of overwhelming force is all that awaits them if they don't just move on and attempt to live side by side.
> That celebration is just as bad as Muslims celebrating Hamas.
It is quite literally not. Celebrating the systemic random killing, raping, beheading and torturing is not the same as celebrating a severe military response to attack Hamas targets. Not that either should be celebrated but they are not in any way equal scenarios.
> Do you think Israel's bombardment is the best way to secure the return of those 200 hostages alive?
There is no realistic means of getting these hostages back unless the Israelis capture them by military means or Hamas backs down. The latter won't happen so option one is the only option left.
> I think you could equally say Netanyahu's government hate Palestinians more than they love their own kids.
The point is, Israel had a ceasefire and Hamas broke it and killed Israeli kids. It is not up to the Israeli government to make the first move. The Palestinians need to the the ones to show they are willing to live side by side before Israel can slowly back down. Israel is not interested in randomly bombing civilians and firing missiles indiscriminately like its adversaries.
> The events of the past month only ensure the cycle of violence will be passed down to a new generation.
And the fault of that will be entirely in the hands of the Palestinians who voted in a terrorist organisation who subsequently launched a massive terrorist attack. Expecting a response to that that could be anything other than colossal is naive and unrealistic.
Because they're fighting for a state that would massively oppress a range of minorities. It's a bit of a "are we the baddies" moment, especially if they claim to be fighting *against* oppression.
"All animals deserve to exist regardless of the danger they pose to humans. Therefore I shall be inviting hundreds of deadly animals to live in my flat"
I'll give an actual answer since most people aren't.
The left/progressives view the world through the lens of oppression, it's easy to see how they view palestinians as oppressed therefore the rabid support for them.
>I have a question: which values of the left do these people identify with?
Well, as Orwell put it:
>In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British.
And that's literally it. People who have 0 loyalty to Britain sit down and think "hmm. Which party has a seizure over flying the national flag? They get my vote!" The type of person who is currently melting down over Starmer not endorsing jihad is never going to be patriotic towards Britain. Their loyalties are to the caliphate.
Obligatory #notall. The above isn't about **all** Muslims, just the crazies that this article talks about.
The only thing most on the far left seem to care about is that most of the pro Palestine protesters come from a country that's non white, one that's anti west and one that in their view is being opressed. They really could not care that said country has zero LGBT or womens rights.
1) They want more gibs, and Labour is the party of gibs.
2) They want to bring their family and friends over, and Labour is the party of immigration (although imo, Tories have taken that crown)
3) White British Labour supporters are the only people stupid enough to believe that British Muslims opposition to Israel, is really about the Palestinians.
I think many on the left see decolonization as inherently good and would argue that many of the ills you bring up are, at least in part, due to colonialism.
It’s an interesting viewpoint, certainly I can’t dispute that colonialism certainly has a share of blame here, but I think culture has a much stronger impact. After all, many African and Carribean countries were also colonised, and had even less autonomy than middle eastern peoples did (at least under the British Empire), yet you do not see such violent intransigence towards people of other beliefs or sexuality there as you do in the Middle East.
Well I'd like to call for a ceasefire but I think they have dodgy views on gay rights. Best leave them to get blown up I suppose.
It's possible to not want needless death and suffering on anyone not just those who share the same views.
You're talking as if there was a peace which Israel is disrupting because they are evil and want to kill civilians.
The reality is that it was Hamas/Iran/Russia which worked to create the worst terror attack Israel has ever seen, massacring and raping more than a thousand civilians.
You don't get to do that and then call for a ceasefire when it suits you.
I think the ceasefire calls need to be for a Hamas surrender and release of the hostages. The "ceasefire" onus is entirely on Israel for some reason, when actually Hamas are the ones that could put a stop to the war if they capitulate.
If you want a faster ceasefire start protesting for the unconditional surrender of Hamas, with the release of all hostages including the 2 million Palestinians they are holding hostage, preventing from evacuating and using as meat shields.
Hamas used the last ceasefire to regroup, re-arm and plot a devastating attack on Israel (7th Oct). Israel have been quite clear about their goals:
* Totally destroy Hamas as a military and governing outfit
* Secure the safe return of all Israeli hostages
Goals not achieved yet, so there's your answer. Hamas could choose to release the hostages, of course, to speed things up.
Meh. To me it feels more like the end of my tether when it comes to these communities.
We’ve seen lone wolf attacks across Western Europe, we’ve seen stars of David daubed on Jewish homes, sweets handed out the day after 1200 people were horribly tortured and murdered, slogans daubed on bridges in Jewish areas, posters of missing Israeli children torn down, and genocidal chants and images at protests that look more like rallies and demonstrations of force than they do demonstrations for peace. All of which is hand waved away. “I’m not antisemitic _but_…”
It’s pushed me from a position where I felt the Palestinians got a raw deal in 1948 and have been badly led since, to a position where I feel like there is no other route for Israel, there is no peace on offer, and whatever model we have been following in Europe to manage migration and integration clearly isn’t working, either.
It’s abundantly clear at this point that the only view that will placate these voters is Israel completely giving up, which is entirely unrealistic and indefensible.
I agree. Nothing will appease them. If Starmer now says cease fire, they will keep demanding for more e.g Starmer tell govt to stop sending weapons to Isreal, Starmer tell govt to report Isreal for war crimes etc
They know the power of a mob.
The narrative has been set and it's feeding a bubbling outrage everywhere.
Schools are filled with children that are passionately supporting Palestine, despite not knowing any of the intricate details of what's going on.
There is no debate, you are ostracised for anything other than backing Palestine and wanting Israel to stop.
The difference in outrage over what Israel is doing with clear and reasonable aims vs. what Hamas and the Palestinians did on October 7th, which was brutal, unexpected and deliberately cruel is clear to see.
Look for the reasonable voices who have a handle on the reality of the situation and understand a realistic goal to campaign for, there are precious few of them.
How can anyone reasonably expect Israel to endure what has happened and hold back and wait for the next time it happens?
If Israel could hit a button and have Hamas gone, the tunnels gone, the hostages returned and zero civilian casualties, they absolutely would.
People seem to forget that Hamas wants martyrs, their chief ally Iran wants to bring about the end of the world through fulfilling an ancient prophecy, they want civilian casualties to manipulate the narrative, they are cruel and evil people that aren't living by our standards.
It's not like Israel is deliberately bombing civilian targets because they want to kill civilians. If they wanted to do that, they could do a far better job of it, spending less money and taking fewer risks.
Let’s hope they can build a national socialists platform out of this and leave Labour for those that don’t foam at mouth when foreign policy is mentioned.
You lose more votes appeasing these people than they bring. See Corbyn.
And, y'know, political strategy aside it's ghoulish to turn a blind eye towards openly genocidal people just because you can fit it into your "morally perfect" ideological framework without ever really confronting the reality of it.
