In our previous blog we pointed out some discrepancies between the performance of the Sunak administration and the claims made by Mr Sunak at his party conference.
We pointed out what we thought were significant gaps between claims and performance.
The voters in the bye elections in Mid Beds and Tamworth seemed to share our view. Both formerly rock solid Tory seats were lost to the Labour Party.
The antics of Crispin Blunt have hammered another nail into the Tory coffin.
These losses cannot have strengthened the position of Mr Sunak as he seeks to persuade various countries in the Middle East to maintain support for Israel.
Holdenforth had planned, in the interests of fairness, to carry out a similar check on the Labour Party as it prepares for the next general election.
This has turned out to be a difficult assignment.
Why so?
It appears to us that the key core central policy of the Labour Party in the current political climate is to obtain the keys of No 10 – all other considerations have been jettisoned to secure this objective.
The approach of the Labour Party appears to have been based on the tactics used by the boxer, Mohamed Ali – “I will float like a butterfly and sting like a bee”.
This approach will be greatly assisted by the fact that its Tory opponent is already on the canvas and out for the count.
Are there any weaknesses in the Starmer policy?
A few. Here goes.
The unanimity across the UK in support of Israel is starting to fray at the edges as Palestinian voices within the Labour Party appear to be growing louder. My guess is that Starmer will argue that this is a tribute to the diverse spread of opinion in the UK, a state of affairs long championed by the Labour Party.
In some areas of the UK – notably in the devolved parts – policies are being introduced which have not been welcomed even in the devolved areas. In my devolved area, Wales, one policy has been met with a mixture of derision and disobedience – that of the 20mph speed limit. Holdenforth aka John Holden is quite relaxed on this issue. The only journey currently in our plans is from home to the local crematorium – we are sure that the hearse driver will be happy to comply with the 20 mph limit.
In some Labour controlled local authorities, those in charge tried to introduce a policy of allowing employees to work – a doubtfully accurate term in this context – a four-day week whilst retaining their five-day rewards packages. The Labour Party apparatchiks have nipped this loony left nonsense in the bud.
A spot of plagiarism. Eagle eyed readers have spotted a few infringements by Rachel Reeves of the time-honoured guidelines regarding plagiarism. Her apologists will plausibly argue that RR was in such a hurry to get so many things done in the twin causes of Starmerism and Feminism that one or two errors crept in. Holdenforth fully accepts that these errors fade into complete insignificance when contrasted with the lamentable failures of Mr Sunak and his administration.
Abuse of parliamentary privilege. Nigel Farage has rightly complained that Sir Chris Bryant lied in the Commons alleging under the protection of parliamentary privilege that he, Farage, had been paid by The Russians for services rendered. Labour could be on shaky ground here. Holdenforth understands that Bryant has episodes on his CV would not look good when the inquisitive media trawl the files in search of material to dredge up. People in glass houses should not throw stones, especially when serving on committees set up to scrutinise standards in public life.
The transgender issue. Holdenforth understands that there are influential voices in the Labour Party that are raucous in support of those seeking to argue for choice in the delicate matter of gender. This contentious issue continues to feature in the media and the debate continues to generate more heat than light. The Holdenforth stance – based on a Keep it Simple approach – has been consistent from the outset: “If my aunt had bollocks, she would be my uncle but she doesn’t and she isn’t”. We suggest a quick and simple test to establish who is what – those with balls are male. What they would like to be is a different matter – most of us would like to have been dealt a better hand by mother nature but that is a different matter. We would also point out that a core tenet of American Foreign Policy is-”When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow“ – but we are drifting from our theme.
Summary so far – game, set and match to Starmer.
What are the silent majority thinking?
A persuasive voice has been heard lately suggesting that the two big parties ignore at their peril those who hold opinions out of step with the proclaimed views of the big two.
They pose the question -What are the people REALLY thinking?
Matthew Goodwin has secured a platform to answer this question by the simple time-honoured technique of sampling. His findings might – just might – provide uncomfortable reading for the movers and shakers.
