Category: politics

Trump – not fit for public office.

On the eve of the US Presidental, it is worth reflecting that this is now the third election where Donald Trump has been on the ballot. Initially dismissed as a joke candidate who would not make it past the primary, his brand of post-truth and divisive politics has dominated the last decade of US politics.

In the six years since I started this blog, I have written various posts about Trump’s politics and its negative influence on the world. These are listed below:

Genius Trump

Guns

Qasem Soleimani: murdered by the United States

Pandemics are no time for inward-looking nationalism

The US election – why sometimes voting for the lesser evil is right

Trump loses the Presidency, but Trumpism lives on

The ugly finale of the Trump Presidency

The US withdraws from Afghanistan and the inevitable happened

Democracy is on the Ballot – watershed US midterms this week

The 2022 midterms and what happens next in US politics

Trump is not, and never has been, fit for public office. Yet he remains a force to be reckoned with. He has never won the popular vote, and the majority of Americans, including many in ‘red’ states, oppose him. But to beat him, people need to vote……

The political centre has moved, someone should tell the strategists.

Originally posted on The Standard

Trust in politicians is at a record low. This is true for the UK during its General Election Campaign, with multiple surveys showing that most voters are dissatisfied with how the UK is governed. In Aotearoa, this depressing trend is also reported in polls. What is causing this trend?  Much of this is due to hubris and poor decisions by politicians. In part, however, outdated thinking and a failure to understand public opinion by the political establishment have caused this situation. Ironically, the tactics used to overcome this problem 30 years ago, are today perpetuating it.

30 years ago, we had Dot Matrix printers, Windows 95 and brick cell phones. Today we live in a world of AI, Tik Tok and 5G. While technology changes have been embraced, including in political campaigns, strategies and methods to connect with voters seem stuck in the MS-DOSS era.

Triangulation is a political strategy whereby a politician presents a position as being above or between the left and right sides (or “wings”) of a democratic political spectrum. In the 1990s Clinton used this tactic to successfully win “centrists” who had supported Reagan in the 1980s, as did Tony Blair’s New Labour Government. The economic reforms of Thatcher and Reagan were left in place, but with a more socially liberal agenda and more resources for health and education, though often in partnership with the private sector.

Whether it was right or wrong, it is entirely understandable in 1997 that Tony Blair’s new Labour had no appetite for increasing taxes, especially after losing the 1992 election after the Tories painted Labour as the high tax party. Or if we go further back, in the 1979 winter of discontent, where the streets were strewn with rubbish because of striking binmen, was the death knell for the Callaghan Labour Government. So again, rightly or wrongly, New Labour was cautious about giving too much power to the union movement.

Smarter minds have clocked that much has changed since 1997. Whereas in the 1990s free market reforms still enjoyed reasonable support, after the 2008 financial crisis, followed by years of government austerity policies, this is no longer the case. It was the equivalent of Y2K, except it actually did cause chaos.  

Following the pandemic, advocating small government, low taxation and bestowing the virtues of the market is now met with derision by all but the most hardened libertarians.

Sections of the UK media have grasped that society has changed, as have the more credible think tanks and forward-thinking academics. Many political strategists have missed the memo. Or they just have no idea how to adapt to modern politics. They continue to pitch to “the centre”, or at least to where “the centre” was 30 years ago.

Labour’s New Deal for Working People, billed as a “plan to make work pay, ensure security at work and provide the work-life balance everyone deserves”. The policy specifics are broadly similar to those introduced in the first term of Jacinda Ardern’s Labour-led Government in 2017; raising the minimum wage, banning zero-hours contracts, improving sick pay provisions and requiring employers to issue contracts which reflect actual hours worked with compensation for cancelled shifts. In a country where most people are poorer than they were at the last election, policies that lift people’s incomes are popular.

Days before the General Election was called, Conservative Home commentator Chris Hopkins argued that workers’ rights would be the wrong dividing line for the Conservatives to challenge Labour on. Chris argued that where previously the Conservatives could argue for flexibility and a lightly regulated workforce on the grounds that it would boost economic growth, now voters have “wised up” and that the “old political rules no longer apply”. He goes on to say:

Where the public may once have conceded workers’ rights for a perceived higher standard of living via growth and jobs, they have lost trust in the Conservatives as effective stewards of the UK economy.