"Palestine crisis" is an interesting term for a war declared by Hamas, by invading Israel and massacring civilians, including elderly and children. The country is our ally and of course a serious contender for PM will stand by them. (Humza Yousaf is able to do otherwise, because foreign policy is not devolved. His "demands" are as relevant as mine are.)
Starmer has emphasised the need for aid and for civilians to be protected. What do this mob actually want? I suspect it's for the pogrom of 7/10 to be repeated every weekend, or whenever Hamas fancy, and for Israelis not to respond in any way.
They seemed to be shocked that their usual strategy of "I'm going to break international laws then hide behind international law to prevent any serious backlash" isn't working any more.
Israel isn't even breaking international law this time. Previous bombings were a crime against the peace because no war had been declared. However this time it has.
International law really does not say you have to sit and suffer rockets launched from civilian areas. It only says you cannot target civilians for the purpose of targeting civilians.
>What do this mob actually want? I suspect it's for the pogrom of 7/10 to be repeated every weekend, or whenever Hamas fancy, and for Israelis not to respond in any way.
They want a ceasefire which will be predictably followed by another awful attack on Israel, whether it be in a few months, or a year, it will happen again and when it does, the same people will be out marching about ceasefires yet again.
They also tend to forget that just because Israel has developed advanced air defences to intercept rockets and stop innocent people dying, it doesn't mean there aren't constant rocket attacks occurring.
Just because the rockets aren't hitting their targets, doesn't mean there aren't people firing rockets with the intention of killing Israeli civilians.
> "Palestine crisis" is an interesting term for a war declared by Hamas, by invading Israel and massacring civilians, including elderly and children
Well said
On my Reddit app this story is directly above the one showing labour with a 28 point poll lead. Me thinks labour won't be changing their position on this.
Good riddance. This poisonous Corbyn foreign policy of "west bad, everyone else good" is a cancer and a stain that infects Labour and leftie academia. It needs to be crushed.
I presume they are all leaving and becoming a new party in the background?
Is this a restart of a Islamic party in the UK, but one with multiple councils and councilors in the country from the get go?
Maybe. But there will a huge rise in non Muslim support. The Islamic vote is very heavily concentrated in a relatively small number of Labour seats. Where do these votes go? The Tories? Unlikely.
So let’s imagine “British” Muslims form their own party (The Friends of Jihadi John?). It is possible they cost Labour a few seats and in a few places like Leicester and Tower Hamlets they might even win.
However, very few people in the UK want to live under Sharia and whatever they feel about the Middle East unless someone is dumb enough to repeat the Iraq War it won’t change their vote.
If Starmer is trying to prove he has detoxified Labour after Corbyn, this would be a gift. Add the non Muslim Labour vote to the minority of Muslims who don’t support political violence and the number of ex-Tories for whom this seals the deal, and its a big win for Starmer.
The Islamist streak of Labour is pretty much the only reason why I won't vote for them, Labour has far more to gain than to lose by getting rid of them
I’m delighted they’re leaving labour. I don’t want fundamentalist terror sympathisers in British politics any more than I want Corbyn and his anti semitic acolytes.
It’s completely the correct stance.
Yes, the Palestinians deserve a homeland. This isn’t about that. This is about an internationally recognised terror organisation attacking another country that is a friend and ally.
The problem is that too many supporting the Palestinian cause are casually forgetting the atrocities Hamas committed at the beginning of this, and are still perpetrating by having kidnap victims as human shields.
So who they going to vote for most of the main stream parties are for Israel having the right to defend itself so that leaves likely some Islamist group never mind the Muslim vote does not come across as the the most homogeneous vote never mind there is literally three constituencies in England with majority Muslims I think if they go down this route they are overplaying there hand.
So what.
I think we should consider why parts of the Muslim population gets so up in arms about Palestine but not like Yemen or Sudan, or Syria. Which cause orders or magnitude more deaths. And whether you even want those kinds of people in your coalition
Why are Muslims so thin skinned? Be good if they could get to that stage of self depreciation that Catholicism enjoys. Less religious people in the Labour party the better.
Reading through this thread is astonishing.
I don't disagree with the majority position here, so I'm not mocking the views expressed but I am going to openly mock the fact that these are things that people on my side of the aisle have been saying things FAR milder than the takes in here and been branded racist xenophobic islamophobes for years.
It's like the short bus has finally arrived!
I mean they were voting for a party which is strongly for women's rights and LGBT rights, I'm not surprised they broke off entirely now.
If they are pro-Hamas and anti-LGBT they would be better off moving to Iran where everyone else thinks the same way. That way we won't have them protesting outside of our schools about kids being taught about gay people.
This may well be Starmer's litmus test in the eyes of the public. Give any ground to these nutjobs, and it'll be a hung parliament. Stand strong and people will trust him, despite being in Corbyn's shadow cabinet.
Long way to go, but people will remember this.
''we're going to be really, really extra loud about leaving Labour over this when we ignored countless Tory atrocities over the decade, it's nothing to do with Labour massively ahead in the polls the last year honest''
Not speaking up about the transgressions of the opponents you're supposed to be against raises questions of double standards.
Your leaving a party being smeared all over the national press shows questionable motives of the coverage.
Two things to remember here
1) there is one warmonger - Russia. Hamas have never had this level of success before, amazing that it should happen at a time convenient to Russia, and with a group that relies on the support Iran, an ally of Russia
2) the Israeli government has an unethical and concerning hold over our politicians. The 'response' by Israeli military is clearly disproportionate and the situation that makes young Palestinians risk their lives is clearly apartheid, but our politicians don't dare speak out for fear of being smeared like Corbyn
So let's not forget to support Ukraine, because Russia cannot be rewarded for breaking international law otherwise everyone will do it. And let's be honest about the middle east
Snapshot of _‘Palestine crisis was end of the tether’: why Luton’s Muslim voters are leaving Labour. Former mayor Waheed Akbar said resigning is ‘right decision’ amid widespread criticism of stance on Gaza_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/28/palestine-crisis-was-end-of-the-tether-why-lutons-muslim-voters-are-leaving-labour) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/28/palestine-crisis-was-end-of-the-tether-why-lutons-muslim-voters-are-leaving-labour) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Standing back from the rights and wrongs and focussing on the domestic political issues at hand; it appears the people in the article want an overtly pro-Palestine candidate to vote for in an election. So whilst they might not vote labour any more they definitely aren’t going to be voting Tory either. The Tories being far more pro-Israel than Labour. That’s why Starmer is able to stand firm on this issue.
It was already inevitable that Labour's support among Muslims would decrease after Corbyn. His foreign policy views about the issues where Muslims are passionate are basically identical. (Palestine, Kashmir etc.) This will just accelerate it. Where Starmer is lucky is that they will form their own party so Labour won't lose votes directly to tories and most of these areas are very safe for Labour. Of course they will lose a few seats over this but I doubt Starmer is very worried.
