PMQs review: an end-of-term triumph for Miliband

The Labour leader is growing in confidence as Cameron's woes multiply.

Perhaps the only consolation that David Cameron can draw from today's PMQs is that he won't have to do it again for seven weeks. It is hard to recall a more confident performance from Ed Miliband or a more faltering one from Cameron. 

If Cameron thinks that the solution to his woes is to revive the "Red Ed" jibe, he's in even more trouble than we thought. That was the put-down that he fell back on after Miliband quipped: "the redder he gets, the less he convinces people". When the Labour leader referred to the PM's altercation with Conservative MP Jesse Norman, Cameron denounced him for recycling "tittle tattle" and "half-baked gossip" (note that he did not deny the encounter). But it was Cameron who came unstuck when Miliband turned to two issues of substance: the double-dip recession "made in Downing Street" and the "millionaires' tax cut". Cameron has still not found a convincing way to rebut the charge that he "makes the wrong choices and stands up for the wrong people". His tactic of blaming "the mess" left by the last Labour government ("we will never forget what we were left by the party opposite," he said) may have worked in the early days of the coalition but it is subject to ever-diminishing returns. Most voters view it as an evasive attempt to shift the blame for Britain's economic woes.

Cameron's strongest line was his declaration that "we back the workers, they back the shirkers". As the polls indicate, the benefits caps is (lamentably) the most popular coalition policy. But the problem for Cameron is that he has failed to live up to the first part of this injunction. He has raised VAT and cut tax credits for the working poor, while handing a £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires. Back in January, when Miliband's leadership was at its lowest ebb, almost no one would have forecast that he, not Cameron, would end the session in a position of strength. That he has done is reflective not only of his improved performance but of the series of disastrous blunders Cameron has made.

Ed Miliband said of Cameron: "the redder he gets, the less he convinces people". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

France’s burkini ban could not come at a worse time

Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

Since mayor of Cannes David Lisnard banned the full-body burkini from his town’s beaches, as many as 15 French resorts have followed suit. Arguments defending the bans fall into three main categories. First, it is about defending the French state’s secularism (laïcité). Second, that the costume represents a misogynistic doctrine that sees female bodies as shameful. And finally, that the burkini is cited as a threat to public order.

None of these arguments satisfactorily refute the claims of civil rights activists that the bans are fundamentally Islamophobic.

The niceties of laïcité

The Cannes decree explicitly invokes secular values. It prohibits anyone “not dressed in a fashion respectful of laïcité” from accessing public beaches. However, the French state has only banned “ostentatious” religious symbols in schools and for government employees as part of laïcité (the strict separation between the state and religious society). And in public spaces, laïcité claims to respect religious plurality. Indeed, the Laïcité Commission has tweeted that the ban, therefore, “cannot be based upon the principle of laïcité”.

While veils covering the entire face such as the burqa or niqab are illegal, this is not to protect laïcité; it is a security matter. The legal justification is that these clothes make it impossible to identify the person underneath – which is not the case for the burkini.

 

By falling back on laïcité to police Muslim women in this way, the Cannes authorities are fuelling the argument that “fundamentalist secularism” has become a means of excluding Muslims from French society.

Colonial attitudes

Others, such as Laurence Rossignol, the minister for women’s rights, hold that the burkini represents a “profoundly archaic view of a woman’s place in society”, disregarding Muslim women who claim to wear their burkini voluntarily.

This typifies an enduring colonial attitude among many non-Muslim French politicians, who feel entitled to dictate to Muslim women what is in their best interests. Rossignol has in the past compared women who wear headscarves through choice to American “negroes” who supported slavery.

Far from supporting women’s rights, banning the burkini will only leave the women who wear it feeling persecuted. Even those with no choice in the matter are not helped by the ban. This legal measure does nothing to challenge patriarchal authority over female bodies in the home. Instead, it further restricts the lives of veiled women by replacing it with state authority in public.

Open Islamophobia

Supporters of the ban have also claimed that, with racial tensions high after recent terrorist attacks, it is provocative to wear this form of Muslim clothing. Such an argument was made by Pierre-Ange Vivoni, mayor of Sisco in Corsica, when he banned the burkini in his commune. Early reports suggested a violent clash between local residents and non-locals of Moroccan origin was triggered when strangers photographed a burkini-wearing woman in the latter group, which angered her male companions. Vivoni claimed that banning the costume protected the security of local people, including those of North African descent.

Those reports have transpired to be false: none of the women in question were even wearing a burkini at the time of the incident. Nonetheless, the ban has stood in Sisco and elsewhere.

To be “provoked” by the burkini is to be provoked by the visibility of Muslims. Banning it on this basis punishes Muslim women for other people’s prejudice. It also disregards the burkini’s potential to promote social cohesion by giving veiled women access to the same spaces as their non-Muslim compatriots.

Appeals to public order have, occasionally, been openly Islamophobic. Thierry Migoule, head of municipal services in Cannes, claimed that the burkini “refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements”, conveniently ignoring the Muslim victims of recent attacks. Barely a month after Muslims paying their respects to friends and family killed in Nice were racially abused, such comments are both distasteful and irresponsible.

Increased divisions

Feiza Ben Mohammed, spokesperson for the Federation of Southern Muslims, fears that stigmatising Muslims in this way will play into the hands of IS recruiters. That fear seems well-founded: researchers cite a sense of exclusion as a factor behind the radicalisation of a minority of French Muslims. Measures like this can only exacerbate that problem. Indeed, provoking repressive measures against European Muslims to cultivate such a sentiment is part of the IS strategy.

Meanwhile, the day after the incident in Sisco, riot police were needed in nearby Bastia to prevent a 200-strong crowd chanting “this is our home” from entering a neighbourhood with many residents of North African descent. Given the recent warning from France’s head of internal security of the risk of a confrontation between “the extreme right and the Muslim world”, such scenes are equally concerning.

Now more than ever, France needs unity. Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

The Conversation

Fraser McQueen, PhD Candidate, University of Stirling

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.