Good morning. Scotland has a new First Minister: the Scottish Parliament nominated John Swinney yesterday after the Greens abstained. Lorna Slater, co-leader of the Greens, said the SNP did not have “an automatic right to our votes”. “We need to see… what direction [Swinney] wants to take,” she said.
But today: how will Labour deal with voters angry about Gaza?
The criticism flung at Labour councillors who push the party to condemn the war in Gaza is that they should stick to bin collections, local parks and grass verges. Foreign policy, international law and the logistics of delivering humanitarian aid are not considered to sit within the purview of local councillors, or metro mayors. When the former first minister of Scotland, Humza Yousaf, pronounced on Britain’s policy on Gaza or requested Foreign Office briefings he was rebuffed. This, some Tories argued, is a power reserved for Westminster.
A version of this phenomenon has dogged Labour since the war erupted in October. Back then, the main opposition to Keir Starmer’s support for Israel came from councillors. Labour quickly lost Oxford City Council after eight councillors resigned to protest the leadership’s refusal to call for a ceasefire. Those who resigned were a combination of single-issue protesters and disgruntled Corbynites angry about the overall direction of the party. As one of them told me: “Why would we stay members of the party if we can’t possibly align ourselves morally with what they stand for?”
Today, the problem facing Labour is more prosaic and more dangerous: votes. The electoral cost of Starmer’s LBC interview in the days after the 7 October attack – when he said Israel had a right to turn off Gaza’s water supply – is mounting. The local elections show that Labour is on course for a landslide, but the success of pro-Palestine independents and Greens meant the party underperformed relative to the polls. As Ben writes in this excellent dissection of the results:
Instead of the 273 gains we projected, [Labour] could only amass 186 – nearly 100 off the forecast figure. Who filled in the gaps? The Greens and “the others”. The former outperformed our forecast by 22 seats, but independents and smaller parties (including George Galloway’s Workers Party of Britain) outperformed it by 86… Scores of independent gains blunted Labour’s advance. And, yes, they happened disproportionately in wards in the north and middle of England with large Muslim populations.
This helps explain why Labour’s new West Midlands mayor, Richard Parker, told Andrew’s LBC show yesterday that he would like to see an arms embargo placed on Israel. Shadow cabinet members I’ve spoken to this week are confident about the set of elections. Nevertheless, anger around the war in Gaza is not going away, at least until a ceasefire is reached, and even then there will be debate surrounding Gaza’s reconstruction.
The reality is that councillors are going beyond their brief to push the leadership on Gaza because that’s what (some of) their voters want. Parker beat Street by 0.3 percentage points. Akhmed Yakoob, the pro-Palestinian independent, won 11.7 per cent of the vote. These stats would have been in Parker’s mind when he called for an embargo last night.
Sadiq Khan once told me that he feared Labour could eventually lose London in the same way it lost the Red Wall. His point was that voters slip away in places where the party feels strongest. Labour is on course for government, but it’s worth noting that there are signs this process is happening with pro-Palestinian voters. And many in the party know it.
Follow the New Statesman Podcast on Apple Podcasts for all the latest political analysis:
Freddie’s picks
Read Rachel’s cover story. She goes inside the Tory party’s reaction to the local election results.
Excellent piece from John Gray that traces the SNP’s malaise to their embrace of hyper-liberalism.
“London is not Britain.” This is a good review from Jason of The Searchers, a new book from Andy Beckett about the radical left (Observer).
The assault on Rafah has begun
Monday 6 May was an extraordinary day in the Middle East, even by the region’s recent standards. The morning started with Israel dropping evacuation notices over Rafah, warning of an imminent invasion and telling civilians to leave the area. Terror immediately swept the town and its surrounding refugee camps due to the flying leaflets.
Desperate Palestinians used their social media accounts to plead for advice on what to do. Some families left Rafah, forming the same evacuation lines we have seen throughout this war, but now forced to leave the wounded behind and carrying no more than their small children on their shoulders. There were images of horse carts being pulled by teenage boys; the horses and donkeys died long ago. Al-Mawasi, to where they were instructed to head, is a desolate, tiny strip by the ocean, where food or aid are unlikely to reach.
By the afternoon, word arrived from Hamas that the group had agreed to a ceasefire proposal put forward by Egypt and Qatar. There were jubilant celebrations in the streets of Rafah; many Western observers felt an immediate sense of dread that those celebrating might soon have their hopes crushed. Within minutes after the announcement, Israeli authorities were leaking to the media that the deal Hamas agreed to was not acceptable to Israel. It was not just Palestinians in Rafah who were left to despair; the families of hostages still held by Hamas must have imagined their torment was finally coming to an end. There was some surprise from journalists online: it is uncommon for a terror group to appear as the constructive side in a negotiation.
Click through to the NS to read the rest, or MC subscribers can read in full in-email.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Morning Call to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.