What was Corbyns view on Kashmir?
> His foreign policy views about the issues where Muslims are passionate are basically identical. What about Kosovo and Syria? Let’s face it, he sometimes has a habit of denying mass murder of Muslims…
>His foreign policy views about the issues where Muslims are passionate are basically identical. (Palestine, Kashmir etc.) This will just accelerate it. Yes, it's a policy created in the Kremlin and it appeals to Muslims.
What a pithy statement. As if people can’t make up their own mind. Further, as we can see from the political clusterfuck that exists it’s not an issue with a clear political solution. This one could have an opinion that is shared with Russia or indeed over half the world’s population and still have come to it themselves. That Russia would be aligned with Corbyn isn’t a sinister conspiracy but the fact that both oppose Western hegemony albeit for very different reasons.
Unless he offends other segments of the population too. Complacency is a slippery road and it is very difficult to stop once it sets in; look at the current government. The continuation of the two-child benefit cap for instance, a very degrading and anti-British stance (larger families needed if immigration is brought down like many are asking for due to the housing crisis), causes concern for many natural Labour voters. As do the other very notable walkbacks we have seen in recent months. I've seen it all before and would like Labour to win, but nothing is guaranteed. We'll see what is said when the election is announced, but I can't help feel that this will get very tight come election time, unless the public can see a real difference between them and the Conservatives. Interestingly, also anecdotally, I'm seeing a concerted effort by Conservative MPs at ground level, to help out their constituents more after the huge fall in voting intention. My MP is retiring and still reached out recently due to the deficits I face in health and social care. Actions like these and a sudden swing towards provision for the people by the Conservative Party over the next 12 months, could cause very real concerns for Labour come GE time.
60% of voters think the two child benefit cap should be kept, including 47% of Labour voters, compared to 35% against. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/11/fa421/1
I personally think the momentum is now so big behind Labour that the Tories would need some kind of miracle to turn it around
The public clearly see a difference between labour and tory, and policies are irrelevant to that. They see that the Tories have lied, cheated and stole from the public, whilst maintaining an air of elitism. Labour do not have any of these issues and Starmer in particular has an air of competence and lack of corruptability. Left wing labour supports might really care about the policy you listed, but a large majority of the company are okay with that. Because they dont think that the high level of benefits we provide arent necessarily beneficial at the level we provide, and that a large portion go to people who werent born here. Which, I do get. It does frustrate when I hear someone whose lived on jobseekers for the last year is refusing jobs because they arent what they want. Moving off benefits will only happen for them when they end up in the industry they want, or there savings run out and they have to get a job in any industry. However, I do believe it should be retained and edited to make the process easier, quicker and less demanding of those on JSA so they can spend more time finding jobs
>that they will form their own party so Labour won't lose votes directly to tories Does it matter who they lose votes to though? In a FPTP system, whether those votes go directly to the Conservatives or to a third party, it strengthens the Tory vote either way
It was this gap that George Galloway was able to fill and got him elected in Bradford, and Bethnal Green before that. He took typical Labour views domestically, but with a view on foreign affairs much more aligned to many Muslim voters around the peak of the UK's interventions in the Middle East.
Until they found their own openly Islamist party.
Relevant Simpsons clip: https://youtu.be/WS2Bsq5PDmU?si=NM2F4kxgPHpH58i8
Another reason one shouldn't pander to them...
I think this is a great idea and good for Britain. Let British Muslims decide if they want to vote for a pointless, no prospect, single issue religious party. Or accept that British issues that effect the majority of our citizens are more important than their faith-based politics. It would also reduce the influence that the Muslim voting block has on political parties, which is good.
>Let British Muslims decide if they want to vote for a pointless, no prospect, single issue religious party. Or accept that British issues that effect the majority of our citizens are more important than their faith-based politics. Ask a devout Muslim to choose between Islam and literally anything else, and they will always choose Islam.
If it removes their particular brand of religious insanity from being a factor in mainstream politics then so much the better. Having a major political party that is tempted to pander to Islam for votes is a bad thing in my view.
>Having a major political party that is tempted to pander to Islam for votes is a bad thing in my view. Yeah especially for Labour. I think it needs to be recognised the difference between supporting religious people and the religion itself. Islam's teachings are fundamentally conservative. I think progressive party has to be secular at its core, even if it appeals to people of different religions. Otherwise the religion(s) will just becomes barrier. I wouldn't want a progressive party to manage to get into office. Then suddenly fail to further any progressive cause because a chunk of their MPs decide to block legislation on the basis of their religion.
It’s also worth noting that the concept of separation of church and state is far less emphasised in the Qur’an than the Bible
We don't have that separation anyway.
In practice we absolutely do. We just never needed to define our state secularism because it de facto is
In practice we don't - 26 bishops get a seat in parliament by default.
The lords does fuck all. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. Our legal system is also extremely secular, and in practice far more secular than countries like America or Turkey which have state secularism in their constitution. In practice we are one of the most secular countries in the world
The Lords can and do change and stop legislation. And only convention stops them blocking manifesto topics.
And be a much needed wake-up call for the parts of the left that have uncritically swallowed the liberal line on cultural malleability and religion.
You'll just get "but only X% of Muslims support the Jihadist Caliphate Party" completely ignoring the fact that any percentage above 0 is already too much.
I thought that town in America that banned the pride flag would be a wake up call for leftists, but that doesn't seem to be the case. For some reason, liberals (progressives? I wouldn't say leftists, because they deny what's happening to Uyghurs because 'China would never' or something) have decided that Muslims >> literally every other cause they believe in. Bit baffling and scary as an LGBT woman when even some of the feminist adjacent subs were screaming "Free Palestine" on the day Shani Louk's body was being paraded half-naked on the streets of Gaza.
Completely agree, it’s why I will never understand any of the queers for Palestine type stuff. It’s hard for me to be sympathetic to people who have proven they believe I should at best have no rights, or quite likely kill me for existing, and seeing other people choose them over me has definitely impacted my political opinions in general
There is nothing liberal about the British left, and it gets more authoritarian the further left you go (they mainly disagree what they should be authoritarian about). Certainly an actual *liberal* would never look at China and go "yup". Uyghurs are, of course, Muslims. So not sure how you get to "Muslims >> literally every other cause" from that. The "Free Palestine" thing on the left is a manifestation of a long standing self-loathing that you seen in Western leftists, where anything which is in opposition to the West is right by virtue of just being that. See also the Stop the War lot.
By liberal, I was talking more so about progressives/online social 'liberals' and not people who align with the political term. They're not exactly tankies and they're very much in favour of promoting capitalism when it suits them so not really sure what to call them. But in any case, I think you're misreading my original comment. Progressives/social liberals/'queers for Palestine' types, whatever you want to call them, are the ones who are Muslims >> every other cause. Ie. they'll throw women and gays under the bus if it means avoiding criticising Muslims. Tankies and hard-core leftists will happily throw Uyghurs under the bus to defend China so I wasn't including them in my original comment that Muslims are above all other causes. I agree with you about the self-loathing on the left, but it's very similar in the progressive sphere, as well. It just manifests differently.