A number of issues have emerged under this heading.
They include:
- Immigration
- Gender
- Care arrangements for the elderly
- Net zero policies
- Anti motorist policies
The silent majority are all too ready to answer questions on these matters. It could be that the perceived gap between leaders and led will attract the interest of embryo politicians who believe that they have identified a gap in the market for power.
There is still time for those avid for influence to seize the moment.
IF substantial numbers of voters dislike the polices of both parties, how can they express their views.
Watch this space.
So: might Starmer be in some difficulties as election day looms?
Senior managers employed by HMRC are said to be clear on the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion – and to be adept on cracking down on tax evasion.
Holdenforth suspects that the formidable Laura Kuensberg will pin down Starmer on the distinction between policy avoidance and policy evasion.
She will home in on Starmer should he attempt to duck and weave on policy evasion.
“It’s a perfectly straightforward question Sir Keir. Please give viewers a clear answer.”
How does Holdenforth intend to vote?
I will vote Labour. My local MP is a jewel in the rather battered crown of the UK Labour Party.
I give you – Nick Thomas Symonds.
Middle Eastern Matters
Where does Holdenforth stand on the most worrying issue of today – the conflict between Israel and Palestine – or, or many refer to it – the conflict between Israel and Hamas?
As I write the media – official and social – are replete with details of the atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists in Israel.
For its part Israel has vowed to inflict retribution on those responsible.
Holdenforth opted to glance back at the origins of the conflict.
The Balfour Declaration issued in November, 1917
In Year 2 of the first world war – 1915 – Lloyd George, in his capacity as Minister of Munitions, was concerned about the acute shortage of explosives.
He contacted Professor Weizmann, an accomplished chemist, to explain the problem to him and to seek his help. Professor Weizmann quickly solved the problem and his achievement was a most important contribution to the British war effort.
Lloyd George asked him how he, Lloyd George, might reward Weizmann for his work.
To quote Lloyd George – “Weizmann explained his aspirations as to the repatriation of the Jews to the sacred land they had made famous. When I became Prime Minister – in December, 1916, I talked the matter over with Mr Balfour – the outcome was the famous Balfour declaration in 1917.”
This declaration read:-
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
During the next 28 years the collective mind of the Jewish Diaspora was understandably pre-occupied with the murderous activities of Hitler in pursuit of his final solution of the Jewish problem.
The Years 1945 to 1948 in Palestine
In post war Palestine the British Government attempted to maintain peace between Jewish immigrants and existing Palestinian communities. This was not an easy task and the UK sought to relinquish the mandate.
One feature of this phase was the emergence of Irgun, a Zionist group roughly equivalent to Hamas in Gaza today.
In the years from the end of WW2 to 1948 Irgun proved to be masters in using terror to secure their aims. Given the scale and severity of the terror the British Government of Mr Atlee wished to be relieved of the mandate.
The Irgun Group wrote the textbook for terrorism that has been imitated around the world to this day.
It is ironic that the “terror” tactics employed by Hamas are taken out of the Irgun textbook.
One terrorist activity of Irgun was to place a bomb in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in the summer of 1946.This hotel housed the British Secretariat and Army HQ and almost 100 people were killed.
The public comments of senior British politicians about this appalling act of terrorism could serve as a template for the terms used to describe Hamas today.
The universal hostile references in the UK – including the comments of the then Prime Minister, Mr Attlee, to the terrorist activities of Irgun can be accessed on the internet.
The State of Israel was established in the summer of 1948.
Post 1948
Events in Palestine since 1948 have seen years of the steady expansion of Israel at the expense of Palestine and others.
Israel continues to occupy and even extend illegal settlements, a point noted in the last 48 hours by Mr Guterres, the Secretary General of the UN despite the opposition of the United Nations.