Think of it like this. If your main job is now more precarious, your mortgage has significantly increased and you are working a second gig to make up for it, I’d imagine stopping ‘fire and rehire’ and having the ‘ability to switch off’ would look like a pretty good offer. And it would look good to Conservative supporters as much as anyone else.

Have the Conservative Party taken heed of this sound analysis? Conservative Business Secretary and future Tory leadership hopeful Kemi Badenoch has claimed “Labour’s new employment regulations are going to make it very hard to hire, strangling employment”. Despite 14 years of weak employment protections failing to stimulate the economy, Badenoch and her colleagues in government still think this is a strong dividing line with Labour.

She is not alone in this. Lord Peter Mandelson, Business Secretary in the Blair/Brown New Labour Government warned in March that Labour’s employment law changes must not be rushed or go further than “the settlement bequeathed by New Labour”. Mandleson was one of the architects of New Labour and has advised the current Labour leadership on strategy and policy. While the ‘Black Prince’ is undoubtedly a smart cookie, his fingers are not on the pulse of public opinion on this issue.

Sharon Graham, the General Secretary of Unite, the largest Labour Party-affiliated trade union in the UK has warned that Labour has watered down proposals to ban fire and rehire, and sectorial bargaining plans have been delayed. It is no surprise that the Unite leader wants to push Labour further, but in this case, what is being asked is quite modest. A union representing over 1.2 million workers in the UK, which is growing each year, should not be dismissed out of hand.

Another example of triangulation leading to poor policy positions is tax. The Conservative Party have made a key pitch of the 2024 campaign that Labour will increase taxes and they will cut them. Labour has in fact ruled out increasing income tax, VAT or national insurance, which are the main taxes which bring in government revenue.

Taxes have risen since 2019 despite the Conservatives promising to cut them in their previous manifesto. The tax burden has risen to 36% of national income, the highest it has been since 1949. This has been due to a freeze on the income tax threshold, increases to corporation tax and a windfall tax on energy companies.

While Tory party faithful decry their party breaking their 2019 promise, the economic reality is that the government cannot cut taxes without harsh cuts to public services. The election of Liz Truss as Tory leader was largely a response to this, and the harsh reality of unfunded tax cuts destroyed the Conservative Party’s reputation as sound economic managers. The voting public is more interested in public services that work than tax cuts which fuel inflation and do little to help people.

The British public would much rather the government invest in crumbling public services like the NHS, and polls have consistently shown this for some time. The public can see roads full of potholes, schools falling down, the NHS overwhelmed and there not being enough police on the streets.  

The recent debate on how quickly each party would increase military spending in the next term was another example. The public knows that whatever is promised now, if the situation in Ukraine, Gaza or elsewhere in the world deteriorates further, the government will have no choice but to increase military spending. In this context, it is no wonder that the Conservative Party’s promise to cut taxes, without a proper explanation of how it will be paid for, has fallen flat.

Labour has ruled out tax increases and is banking on economic growth to help them fund public services, as it did during the Blair/Brown Government. While measures like planning reform and improving the trade deal with Europe will help, there is no guarantee that economic growth will happen fast enough to fix Britain’s woes in the next parliamentary term. The Shadow Chancellor’s commitment to having the fastest-growing economy in the G7 is ambitious, to say the least.

In New Zealand, the decision of the Labour Government in 2023 to rule out a ‘wealth tax’ saw the party’s polling decline, albeit from an already poor position. It confirmed voters fear that Labour had no serious plan to fix public services in a third term if re-elected. By contrast, the UK has had 14 years of Conservative Government and the public is crying out for change. Once in Government, a future Labour Government will face the same challenges if they rule out new forms of revenue, especially if aspirations of economic growth fail to materialise.

The UK Institute for Fiscal Studies has said there is a ‘conspiracy of silence’ on how public services will be funded if there are to be no tax rises in the next five years. My Dad has a theory that given the choice of conspiracy or cock-up, it is almost always a cock-up. The cock up here is parties making political calculations on old models, based on public attitudes 30 years ago.

Society is a much more complex place in 2024. We carry smartphones with 10 times more memory than 1990s PCs, which give us access to vast amounts of information online. We also are much more connected and events which once took hours or days to be reported are now on our phone newsfeeds in seconds.

People’s political views and voting intentions are vastly different now from what they were in the 1990s. The size of political swings in democratic nations has increased substantially in recent years. The so-called political centre was always lazy shorthand to describe a section of the voting public who broadly speaking decided elections. Society, much like technology, is much more complex than it was in the 1990s. The politicians who are first to adapt to this change will be the ones who ultimately succeed.  