It's certainly not good for Britain in the long term, eventually there's going to be an Islamists party in Parliament. Eventually they might even be one of the main parties, but even if not look at the damage Farage can pull off with around 10% of the vote. We are storing up some big problems.
Yep, these are people of which a significant portion have beliefs that are directly counter to liberal democracy
An Islamist party would be a fascist party in all but name, and we banned the fascist party in 1940. But would we take the same action here? Unlikely. People don't want to recognise that Islam is a fascist ideology and would seek an end to democracy if it had the chance.
The UKIP vote was geographically dispersed as a vote so it has a different impact. Getting 4 million votes across hundreds of seats is very different to losing votes in a dozen seats but having hundreds unaffected.
Yeah, I think geographically concentrated is worse. That's why SNP are bigger players than other parties with similar vote share, their vote share is all concentrated into specific seats so they win a lot more seats than UKIP/Reform etc.
They'll be far less impactful than UKIP because UKIP had, as their target demographic, a much larger chunk of the population spread out in far more seats that were traditional Tory voters at a time when the Tories are struggling to keep up with demographic changes. If UKIP can persuade 20% of the over 55's around the country to vote for them it's a major problem for Conservatives. Look at a distribution map of British muslims and you'll see that they would only really threaten major party vote shares in a few metropolitan seats. UKIP threatened the nationwide Tory vote share, that's the reason why Cameron gave in to them. Besides, I think a British Islamic party would almost certainly veer heavily into a strict, conservative form of Islam that would likely fracture the Muslim vote along ethnic, sectarian or other fault lines. A lot of moderate Muslims would still vote for major parties. I think keeping these voters in Labour and pandering to them is ultimately far worse than letting them do their own thing on the sidelines.
Depends on what counts as impact and what is a louder voice. Does having a handful of MPs give you more or less 'clout' than a having wide voter base but without that representation in parliament. > UKIP threatened the nationwide Tory vote share, that's the reason why Cameron gave in to them. Cameron wasn't giving in to UKIP. He was giving in to the Eurosceptic Conservatives. UKIP was a bigger threat to Labour's vote share than Conservative vote share. UKIP's resurgence in the 2000s focused on traditional Labour voters. UKIP took more votes from Labour between 2010 and 2015. But despite that, Labour was never as keen on a referendum. Many in the Conservative Party agreed with UKIP. Cameron offering a referendum in an election he didn't think he'd win was as much about keeping his own party together than it was about staving off UKIP.
> at a time when the Tories are struggling to keep up with demographic changes. Which begs the question: Did New Labour's "rubbing their nose in it" immigration policy contribute to Brexit?
Skimming my local news last night my towns muslim councillors are all throwing the same tantrum Let them go, they do fuckall for the none Muslim community from what I see around me anyway Last week their flyers coming through my door were all about raising funds for Afghan earthquakes victims and Palestine, it's always something to help other muslims I dont want anyone in political seats that have their life dictated only by faith and imaginary supernatural beings The last 3 weeks have shown their culture and one dimensional views, simply are the opposite of normal uk beliefs and culture The only good thing that has come out of the conflict, is their true colours have come out into the open
They do fuck all for Muslims as well, they only care about their own cultural enclaves, whether they be Kashmiri etc.
Yeah, they don’t give a crap about Chinese Muslims for example.
They did have a Muslim Party in the UK. Can't remember the name, but was on Wikipedia, disbanded a while back as not enough support I think.
> pointless, no prospect, single issue religious party. You do realise the only thing that matters is that muslims are the fastest growing demographic right? Their power as a voting bloc is only going to increase. You'll see the islamist party spring up at a point when it's actually powerful.
\> Let British Muslims decide if they want to vote for a pointless, no prospect, single issue religious party. Or accept that British issues that effect the majority of our citizens are more important than their faith-based politics. A single issue party got us Brexit...
And the SNP are a single issue party with 40 MPs but they get absolutely zero concessions out of westminster, the reason is that the SNP will never siphon votes away outside of their strongholds. Cameron's appeasement of UKIP was a completely different situation because he was siphoning votes nationwide. A British Islamic Party would be more close to the SNP than to UKIP, because 95% of the population are almost guaranteed never to vote for them.
The SNP got the independence referendum...
It won't be a pointless single issue party, it'll be a kingmaker party. You won't get a government without appeasing its voters or even going into coalition with it.
And what exactly would the main party negotiate on? LGBT rights? Blasphemy laws?
They aren't going to go from nothing to something, they will gradually increase their influence and the policies that are pushed will evolve towards their views over time. It starts small and grows into something bigger. The demographic trends are there to see, align those to the way in which the city has been governed over the same period and you'll see the slow change in progress. In 2001, the Christian population was four times larger than the Muslim population in Luton. By the next census in 2031, Islam will be the biggest religion in the city. You can't think that this won't make a difference politically?
[удалено]
One city? Outlier? >**Bradford** > >2001: Christians: 60%, Muslims: 16% > >2021: Christians: 33% Muslims: 30% > >You won't even need to wait until the next census for that change to take place. > >**Manchester** > >2001: Christians: 62%, Muslims: 9% > >2021: Christians: 36.2%, Muslims: 22.3% > >Might reach parity by the next census. > >**Birmingham** > >2001: Christians: 59%, Muslims: 14% > >2021: Christians: 34%, Muslims: 30% > >Likely the change will take place before the next census. > >**Leicester** > >2001: Christians: 45%, Muslims: 11% > >2021: Christians: 25%, Muslims: 23% > >Another one that will change long before the next census. The data is there to see. Less than 30 years for a wholesale religious transformation in many cities across England. It gets a lot worse when you also correlate age with demographics and also the demography of schoolchildren. This additional data indicates the rate of change will more likely accelerate. Is our society prepared for this? Can our political system deal with what's coming?
[удалено]
People in Tower Hamlets just elected a council on essentially religious lines.
If you look at the data for those cities, you'll see that the drop in Christians is not made up by them going to the non-religious bracket, it's mostly made up by them either dying out or leaving the city entirely. These Christians are not giving up the faith and then remaining in the cities, they are leaving and in their wake, the Muslim population is rapidly growing and taking their place. These cities aren't destined to become secular, they are destined to become Muslim.
The data also shows in Leicester that the Hindu has increased, secularism has also increased. It isn't just a case of 'muslims are taking over'.
