Does anyone really think the reaction would just have been a shrug of the shoulders and a feeling that we should consider their grievances? There would, rightly, have been outrage
July 19, 2024 09:10
Let’s try a thought experiment. It’s a pretty outrageous and unrealistic one, but bear with me.
Imagine that there was a group called The Jewish Vote, which backed various independent candidates at the last election. They said that British politics needed to focus on the demands of Jews, and that Jewish interests – which were more important than any other community’s – were not sufficiently paid heed to by mainstream politicians. They demanded that all criticism of Judaism and Israel should be banned by law.
Some of their supporters chanted a slogan, “From the river to the sea, Israel will be free”, which meant that the very notion of Palestine (including the Palestinian Authority and any proposed Palestinian state) was illegitimate.
Worse, evidence had emerged that some of their supporters had harassed MPs, candidates and activists, following them around with megaphones, screaming at them, then posting videos of this intimidation on social media. Some supporters were also said to have slashed the tyres of Labour and Conservative candidates and supporters.
This is, of course, a thought experiment and, as I say, it’s an outrageous one. It is inconceivable such a campaign would exist. But I nonetheless think it’s a worthwhile exercise.
So imagine all the above. Here’s my question: do you think the response from the body politic would be just a shrug of the shoulders, pointing out that every community has its share of hotheads, and that instead of condemning them we should stop and think about why they are behaving like this? That, maybe, they have some legitimate points and grievances that we need to consider?
Yeah, right.
Even to ask the question is to see how ridiculous it is. Rather, there would, quite rightly, be universal condemnation, with demands that those responsible for the intimidation be punished through the criminal law be and that the candidates they support condemn the behaviour.
A message, it would be said, needs to be sent that our democracy will not put up with such intimidation and that such views have no place in our politics. Anyone who even hinted at support would be ostracised.
I think you already know the point I am making. Exchange the word “Muslim” for “Jewish” and replace “Israel” with “Palestine”. The notion that views pushed by those Muslims whose aim is for politics to be a sectarian battle should be placed at the forefront of the national debate (with demands that go far wider than British policy towards Israel and Gaza, and include such things as a ban on so-called Islamophobia and changing Ofcom’s rules to prevent “Islamophobic” views from being broadcast) is now gaining electoral support. Its proponents have just secured four seats in the Commons and came very close in other constituencies, nearly toppling Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood, now cabinet ministers.
Yet there has been near-total silence, other than from those who say their campaigns were directly affected by intimidation, such as Jonathan Ashworth, who lost his Leicester seat to one of the independents and has since spoken at length about what happened to him.
Two of the fundamental issues raised by the success of The Muslim Vote should now be among the main focuses of politics. First, that a group which is pushing sectarian voting has not only been unprecedentedly successful but is already building for the future, determined to turn the Muslim vote into a decisive factor in politics. And second, that evidence has been brought to light, not least by Jess Phillips and Mahmood in their victory speeches, that some supporters of these independent candidates engaged in intimidatory behaviour.
I am not suggesting that the candidates themselves condoned this, but we urgently need investigations by the police into any possible criminal activity by others, and by the Electoral Commission into how intimidatory behaviour appears to have become normalised in election campaigning.
The Muslim vote has always mattered, but until now it has not split away from the mainstream to support candidates using divisive campaigns to appeal almost entirely and only to Muslims. These independent candidates did, of course, have every right to have stand for election. That’s the point of democracy. But equally, it is perfectly right to point out why communal voting is a dangerous development and that the behaviour of some supporters is anathema to democracy.
It’s likely that July 4 was the high water mark for Labour support. The landslide hides how small the majorities were in many constituencies, secured on the basis of fractured or tactical voting. In that context, there are some salient and concerning facts. At the election, the Labour vote fell by more than 14 per cent in constituencies where the Muslim population is above 15 per cent. There are 37 constituencies with a Muslim population of more than 20 per cent, while another 73 seats have a Muslim population between 10 and 20 per cent.
It is surely more likely than not that Labour MPs with small majorities in such constituencies will tack to embrace the independents’ demands.
More than that, The Muslim Vote says on its site that its aim is to “punish MPs”. Given the intimidation seen so far, this is only going to get worse, and yet no one seems to give a damn. We have seen with the hate marches that when no action is taken by the forces of law and order, a message is sent that such behaviour is permitted, which itself ramps up the hatred on display. The lack of any response to electoral intimidation sends a similar message and will, surely, lead to a similar worsening.
A new government brings the opportunity for a new approach. The Tories were all mouth and no trousers, doing nothing of any real consequence to protect our democracy from such forces. Labour has every reason to be different. But so far there are no detectable signs.
