It is sometimes difficult to get one’s voice heard above the background noise of today’s news outlets, whether TV or printed press. So I thought it might be timely to outline Labour’s ethos and plans even as another general election looms. The polls, always to be taken with a pinch of salt, suggest high rates of public dissatisfaction and alarm at the implosion of a split and incompetent Tory Government, but also some confusion at what Labour stands for in what are undoubtedly volatile times. I am taking this opportunity to clarify Labour’s approach and policy in relation to two particular issues, racism and exiting the EU.
I want at the outset to set people’s minds at ease by commenting on the recurrent headlines about antisemitism in the Labour Party. Fortunately there are research studies to help us. They show that rates of antisemitism in the UK are low, and lower in the Labour Party, and amongst ‘the left’, than in other Parties towards the right of the political spectrum.
As I suspect people are aware, there exists an ‘alliance’ of those who oppose Labour forming the next government, and this for a mix of reasons. Prominent among these reasons is a fear on the part of ‘the few’ that a government for ‘the many’ would threaten their privileges. So be it. There is concern also that a Labour government led by me would constitute some kind of threat to the state of Israel. This concern is unfounded. Labour will continue to condemn the introduction by the present regime of cultural apartheid and the use of excessive force against the Palestinian community. More importantly, we will seek talks towards a long-term solution to this terrible conflict. I am confident that there is widespread public support for this approach.
It will be apparent after the last few weeks that a segment of the Jewish community has orchestrated a campaign to accuse me personally and the Labour Party leadership in general of antisemitism. This is intended to damage our electoral prospects. People often ask me if I find such accusations stressful. After all, there is evidence that the already low rate of antisemitism in Labour has declined further since I was elected leader. My response is that, yes, it is upsetting because I have throughout my parliamentary career opposed racism in any form, but: first, any stress I might feel is nothing beside that of a homeless citizen spending another night on the streets or a single parent unable to feed or clothe her children; and second, I have been in politics a long time and am only too familiar with ‘dirty tricks’.
I have tried to reach an understanding with various bodies who purport to represent the Jewish community in the UK. This has generally born fruit. It is apparent however that a minority of these bodies just want rid of me and will revise and extend their campaign to that end. I have decided that it would be inappropriate for Labour to introduce a special code to combat antisemitism. The Party I lead will continue to oppose not just antisemitism but ALL forms of racism and, notably in the current climate, Islamaphobia. Moreover we remain committed as a matter of urgency to correct the terrible wrongs still being metred out to the Windrush generation.
The referendum on exiting the EU should never have been held in the form of a simplistic ‘IN-OUT’ choice. I campaigned and voted for Remain, in the process giving more public speeches than any other political leader, though many went unreported. But the vote was to leave and we have respected that.
What Labour has always contested in the House of Commons is leaving the EU with a bad deal, let alone ‘no deal’. But for a handful of rebel MPs, we might well recently have triggered a general election, which would have allowed for a more informed contest of ideas on the EU and many other matters. I have been holding promising talks with European leaders and, as befits such a complex issue, Labour has a nuanced stance on the EU. We have not ruled out a second referendum, and I understand why many of our supporters want us to commit to this now. We understand and are sympathetic, not least because it is becoming clearer week by week that the Leave campaign was seriously corrupted. But we must face up to two constraints. The first is that we have yet to win back many former Labour voters in the Midlands and the North who felt neglected and lost confidence in us during the New Labour years and voted for Brexit as a result: committing prematurely to a second referendum could cost us the next election. That’s the harsh reality we have to take into account. Secondly, it is likely that a second referendum. would fuel and deepen social divisions in the wider society. The rise of proto-fascist groups throughout Europe, and the potential threat they could pose to our way of life, must not be under-estimated.
I recognise that we are being herded towards the cliff edge by a riven and incompetent Tory regime. Let’s force them to account. Let’s trigger a general election with all cards on the table. Let’s earn a positive mandate for change.
We in Labour have reason to believe that a reconciliation with the EU is desirable and possible, allowing for both continuing close and mutually beneficial relations AND freedom for Labour to implement its far-ranging policies to transform British society in the interests of ‘the many’ not ‘the few’. Kier Starmer has spelled out our position, our ‘red lines’, for any deal. Any deal MUST satisfy the following ‘tests’:
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the ‘exact same benefits’ as we currently have as member of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
These are more stringent requirements than many of those who understandably follow politics ‘at a distance’, and rely on the mainstream media, will be familiar with.
I might perhaps add a personal note. It is often said that when push comes to shove I would prefer leaving the EU to remaining in it. This is wrong: I campaigned and voted to Remain. Nobody on either side of this debate would argue, however, that the EU ‘as is’ is a perfect set of institutions. This is why we fought our campaign on ‘Remain and Reform’. If – when – elected to office, Labour will negotiate a deal that not only satisfies the six tests I have outlined, but frees us up to change British society for the better.
For us a general election cannot come soon enough. We have been working on a tranche of across-the-board policies since the publication of our previous manifesto. We are holding out the prospect of a more creative and just society where resources are pooled and where wealth, income and opportunity no longer reside solely with the privileged few, the very few. This is not the occasion to anticipate our next manifesto, though I believe it will announce a very different society in which people live and work together: a society ‘for the many’, a strong but compassionate society in which the carer not the investment banker is a role model.