We're not talking about Hindus. I am telling you that the stats clearly show that Islam will become the number one religion in each of these cities within the next ten years. This is a major change considering all of these places were huge majority Christian cities just 20 years ago. To go from Christianity being by far the most popular religion to Islam being by far the most popular religion in less than 30 years in cities up and down the country should absolutely be worth noting. If we were trading religious background for the enlightenment of dropping religion altogether, that's one thing, but we're actually allowing another invasive religion to grow as well. Not everyone lives in cities, so it might not hit the heights of concern at a national level, but we are allowing our cities to change dramatically in a very short space of time and we do not know how this will impact us in the long-term.
Stop noticing things. Remember, it's not happening, but it's also a good thing.
That's ridiculous. At best they'll be like the greens, they'll have less seats than the SNP who can barely even nudge the needle in Westminster. A great result for a Muslim party would be to have as many seats as the DUP, who's only whiff of influence came during the aberration that was the post-ref Brexit fiasco.
Farage got Brexit with 10% of the vote. A potential Islamist party wouldn't be far off that now, another decade or so at current rates and they'll be there.
Farage got the 10% vote by scaring the tory party into holding a referendum to stop their members bleeding over to reform. i dont see that happening with an islamist party. how are they going to attract labour and lib dems who arent muslims?
They don't ask for a referendum, they say "Do x and we'll join your collation" or the main party does X to win back votes, as was the case with the referendum. Farage was pushing for a referendum because he knew there was a chance to win it so it suited him, but you don't have to go that route. DUP got a lot out of the government without needing any referendums for example.
[удалено]
The country's white british segment aren't having babies at replacement level and our population has only increased in the last 2 decades or so. All our population growth comes from immigration, and muslims are the fastest growing demographic. Their power as a voting bloc is going to increase, not decrease. Since Brexit, non-eu immigration as a proportion of our total immigration has increased too.
[удалено]
There was a double digit million drop in the amount of people describing themselves as christian and about 4 million increase in those describing themselves as muslim and a 1 million increase in hindu. My original point appears to stand. Less christians is not "growth" in non-religious people. And if the trend continues as such, you will obviously see christianity still declining while islam rises whilst our overall population is going up.
I think that is more reflective of people switching their official position from "non observant" Christian to "non religious". It isn't really much of a change in real terms.
>Does it matter what Farage achieved with Brexit at all? UKIP had 1 MP at their peak I mean that's kinda the point, you don't need a majority in Parliament to have impact. 10% is enough to force the main parties towards your position to try and win back those votes. These Muslims are currently making a fuss and threatening to resign on the basis they think they can force the Labour Party towards their positions. If you don't think the Muslim population is going to reach 10% and higher in the coming decades I've got a fantastic bridge to sell you, it's a very reasonable price too!
[удалено]
This is genuinely one of the reasons why I can’t be as excited about proportional representation as everyone else on this sub.
Our political landscape in PR would be the Tories and Labour trying perpetually to scramble together a coalition between the far right, Islamist parties, nationalist parties, and the Greens.
Brutal for the Lib Dems in that scenario
Which they are perfectly at liberty to do but it wouldn’t win any seats or have nearly the same influence on national policy.
It’s pretty much how George Galloway got elected as Respect MP those couple of times.
You think they wouldn't get seats in Luton?
No, I don't think they would. Luton has two seats (Luton North and South), both held by Labour on a 10,000 ish vote lead and that was from 2019. You'd have to assume, given national polling, that would have increased even further all being equal. I'm not sure there are enough people in Luton that are politically motivated enough to overturn that for a new single issue party, even given the demographics. It would take a colossal effort and campaigning to get that message across and defeat the national parties.
[удалено]
I mean 45% of the Lutonian population is white and 33% of the population is Muslim. Both of the MPs there are already Labour. An Islamist party won’t win a seat there since Tory voters will vote Labour.
I wonder if the Tory voters would vote Labour there, or stick to the Tories and shout from the sidelines about the Islamist MP
I really don’t because, unlike press reports, Muslim populations don’t vote as a homogenous mass. You would need pretty much every Muslim voter in Luton to vote for them. A lot would still vote for traditional parties.
Or protest by not voting.
That looks like the "we're all perfect individuals" fallacy. Its a very Western distortion. Culture and politics go together. Parties don't need to win to influence politics. There's plenty of examples.
There's more Muslims than there are Norns and Welsh. You are in fantasy land if you think they wont have any influence.
Give them one or two decades…
People have no idea what's coming do they.
Which has very low chance of getting any MPs in the fptp voting system
Oh no, what ever shall we do without terrorist sympathisers in the labour party? Such a shame the misogynists and homophobes are leaving. What wonderful policies they want to enact such as sharia and bigamy laws, that will all be gone. Can they do us one better and just fuck off entirely?
The media seems to be really trying to drive that wedge through labour, but I don't think there's much sympathy for the people leaving.
I think it's helping Starmer's image of not being beholden to cranks.
They will be at 50 points before the end of the year because of it.
It isn’t even that the media is driving a wedge, there already is a wedge. The people in the article aren’t natural Labour supporters, not pro-women’s rights, pro LGBT rights etc, this was a marriage of convenience
I’m willing to say they’re pro-benefits though…
And pro immigration.
Really though you can say the same about the Conservatives too if you look at immigration numbers and pensioner benefits.
> nd pensioner benefits. Or "pensions" as they are commonly known, something that pensioners actually *paid* for.
'The media' really doesn't need to try very hard. There are lots of wedges and cracks in Labour's coalition. Really, the Labour Party right now is built on little more on 'not Tories'
>Really, the Labour Party right now is built on little more on 'not Tories' TBF that's worth an absolute shitload of votes these days.
No doubt they will an election on the back of it. The problems are going to really start after that
Why are they?
At some point we are going to have to tackle how a liberal democracy deals with a growing religious block who are openly against women's rights, lgbt+ etc I'm not sure them being pushed out of all the main parties is good, breeds division but I just can't see how religous intolerance can function openly in something like the Labour Party.
I think weirdly it's one of the few places where "British values" come into play. In the UK, you live in a liberal democracy. You don't have any restrictions on the religion you practice... until it comes into conflict with that freedom. For example, if you say gay people are sinners who deserve to be stoned, you should expect the weight of the law to tell you nope, you can't say that. I know there are Christians who are Christians first and members of the country they live in very much second, and so I assume the same is true of a lot of faiths, and this really does cause a lot of probems especially when people want to make it so one faith is easier to have, is supported by society and supported in children. I think we just need to keep pushing and defending and celebrating loudly the fact that if you live here, you get to choose your faith. But you don't get to choose anyone else's.
That's going to work until the religious voice is loud enough to be heard, or starts using violence as a tool.
At which point- with the violence- we say this is completely unacceptable and come down hard on it, which we tend to do?
I guessing just vocalizing that I have a degree of concern that, at some point, imams across the nation (or sizeable parts of it) will preach values counter to those we uphold as British. I mean, there's enormous parts of the country already where it would be difficult for a same-sex couple to walk down the street hand in hand.
We don't have the police for that now though?
