Ed Miliband has condemned Israel's actions in Gaza. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ed Miliband: "We oppose the Israeli incursion into Gaza"

The Labour leader says his party opposes Israel's ground invasion of Gaza.

We've all seen pictures of Ed Miliband perching timorously at the top table with Barack Obama, but something more significant has come out of his trip to Washington. The Huffington Post is reporting that he has come out on behalf of his party against Israel's ground invasion of Gaza.

"We oppose the Israeli incursion into Gaza," he said.

The situation in Gaza was one of the subjects he discussed during his brief meeting with the US President and National Security adviser Susan Rice at the White House yesterday.

He added: "I don't think it will help win Israel friends... I don't think this will make the situation better. I fear it will make it worse."

Miliband had already expressed concern over the weekend about Israel's actions, condemning the "horrifying deaths of hundreds of Palestinians" although adding, "I defend Israel's right to defend itself against rocket attacks." He opposed the "further escalation of violence", but his comments in Washington are the first time he has outright opposed Israel's methods.

Firming up his stance on this is a significant move, because he has hitherto been quite ambivelant and unclear about his attitude towards Israel, and even when referring to his own Jewish heritage.

For example, last year he caused much confusion by reportedly declaring himself a "Zionist" before his office hastily said his comments were "misinterpreted" and tried to distance Miliband from the story, insisting he hadn't called himself a Zionist. This led to Telegraph blogger Dan Hodges writing a piece with the headline, "Ed Miliband's Zionism lasted less than 24 hours. But he's made it clear he is a friend of Israel, and that's enough", and, as reported in the Jewish Chronicle at the time, Miliband's office did assert that the Labour leader had "made absolutely clear that he is a strong supporter of Israel".

Also, earlier this year, he visited Israel and met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a trip during which he made the widely-reported comment: "I hope that I’ll be the first Jewish prime minister". This showed a disregard for history (Benjamin Disraeli came from a Jewish background, although converted to Christianity before becoming PM), and also jarred slightly with his public assertions that he is an atheist.

He addressed this ambivalence himself in a piece in the New Statesman a couple of years ago: "I am not religious. But I am Jewish. My relationship with my Jewishness is complex. But whose isn’t?"

Miliband's latest comments about Israel ring with a conviction that has evaded him so far on the subject, and are also a rather brave move considering his own personal attempts to define his Jewish identity and relationship with Israel.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Tory right-wingers are furious about Big Ben – but it’s their time that’s running out

They could take both Corbyn and the present moment seriously. Instead, they are arguing about a clock.

Jeremy Corbyn, it is often said, wants to take Britain back to the 1970s.

The insult is halfway to an insight. It’s true that the Labour leader and his inner circle regard British economic policy since the late 1970s as an extended disaster that led to the election of Donald Trump and the vote to leave the European Union: a “failed experiment”, as Andrew Fisher, Corbyn’s influential policy chief, puts it in his 2014 book of the same name.

The Labour leader views the 1970s not as a blighted decade waiting for a saviour, but as a time when trade unions still had teeth, privatisation was not treated as a panacea and inequality was lower.

Theresa May doesn’t see the past four decades in quite the same light, but she does believe that the Brexit vote was, in part, the destabilising consequence of an economic settlement that has left too many people in Britain without a stake in society. This means, for now at least, an ideology that was until recently a consensus has no defenders at the top of either party.

May’s successor might conceivably be an unrepentant cheerleader for free markets and the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, but as things stand, whoever replaces May faces an uphill battle to be anything other than a brief pause before Corbyn takes over. Because of the sputtering British economy and the prospect of a severe downturn after Brexit – coupled with the Labour leader’s rising personal ratings – it is the opposition that has momentum on its side, in both senses of the word.

All of which might, you would expect, trigger panic among members of the Conservative right. Neoliberalism is their experiment, after all, the great legacy of their beloved Margaret Thatcher. Yet while there are a few ministers and backbenchers, particularly from the 2010 intake, who grasp the scale of the threat that Corbynism poses to their favoured form of capitalism, they are outnumbered by the unaware.

For the most part, the average Tory believes, in essence, that the 2017 election was a blip and that the same approach with a more persuasive centre-forward will restore the Conservative majority and put Corbyn back in his box next time round. There are some MPs who are angry that Nick Timothy, May’s former aide, has waltzed straight from the 2017 disaster to a column in the Daily Telegraph. That the column is titled “Ideas to Win” only adds to the rage. But most generally agree with his diagnosis that the party will do better at the next election than at the last, almost by default.

And it’s not that the Conservative right isn’t panicked by anything, as a result of some state of advanced Zen calm: many are exercised by the silence of Big Ben during its scheduled four years of repairs.

Yet you don’t even have to go as far back as 1970 for a period of silence from Elizabeth Tower. The bongs stopped ringing for planned maintenance in 2007 and for two years from 1983 to 1985, and the Great Clock stopped unexpectedly in 1976. What distinguishes this period of renovation from its predecessors is not its length but the hysteria it has generated, among both the right-wing press and the Conservative right. The Brexit Secretary, David Davis, described letting the bells go quiet as “mad”, while James Gray, a Conservative backbencher, went further, dubbing the repairs “bonkers”.

The reason why the bongs must be stilled is that they risk deafening and endangering the workers repairing the bell. Working around them would further extend the maintenance period, potentially silencing the clock for ever. The real divide isn’t between people who are happy for the bell to fall silent and those who want to keep it ringing, but between politicians who want to repair and preserve the bell and those who risk its future by squabbling over a four-year silence. There may well be “mad” behaviour on display, but it certainly isn’t coming from the repairmen.

The row is a microcosm of the wider battle over parliament’s renovation. The estate badly needs urgent repairs to make it fire-safe and vermin-free – in the past year, the authorities have had to spend in excess of £100,000 on pest control, with bed bugs the latest pest to make a home at Westminster. If it isn’t made safe, it could burn down.

The cheapest and most secure option for MPs is to decamp down the road to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, just a few minutes’ walk from parliament. But the current delay, facilitated by Theresa May, increases the cost of repairs. The Prime Minister has also weighed in on the row over Big Ben, telling reporters that it “cannot be right” for the bell to go quiet. Westminster’s traditionalists, largely drawn from the Conservative right, talk up the importance of preserving the institution but their foot-dragging endangers the institution they want to protect. As for May, her interventions in both cases speak to one of her biggest flaws: while she is not an idiot, she is altogether too willing to say idiotic things in order to pander to her party’s rightmost flank. That same deference to the Tory right caused her to shred or water down her attempts to rejig the British economic model, ceding that ground to Corbyn.

A Labour victory at the next election isn’t written in stone. The winds blowing in the opposition’s favour are all very much in the control of the government. The Conservatives could embark on a programme of extensive housebuilding, or step in to get wages growing again or to turn around Britain’s low productivity. Philip Hammond could use his next Budget to ease the cuts to public spending. They could, in short, either declare that the experiment hasn’t failed and vigorously defend it, or write off their old project and create another one. They could take both Corbyn and the present moment seriously. Instead, they are arguing about a clock, oblivious to the reality that their time is running out. 

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

This article first appeared in the 24 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Sunni vs Shia