“All the devouring and insatiate Monsters imagined since imagination could record itself are fused in the one realisation, Guillotine. And yet there is not in France, with its rich variety of soil and climate, a blade, a leaf, a root, a sprig, a pepper corn which will grow to maturity under conditions more certain than those that have produced this horror. Crush humanity out of shape once more and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again and it will surely the same fruit according to its kind.”
From “ A Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens
In the above extract Dickens was making the simple point that the horrors of the French Revolution arose from the suppression of the people by the ruling class in previous years.
- Thus the French Revolution
- Thus the emergence of Hamas
The terms and conditions of the Balfour declaration have drifted a little down the years away from Palestinian claims and in favour of Jewish claims.
Lloyd George was rather too ready to cede land that was not the property of the UK to dispose of.
“All Propaganda is Lies”
George Orwell
Holdenforth goes along with Orwell on this view but it would be interesting to see the details of Palestinians killed as against the number of Israelis killed in the various conflicts in and around Israel since 1948.
Our suspicion is that fatalities on the Palestinian side significantly outnumber those on the Israeli side.
What might happen next?
“It is now by now a commonplace of history that Bevin (Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government from 1945 to 1950), brought the State of Israel into being very much as Lord North and George the 3rd founded the United States.
From “The Power of Ideas by Isaiah Berlin.
Two shaky assertions from a normally calm and lucid eminent historian.
It is not easy to predict a civilised lasting settlement to this frightening conflict, the origins of which go back into the mists of time.
For our part we hope for the best but we fear the worst.
Notes by the Editor
While Holdenforth has sought to focus on the origins of the conflict (which others might argue dates back to 733BC when King Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria turfed the Jews out of Samaria), Holdenforth’s editor would like to address two pertinent contemporary questions.
Firstly, why now? And secondly, what is Hamas’ endgame? It strikes me that an October 11 article by Joe Macaron neatly encapsulated the multiple answers to the first question, namely that, firstly, additional land-grabs by settlers in the West Bank, encouraged by Netanyahu’s far-right government; secondly, the recent normalisation of Arab-Israeli relationships, and in particular the détente between Tel Aviv and Riyadh; and, critically, greater warmth between Hamas and Iran. While the first point will be used by Hamas as justification for its action, the second and third points are perhaps more salient here. Given that Hamas’ raison d’etre is the annihilation of Israel (and, it can be argued given the wording of its founding charter, of all Jews), Middle Eastern stability involving that state is anathema.
This leads us to the answer to the second question. In performing the most devastating massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Hamas would have clearly understood what the consequences would have been to Palestinians living in Gaza: its objective was to provoke a regional conflagration, destabilise the fragile tolerance between Israel and its neighbours (and, post-Netanyahu, scotch the potential of a viable two-state solution coming about) and, as a corollary, inflame intra-nation conflicts between Jews and Muslims elsewhere in the world. This much has been recognised by the Biden administration (and, it must be said, by several other Western governments including those of Germany and the UK), which have in public smothered Israel in love while privately seeking, somehow, to stop the dreadful situation spiralling out of control. Hence the measured calls for pauses in conflict rather than ceasefires, which Israel will (a) never agree to given that, they argue, it will provide an opportunity for Hamas to regroup and rearm and (b) may exacerbate a siege mentality and lead it to proceed with even more terrible effect, making that regional conflict far more likely. Let me repeat: no matter how many letters Miriam Margoyles and Michael Rosen sign, calling for a ceasefire, it will make not one positive contribution to the outcome, although it might give them a warm feeling inside.
Meanwhile, we also have that third answer to Question One tied up in all this. Behind Hamas, Hezbollah and an assortment of other disparate Shia militant organisations lurks the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing them with funding of the order of $700 million per annum. While it was not behind the October 7 attacks (or even knew about their precise timing), then it certainly contributed to Hamas’ capabilities, both directly (it has transferred artillery rockets to Palestinian groups) and indirectly, via finances and expertise. Iran shares Hamas’ goal of destabilising Arab-Israeli relations, and Iran is more than happy to enable proxies to achieve that goal.
Like Holdenforth, we fear for the worst in this.
Holden Forth 