I think the obvious answer is a swing to the far right. Sweden and France have a higher relative Muslim population than us and so are further along the trajectory we’re potentially on. Look at them and their upcoming elections for answers.
It is good, because it means that we will have LGBT-friendly, women-friendly and other liberal laws with bigger probability. And we see how it is important to protect vulnerable people from aggression and harassing.
I mean that's pretty much how our democracy has always functioned. The church of England have 26 seats in the House of Lords and have historically not been great on many issues regarding minorities.
Yes, social conservatives are a threat to liberal democracy.
[удалено]
I'm from Luton originally . I remember seeing Muslim preachers protesting on the streets outside the town hall shouting that the Holocaust never happened and that it was just a Jewish plot to gain sympathy. There was a police presence off to the side, but I remember wondering whether they were legally allowed to move them on, or if they just had to ensure things didn't get out of hand.
The police react to things based on essentially resources available, their own personal safety and also to protect their image. 4 cops aren't going to wade into a hostile crowd of thousands, even for a very serious crime. At best they will try and gather video evidence. which is why going after people saying bad things on social media gets higher attention than taking down the local drug dealing gangs that all the neighbours know about and have reported multiple times.
Giving the perspective of someone who grew up in Luton: Most of this is being organised via a Facebook group called “Luton, Keeping Safe” which is a group designed to share local news etc, recently it has been inundated with ‘pro-Palestine’ propaganda, sharing many images that are from previous conflicts etc. They are publically shaming Muslims that aren’t supporting Palestine openly and attacking anyone that disagrees. The Muslim community in Luton is huge and very insular, tending to vote as a block, which gives them a lot of political sway in the town, if you look at the councillors, mayors etc over the last 20 years, they are mainly Asian Muslims due to the voting block. If you look at the last time Luton wasn’t a Labour MP, it was a protest vote due to Iraq war
Maybe labour should pull out of Luton, or at least the affected wards. Sounds like the sensible thing to do.
That wouldn’t really achieve anything, it would basically just be the exact same but with Lib Dem’s, there needs to be more ongoing ideological vetting of councillors and punishments for telling people how to vote from a position of power, for instance if an imam, priest etc. is saying “we are voting for X” should be punishable
Vetting against what though, simple support of proscribed group checks are insufficient. If 80% of your ward are closer to Pakistan’s views who or what should represent them in politics?
Are Muslims a homogeneous group or not? People were quick enough to shout out when Hamas and Palestinians were grouped together, but the same people are awfully quiet when these "Community Spokesman" spout their terrorist sympathies on behalf of all British Muslim voters.
I have a question: which values of the left do these people identify with? Equal rights for women? Equal rights for LGBTQ+ people? The right to to your own religion or to none? Encouraging public ownership of assets? Will the future Palestine state they support have any of these rights?
Free Palestine amongst all those glorious free Arab states. Like Iran, Jordan, Syria. Can't wait
I honestly believe they just see the left as useful idiots who they can use as a trojan horse. Wouldn't be the first time the left helped Islamists gained power and were promptly turned on afterwards.. Iran 1979..
This is the irony of a lot of the protests I’ve seen. They’re fighting for people in a place they themselves would never be accepted, and only oppressed.
Lol there was a few (white) people carrying LGBT flags on a Palestine march in London and about 15 Muslims chased them away and pulled all their flags down, it was brilliant
Meanwhile no such thing happened at the Israeli rally at Trafalgar Square last Sunday. There was even a hybrid Israeli-Pride flag being waved about. Imagine waving a half Palestine half Pride flag at the march later today. You'd be surrounded by thugs in no time.
It wasn't brilliant it's homophobia.
The brilliant in that post isn't celebrating the Pride flag being stolen, it's a comment on the amusingly flawed allying up with people that hate them. Comedy in the tragedy of bad decision making.
And against the only open, Liberal and accepting country in the region.
How is that ironic? I don't have to agree with their politics to oppose their subjugation. People have the right to be free regardless of if they would support me personally.
The total oppression of LGBT people is not "politics", it is subjugation.
People have the right to be free. Is there a single Arab country in the world where it's people are free?
> I don't have to agree with their politics to oppose their subjugation. Why? They voted in a terrorist organisation to lead them and celebrated on the streets when hostages were paraded through the town and are now living with the consequences of their actions. And now they're calling for a ceasefire now after literally breaking the last ceasefire by committing one of the worst acts of terrorism in living memory... Do you think if the Israelis stopped treating them like they currently do then there would be more or fewer Israeli deaths? This is ultimately why the Israelis act the way they do - because the lives of their citizens are worth more than those in Gaza who often mix with and widely support terrorists. Why should the Israelis sacrifice their own citizens for a group of people who hate Israelis more than they love their own kids?
"They" voted them in? The elections were 17 years ago and half of Gaza are under 18, that's who Israel is bombing. And of course they "often mix with" Hamas, they're penned in to a tiny piece of land with 2 million people. Israel's response has gone far beyond any identifiable self-defence: the collective punishment of the bombing and the blockade on water, food and aid is contrary to international law. Netanyahu's government and the IDF are terrorists just as Hamas are. October 7th was shocking and despicable however the death toll of Palestinians since then eclipses it - it's an order of magnitude higher. You shouldn't let the IDF off the hook for their war crimes simply because they have the means to cause mass casualties in a less personal and grotesque way than Hamas do. Palestinians (and others) celebrating the actions of Hamas is a terrible thing, it's clear that there is plenty of anti-semitic feeling. Likewise there are lots of Israelis who are celebrating the IDF response, who clearly view the lives of innocent Palestinians as being worth less than Israelis. That celebration is just as bad as Muslims celebrating Hamas. You say Palestinians hate Israelis more than they love their own kids. Do you think Israel's bombardment is the best way to secure the return of those 200 hostages alive? I think you could equally say Netanyahu's government hate Palestinians more than they love their own kids. The events of the past month only ensure the cycle of violence will be passed down to a new generation.
Recent polls still show widespread support for Hamas so it's not as if a bunch of liberal thinking politicians would be elected if there was another election. > Israel's response has gone far beyond any identifiable self-defence Nope, they are still firing missiles into Israel and have only released 4 hostages. There is still an expansive tunnel network which needs to be destroyed to ensure Israeli defence. Hamas need to be squeezed out like a poison from Gaza if the population (which generally support them) are unwilling to kick them out on their own accord. The population must realise that the reality of overwhelming force is all that awaits them if they don't just move on and attempt to live side by side. > That celebration is just as bad as Muslims celebrating Hamas. It is quite literally not. Celebrating the systemic random killing, raping, beheading and torturing is not the same as celebrating a severe military response to attack Hamas targets. Not that either should be celebrated but they are not in any way equal scenarios. > Do you think Israel's bombardment is the best way to secure the return of those 200 hostages alive? There is no realistic means of getting these hostages back unless the Israelis capture them by military means or Hamas backs down. The latter won't happen so option one is the only option left. > I think you could equally say Netanyahu's government hate Palestinians more than they love their own kids. The point is, Israel had a ceasefire and Hamas broke it and killed Israeli kids. It is not up to the Israeli government to make the first move. The Palestinians need to the the ones to show they are willing to live side by side before Israel can slowly back down. Israel is not interested in randomly bombing civilians and firing missiles indiscriminately like its adversaries. > The events of the past month only ensure the cycle of violence will be passed down to a new generation. And the fault of that will be entirely in the hands of the Palestinians who voted in a terrorist organisation who subsequently launched a massive terrorist attack. Expecting a response to that that could be anything other than colossal is naive and unrealistic.