Betting on the election date – how I lost a tenner

The beleaguered Conservative and Unionist Party faced another scandal during their ill-fated election campaign. This one is due to party officials close to Rishi Sunak placing bets on the election date the day before it was announced.

This alledged breach of gambling law by Conservative Candidates adds to the Tories woes. At a time when the public are increasngly distrustful of politicians, the optics of this are horrendous. Attempting to personally profit from information gained in their work. Such behaviour might be normal (though legally dubious) when working the financial markets, in politics it is clearly out of line.

The story was made worse after the Finacial Times published the following graphs, showing a spike in bets the day before the election was announced:

Such a scandal would not occur in New Zealand politics, where gambling on elections and politics is not allowed. On the one hand it is quite fun to see what the bookies odds are, however it does prevent this sort of nonsence happening.

I must confess to having my own election date wager, but this did not go my way. My local Labour Councillor Rosie Parry thought, and hoped, the general election would be called in May. I however was confident that the election would be called in November and made a £10 bet.

My rationale for this punt, the PM was polling terribly and would face certain defeat if he went to the country early. By November, he would have been in post two years, and maybe some of the external factors going against him might have improved, slightly. My mistake was overestimating Sunak’s ability to think strategically. Going early soley on the basis that the rate of inflation has fallen, ignoring the fact that everything is more expensive than three years ago, he would not be that witless. Surely? Alas, I was wrong.

Technically neither Rosie or I won this bet. Then again, seeing the back end of this wretched government will be victory enough for us both.

Do the EU elections matter in Britain?

Last weekend the EU elections saw a significant increase in support for the populist/alt-right in European elections.

I deliberately avoid using the term far-right. It would be too simplistic and inaccurate to paint a picture of Europe re-living the 1930s and entering fascism. It is not.

The actual result was that across the EU bloc, the centre-right maintained control. But in Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Austria and various other countries the populist right increased their share of the vote. They are not a majority but a significant bloc in the European Parliament. A bloc that could destabilise the EU.

This is significant for two reasons.

One, these ‘populists’ do not agree on very much. They disagree on the issue of supporting Ukraine or on whether to reform or break up the EU.

Two, the rise in support for the populist right in the EU elections, collates with their increased support for these parties at national polls. The last three European countries I visited (Italy, Netherlands, and Portugal) all elected governments with alt-right parties playing significant roles shortly after I visited. I was gaining a complex but remembered that I had never been to Hungary and it’s been years since I visited Austria, both nations where the populist right won at the ballot box.

Why did Macron dissolve parliament and call an election for the end of the month? Possibly he is banking on tactical voting against Le Pen’s National Rally Party in the second round of voting. A high-risk strategy, and one where Macron’s centrist Renaissance Party risk being wiped out.

Why do we not see a similar right of the populist alt-left? Green Parties did make some gains in Europe last week, but to say the green movement is populist left is inaccurate. Some sections of it are, but much of the green movement in Europe, as in other democracies is mainstream and often part of the political establishment. Green politics are mainstream and as such get tarred with the same brush as other mainstream parties. Moreover, they are often the target of alt-right politician’s wrath.

Given the UK is no longer in the EU, will these results impact the coming UK election?

One recent poll had Nigel Farage’s Reform party level pegging with the Conservatives at 18%. The same rejection of mainstream politics and a desire for governments to be stronger on immigration has fuelled support for these parties in Europe, is also helping the Reform Party in the UK. Farage, who played a leading role in campaigning for Britain to leave the EU is now openly trying to replace the Conservative Party as the main right-of-centre party in UK politics. If this sounds far-fetched, it is what the alt-right has already achieved in France, Italy, Portugal and various other European nations in recent years.

While not being talked about much on the campaign trail, Labour if elected will seek to renegotiate the deal with Europe. The UK will not rejoin the single market, in the short term at least, but closer alignment is on the cards. Under the current EU leadership, this will be challenging, but not possible. The growing populist-right bloc does make things more unpredictable.

The right of the political spectrum is going through a significant transformation. The European elections are the latest example of populism gaining at the expense of the old mainstream parties. While Labour is likely to win the 2024 UK election, polls suggest the rise in the populist right is a European trend Britain is following.

