They’re just “pro-Palestine”, lads.
To paraphrase @mishtal from years back, scratch the surface of any Western 🇵🇸 cause and you’ll reveal an unhealthy obsession with Jews.
The most extraordinary claim in John Rentoul’s article is not that Andy Burnham may one day challenge for the Labour leadership. It is the assertion that Sir Keir Starmer has effectively reconciled himself to defeat and is quietly preparing for the end of his premiership.
There is no evidence presented for such a conclusion beyond anonymous briefings, speculation and Westminster gossip. Indeed, it runs contrary to what many Labour members appear to believe.
The assumption underpinning the article is that support within parts of Westminster automatically translates into support across the wider Labour movement. That is a dangerous assumption to make. Labour leadership contests are not decided solely by MPs, journalists, advisers or political commentators. They are decided by the party itself.
Many grassroots members do not see Andy Burnham as the inevitable successor described by sections of the media. On the contrary, a growing number view the current manoeuvring as an attempt by elements of the left and far left to regain influence within a party that moved decisively away from that politics under Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership.
The irony is difficult to miss. Those same political traditions failed to convince the electorate when they had the opportunity to do so. Sir Keir Starmer, by contrast, led Labour to a landslide general election victory and secured a parliamentary majority larger than all of the opposition parties combined. Whatever criticisms may be made of his government, that electoral achievement remains a matter of fact rather than opinion.
What many members appear to be asking is a simple question. Why would a party abandon a leader who won a historic election victory and a government that is implementing its manifesto commitments in favour of a project built largely upon speculation, personality and aspiration?
The article also reveals a familiar problem within sections of the political media. Westminster has a tendency to mistake its own conversations for political reality. Journalists speak to MPs. MPs speak to journalists. Advisers speak to both. Before long, a narrative develops and begins to feed upon itself until conjecture is presented as inevitability.
Yet outside Westminster there are hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters and members who may see matters very differently. Many are less interested in leadership intrigue than in whether the government is delivering the programme upon which it was elected.
If there is one lesson from recent political history, it is that Westminster is often the last place to understand what the wider public and party memberships are actually thinking.
Perhaps Andy Burnham will become Labour leader one day. Perhaps he will not. But presenting his succession as inevitable, while portraying Sir Keir Starmer as a Prime Minister resigned to defeat, says more about the assumptions of political commentators than it does about the reality of the Labour Party today.
Farage could have been in Parliament today, doing his job, and ask any question he wanted of the Home Secretary about the tragic Henry Novak case.
Where was he?
Instead he hides behind pre-recorded rage-bait videos. Coward.