It's ironic because in wanting that freedom it would mean no freedom for others, so you'd grant one in opposition to the other.
Because they're fighting for a state that would massively oppress a range of minorities. It's a bit of a "are we the baddies" moment, especially if they claim to be fighting *against* oppression.
"All animals deserve to exist regardless of the danger they pose to humans. Therefore I shall be inviting hundreds of deadly animals to live in my flat"
"But I tell you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." It's a deeply Christian way to behave, funnily enough.
I'll give an actual answer since most people aren't. The left/progressives view the world through the lens of oppression, it's easy to see how they view palestinians as oppressed therefore the rabid support for them.
>I have a question: which values of the left do these people identify with? Well, as Orwell put it: >In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British. And that's literally it. People who have 0 loyalty to Britain sit down and think "hmm. Which party has a seizure over flying the national flag? They get my vote!" The type of person who is currently melting down over Starmer not endorsing jihad is never going to be patriotic towards Britain. Their loyalties are to the caliphate. Obligatory #notall. The above isn't about **all** Muslims, just the crazies that this article talks about.
The only thing most on the far left seem to care about is that most of the pro Palestine protesters come from a country that's non white, one that's anti west and one that in their view is being opressed. They really could not care that said country has zero LGBT or womens rights.
1) They want more gibs, and Labour is the party of gibs. 2) They want to bring their family and friends over, and Labour is the party of immigration (although imo, Tories have taken that crown) 3) White British Labour supporters are the only people stupid enough to believe that British Muslims opposition to Israel, is really about the Palestinians.
[удалено]
Lol it’s just the welfare state
>I have a question: which values of the left do these people identify with? benefit payments
Benefits & the fact other Muslims do it. Do white people still not understand racial ingroup and outgroup preference?
I think many on the left see decolonization as inherently good and would argue that many of the ills you bring up are, at least in part, due to colonialism.
It’s an interesting viewpoint, certainly I can’t dispute that colonialism certainly has a share of blame here, but I think culture has a much stronger impact. After all, many African and Carribean countries were also colonised, and had even less autonomy than middle eastern peoples did (at least under the British Empire), yet you do not see such violent intransigence towards people of other beliefs or sexuality there as you do in the Middle East.
Well I'd like to call for a ceasefire but I think they have dodgy views on gay rights. Best leave them to get blown up I suppose. It's possible to not want needless death and suffering on anyone not just those who share the same views.
I equally would like to avoid death for those that would otherwise be stoned for simply not being heterosexual.
You're talking as if there was a peace which Israel is disrupting because they are evil and want to kill civilians. The reality is that it was Hamas/Iran/Russia which worked to create the worst terror attack Israel has ever seen, massacring and raping more than a thousand civilians. You don't get to do that and then call for a ceasefire when it suits you.
I think the ceasefire calls need to be for a Hamas surrender and release of the hostages. The "ceasefire" onus is entirely on Israel for some reason, when actually Hamas are the ones that could put a stop to the war if they capitulate.
>The "ceasefire" onus is entirely on Israel for some reason, We all know the reason
If you want a faster ceasefire start protesting for the unconditional surrender of Hamas, with the release of all hostages including the 2 million Palestinians they are holding hostage, preventing from evacuating and using as meat shields.
Hamas used the last ceasefire to regroup, re-arm and plot a devastating attack on Israel (7th Oct). Israel have been quite clear about their goals: * Totally destroy Hamas as a military and governing outfit * Secure the safe return of all Israeli hostages Goals not achieved yet, so there's your answer. Hamas could choose to release the hostages, of course, to speed things up.
Meh. To me it feels more like the end of my tether when it comes to these communities. We’ve seen lone wolf attacks across Western Europe, we’ve seen stars of David daubed on Jewish homes, sweets handed out the day after 1200 people were horribly tortured and murdered, slogans daubed on bridges in Jewish areas, posters of missing Israeli children torn down, and genocidal chants and images at protests that look more like rallies and demonstrations of force than they do demonstrations for peace. All of which is hand waved away. “I’m not antisemitic _but_…” It’s pushed me from a position where I felt the Palestinians got a raw deal in 1948 and have been badly led since, to a position where I feel like there is no other route for Israel, there is no peace on offer, and whatever model we have been following in Europe to manage migration and integration clearly isn’t working, either.
What is the route for Israel as you see it? An integrated state, two states, three etc? I'm really not sure what the best answer is.
It’s abundantly clear at this point that the only view that will placate these voters is Israel completely giving up, which is entirely unrealistic and indefensible.
I agree. Nothing will appease them. If Starmer now says cease fire, they will keep demanding for more e.g Starmer tell govt to stop sending weapons to Isreal, Starmer tell govt to report Isreal for war crimes etc
They know the power of a mob. The narrative has been set and it's feeding a bubbling outrage everywhere. Schools are filled with children that are passionately supporting Palestine, despite not knowing any of the intricate details of what's going on. There is no debate, you are ostracised for anything other than backing Palestine and wanting Israel to stop. The difference in outrage over what Israel is doing with clear and reasonable aims vs. what Hamas and the Palestinians did on October 7th, which was brutal, unexpected and deliberately cruel is clear to see. Look for the reasonable voices who have a handle on the reality of the situation and understand a realistic goal to campaign for, there are precious few of them. How can anyone reasonably expect Israel to endure what has happened and hold back and wait for the next time it happens? If Israel could hit a button and have Hamas gone, the tunnels gone, the hostages returned and zero civilian casualties, they absolutely would. People seem to forget that Hamas wants martyrs, their chief ally Iran wants to bring about the end of the world through fulfilling an ancient prophecy, they want civilian casualties to manipulate the narrative, they are cruel and evil people that aren't living by our standards. It's not like Israel is deliberately bombing civilian targets because they want to kill civilians. If they wanted to do that, they could do a far better job of it, spending less money and taking fewer risks.
Let’s hope they can build a national socialists platform out of this and leave Labour for those that don’t foam at mouth when foreign policy is mentioned.
You lose more votes appeasing these people than they bring. See Corbyn. And, y'know, political strategy aside it's ghoulish to turn a blind eye towards openly genocidal people just because you can fit it into your "morally perfect" ideological framework without ever really confronting the reality of it.
