Lord Ahmed accused of blaming Jewish media owners for his prison sentence

Labour suspends peer after he is alleged to have blamed Jews "who own newspapers and TV channels" for his conviction for dangerous driving.

 

Update 2: Ed Miliband has now responded to the story. Interviewed by ITV News, he said: "The comments reported by Lord Ahmed are disgraceful comments, there's no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and frankly anybody who makes those kind of comments cannot be a Labour lord or a Labour member of parliament." 

That last point ("a Labour member of parliament") could be read as a reference to the Lib Dems' handling of David Ward. Ward accused "the Jews" of "inflicting atrocities on Palestinians … on a daily basis" but was not suspended from the party. 

Update: Labour has now suspended Ahmed pending an investigation. A party spokesman said: "The Labour Party deplores and does not tolerate any sort of racism or anti-semitism. Following reports in the Times today we are suspending Lord Ahmed pending an investigation."

At the time of writing, Lord Ahmed is still a Labour peer but, if today's reports are accurate, it is hard to see him remaining one. The Times writes that Ahmed blamed his prison sentence for dangerous driving on pressure placed on the courts by Jews "who own newspapers and TV channels". He said: 

My case became more critical because I went to Gaza to support Palestinians. My Jewish friends who own newspapers and TV channels opposed this. 

Ahmed is also accused of claiming that the judge who jailed him for 12 weeks was appointed to the High Court after helping a "Jewish colleague" of Tony Blair's during an "important case". The quotes are taken from an Urdu-language TV interview Ahmed gave in Pakistan in April last year. The peer, who was ennobled by Blair in 1998, has said that he has "no recollection" of giving the interview. "I've done a lot of interviews. If you're saying that you have seen this footage then it may be so but I need to see the footage and I need to consult with my solicitors before I make any comments in relation to this

Labour has responded to the story by stating that it "deplores and does not tolerate any sort of racism or anti-Semitism" and that "it will be seeking to clarify these remarks as soon as possible". It previously suspended Ahmed from the party after he was alleged to have offered a £10m bounty for the capture of Barack Obama and George Bush. It later revoked the suspension after the peer's actual comments emerged. He said: "Even if I have to beg I am willing to raise and offer £10m so that George W Bush and Tony Blair can be brought to the International Court of Justice on war crimes charges".

It is notable that Ahmed has denied the latest allegations less vociferously than on that occasion. In response to the "bounty" claims, he said that he was "shocked and horrified that this whole story could be just made up of lies". With Ed Miliband already under pressure to withdraw the whip from Ahmed, the party is likely to act swiftly to establish the facts. 

 

Labour peer Lord Ahmed, who became Britain's first male Muslim peer when he was ennobled by Tony Blair in 1998.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Stoke-on-Trent?

Labour are the favourites, but they could fall victim to a shock in the Midlands constituency.  

The resignation of Tristram Hunt as MP for Stoke-on-Central has triggered a by-election in the safe Labour seat of Stoke on Trent Central. That had Westminster speculating about the possibility of a victory for Ukip, which only intensified once Paul Nuttall, the party’s leader, was installed as the candidate.

If Nuttall’s message that the Labour Party has lost touch with its small-town and post-industrial heartlands is going to pay dividends at the ballot box, there can hardly be a better set of circumstances than this: the sitting MP has quit to take up a well-paid job in London, and although  the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs voted to block Brexit, the well-advertised divisions in that party over the vote should help Ukip.

But Labour started with a solid lead – it is always more useful to talk about percentages, not raw vote totals – of 16 points in 2015, with the two parties of the right effectively tied in second and third place. Just 33 votes separated Ukip in second from the third-placed Conservatives.

There was a possible – but narrow – path to victory for Ukip that involved swallowing up the Conservative vote, while Labour shed votes in three directions: to the Liberal Democrats, to Ukip, and to abstention.

But as I wrote at the start of the contest, Ukip were, in my view, overwritten in their chances of winning the seat. We talk a lot about Labour’s problem appealing to “aspirational” voters in Westminster, but less covered, and equally important, is Ukip’s aspiration problem.

For some people, a vote for Ukip is effectively a declaration that you live in a dump. You can have an interesting debate about whether it was particularly sympathetic of Ken Clarke to brand that party’s voters as “elderly male people who have had disappointing lives”, but that view is not just confined to pro-European Conservatives. A great number of people, in Stoke and elsewhere, who are sympathetic to Ukip’s positions on immigration, international development and the European Union also think that voting Ukip is for losers.

That always made making inroads into the Conservative vote harder than it looks. At the risk of looking very, very foolish in six days time, I found it difficult to imagine why Tory voters in Hanley would take the risk of voting Ukip. As I wrote when Nuttall announced his candidacy, the Conservatives were, in my view, a bigger threat to Labour than Ukip.

Under Theresa May, almost every move the party has made has been designed around making inroads into the Ukip vote and that part of the Labour vote that is sympathetic to Ukip. If the polls are to be believed, she’s succeeding nationally, though even on current polling, the Conservatives wouldn’t have enough to take Stoke on Trent Central.

Now Theresa May has made a visit to the constituency. Well, seeing as the government has a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, it’s not as if the Prime Minister needs to find time to visit the seat, particularly when there is another, easier battle down the road in the shape of the West Midlands mayoral election.

But one thing is certain: the Conservatives wouldn’t be sending May down if they thought that they were going to do worse than they did in 2015.

Parties can be wrong of course. The Conservatives knew that they had found a vulnerable spot in the last election as far as a Labour deal with the SNP was concerned. They thought that vulnerable spot was worth 15 to 20 seats. They gained 27 from the Liberal Democrats and a further eight from Labour.  Labour knew they would underperform public expectations and thought they’d end up with around 260 to 280 seats. They ended up with 232.

Nevertheless, Theresa May wouldn’t be coming down to Stoke if CCHQ thought that four days later, her party was going to finish fourth. And if the Conservatives don’t collapse, anyone betting on Ukip is liable to lose their shirt. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.