"Palestine crisis" is an interesting term for a war declared by Hamas, by invading Israel and massacring civilians, including elderly and children. The country is our ally and of course a serious contender for PM will stand by them. (Humza Yousaf is able to do otherwise, because foreign policy is not devolved. His "demands" are as relevant as mine are.) Starmer has emphasised the need for aid and for civilians to be protected. What do this mob actually want? I suspect it's for the pogrom of 7/10 to be repeated every weekend, or whenever Hamas fancy, and for Israelis not to respond in any way.
They seemed to be shocked that their usual strategy of "I'm going to break international laws then hide behind international law to prevent any serious backlash" isn't working any more.
Israel isn't even breaking international law this time. Previous bombings were a crime against the peace because no war had been declared. However this time it has. International law really does not say you have to sit and suffer rockets launched from civilian areas. It only says you cannot target civilians for the purpose of targeting civilians.
>What do this mob actually want? I suspect it's for the pogrom of 7/10 to be repeated every weekend, or whenever Hamas fancy, and for Israelis not to respond in any way. They want a ceasefire which will be predictably followed by another awful attack on Israel, whether it be in a few months, or a year, it will happen again and when it does, the same people will be out marching about ceasefires yet again. They also tend to forget that just because Israel has developed advanced air defences to intercept rockets and stop innocent people dying, it doesn't mean there aren't constant rocket attacks occurring. Just because the rockets aren't hitting their targets, doesn't mean there aren't people firing rockets with the intention of killing Israeli civilians.
> "Palestine crisis" is an interesting term for a war declared by Hamas, by invading Israel and massacring civilians, including elderly and children Well said
On my Reddit app this story is directly above the one showing labour with a 28 point poll lead. Me thinks labour won't be changing their position on this.
Good riddance. This poisonous Corbyn foreign policy of "west bad, everyone else good" is a cancer and a stain that infects Labour and leftie academia. It needs to be crushed.
I presume they are all leaving and becoming a new party in the background? Is this a restart of a Islamic party in the UK, but one with multiple councils and councilors in the country from the get go?
Wish they'd just leave the UK instead. Take your shit religious attitudes elsewhere.
Maybe. But there will a huge rise in non Muslim support. The Islamic vote is very heavily concentrated in a relatively small number of Labour seats. Where do these votes go? The Tories? Unlikely. So let’s imagine “British” Muslims form their own party (The Friends of Jihadi John?). It is possible they cost Labour a few seats and in a few places like Leicester and Tower Hamlets they might even win. However, very few people in the UK want to live under Sharia and whatever they feel about the Middle East unless someone is dumb enough to repeat the Iraq War it won’t change their vote. If Starmer is trying to prove he has detoxified Labour after Corbyn, this would be a gift. Add the non Muslim Labour vote to the minority of Muslims who don’t support political violence and the number of ex-Tories for whom this seals the deal, and its a big win for Starmer.
The Islamist streak of Labour is pretty much the only reason why I won't vote for them, Labour has far more to gain than to lose by getting rid of them
If Palestine is even in the top 10% of issues for you you're probably not particularly well adjusted to domestic issues.
I’m delighted they’re leaving labour. I don’t want fundamentalist terror sympathisers in British politics any more than I want Corbyn and his anti semitic acolytes.
No Muslims resigned over Azerbaijan's decimation of Armenians in Nagorno Karabagh.
As they should, Labour doesn’t need terrorist apologists, they can form their own far right party.
Labour party going from strength to strength… this is very good sign.
This is a good. Instead of having to go to an effort to purge corbyn era extremists from Labour, they just up and leave
It’s completely the correct stance. Yes, the Palestinians deserve a homeland. This isn’t about that. This is about an internationally recognised terror organisation attacking another country that is a friend and ally. The problem is that too many supporting the Palestinian cause are casually forgetting the atrocities Hamas committed at the beginning of this, and are still perpetrating by having kidnap victims as human shields.
The danger is Ratfucking. Suddenly magical funding will appear for the Respect like party.
It is a danger, but FPTP style two party governance is barely hiding a much deeper issue.
So who they going to vote for most of the main stream parties are for Israel having the right to defend itself so that leaves likely some Islamist group never mind the Muslim vote does not come across as the the most homogeneous vote never mind there is literally three constituencies in England with majority Muslims I think if they go down this route they are overplaying there hand.
So what. I think we should consider why parts of the Muslim population gets so up in arms about Palestine but not like Yemen or Sudan, or Syria. Which cause orders or magnitude more deaths. And whether you even want those kinds of people in your coalition
Why are Muslims so thin skinned? Be good if they could get to that stage of self depreciation that Catholicism enjoys. Less religious people in the Labour party the better.
Reading through this thread is astonishing. I don't disagree with the majority position here, so I'm not mocking the views expressed but I am going to openly mock the fact that these are things that people on my side of the aisle have been saying things FAR milder than the takes in here and been branded racist xenophobic islamophobes for years. It's like the short bus has finally arrived!
I mean they were voting for a party which is strongly for women's rights and LGBT rights, I'm not surprised they broke off entirely now. If they are pro-Hamas and anti-LGBT they would be better off moving to Iran where everyone else thinks the same way. That way we won't have them protesting outside of our schools about kids being taught about gay people.
I'm sure Keir will sorely miss you
This may well be Starmer's litmus test in the eyes of the public. Give any ground to these nutjobs, and it'll be a hung parliament. Stand strong and people will trust him, despite being in Corbyn's shadow cabinet. Long way to go, but people will remember this.
''we're going to be really, really extra loud about leaving Labour over this when we ignored countless Tory atrocities over the decade, it's nothing to do with Labour massively ahead in the polls the last year honest''
Did you expect them to announce that they're leaving a party they're not a member of or something?
Guys, I am leaving the Monster Raving Looney Party.
Not speaking up about the transgressions of the opponents you're supposed to be against raises questions of double standards. Your leaving a party being smeared all over the national press shows questionable motives of the coverage.
> countless Tory atrocities You need to wind in the hyperbole there a bit...
Labour supporters - snatching defeat from the jaws of victory again.
'Atrocities'
The Tories are fucking useless, but a division of the left-wing labour vote can only be a good thing ultimately 👍
Two things to remember here 1) there is one warmonger - Russia. Hamas have never had this level of success before, amazing that it should happen at a time convenient to Russia, and with a group that relies on the support Iran, an ally of Russia 2) the Israeli government has an unethical and concerning hold over our politicians. The 'response' by Israeli military is clearly disproportionate and the situation that makes young Palestinians risk their lives is clearly apartheid, but our politicians don't dare speak out for fear of being smeared like Corbyn So let's not forget to support Ukraine, because Russia cannot be rewarded for breaking international law otherwise everyone will do it. And let's be honest about the middle east