UK General Election – the mood on the doorstep

Originally published in The Standard

This past Sunday I spent a day canvassing for the Labour Party in Gillingham and Rainham – a Kent constituency where 2019 the Conservative Party candidate won with a 15,000 majority. Conservations with constituents made it clear that the Conservatives are in trouble. Like the first person I spoke with, an 80-year-old man who told me he’s voted Tory all his life but was starting to lean Labour’s way. The main thing holding him back was Keir Starmer’s promise to lower the voting age to 16. Voters having reservations about Labour but feeling utterly betrayed by the Conservative Party turned out to be a reliable theme across many doorsteps throughout the day.

Conservative Party strategists hope that lifelong Tory voters will return to them by election day. But if Conservative supporters are still betting the polls are wrong, they will get little comfort on the doorstep.

The UK still has the First Past the Post Electoral system. Something New Zealand should have absolutely no nostalgia for. This means that, while the campaign is UK-wide, a lot of campaign activity is directed into constituencies that are deemed marginal. In marginal constituencies, a General Election brings a conveyor belt of the good and the great supporting their prospective parliamentary candidate. In “safe seats” voters get much less attention. I live in Lewisham North, a part of London where Labour historically have done very well. The local Labour Party have been twinned with the Gillingham and Rainham as it is deemed that campaigning there will have a greater impact.

In the past, overturning a 15,000 majority would have seemed near impossible. But the message on the doorstep this weekend suggests this is not the case in 2024.

Gillingham and Rainham like much of Kent voted for Brexit in 2016. During the 2019 General Election, parties calling for a second referendum struggled in ‘leave’ voting constituencies. In 2024, the key issues are the economy and the cost of living, the state of public services like the National Health Service (NHS), increased levels of immigration, the housing crisis and the under-resourcing of the criminal justice system. On these issues, voters in Gillingham and Rainham felt let down, in particular those who previously voted Conservative.

Just one term ago the Conservative Party notched up the best result they’d seen since Thatcher defeated Michael Foot in 1983. The common wisdom in Labour was rolling that win back would take longer than a single electoral cycle. Yet five years later it is credible that Labour may pick up seats that had not even featured in the list of the party’s target constituencies. Recent by-elections have seen Labour overturn 20,000 Tory majorities in seats such as Mid-Bedfordshire and in Tamworth. The Liberal Democrats have also enjoyed by-election victories in previously “safe” Conservative Seats. As a result, there has been much more interest in candidate selections, especially for Labour.

Last week, these selections, and the internal disputes that accompanied a few of them, overshadowed the election campaign more generally. In the Conservative Party, many sitting MPs including quite senior Ministers are stepping down this election. The week started with outgoing Conservative MP for Telford Lucy Allan being suspended for backing a Reform UK candidate, Nigel Fararge’s latest political party. Three days later, another outgoing Conservative MP, Mark Logan made a statement saying he is backing Labour at the next general election, as the party could “bring back optimism into British life”.

This, plus the double-digit poll lead, should have meant a good week for Starmer’s Labour. Instead, the party’s campaign messages were overshadowed by infighting over selection issues as factions positioned for power ahead of the expected win

Probably the most high-profile of these stoushes has concerned Diane Abbott’s candidacy. A Labour MP since 1987 and first ever black woman to be elected to the UK parliament, Abbott is regarded by many as an inspiration and a role model. Yet last week, there was a public spat over whether she would be allowed to stand again as the Labour candidate in Hackney North and Stoke Newington. The reason for this was a letter published in the Observer Newspaper over a year ago where she said:

“Many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”

Abbott claimed this sentence was from a first draft of the letter but ended up being published by mistake but was suspended from the Labour caucus pending an investigation which only ended last week.

On Wednesday it was announced Abbott would have the party whip restored. However, shortly afterwards news broke that Labour’s National Executive Committee were going to block her as a candidate.

The resulting furore dominated the news cycle for much of last week. Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner, London Mayor Sadiq Khan and many others including the online Tory publication Conservative Home all came out in support of Abbott. It took Keir Starmer three full days to state that she should be allowed to run. Starmer’s statement was strong and praised her as a trailblazer in UK politics but its lateness cost Labour two days of election coverage it didn’t need to lose.

The set-tos about Abbott and around the selection of other, less high-profile, candidates are due to party factionalism and internal politicking. Something that is patently ill-advised so close to a General Election, and especially against such an iconic figure as Abbott. To succeed in Government for any length of time, Labour needs to build a broad coalition of support, including those on the left of the party.

Understandably, the winning faction would want their people in key positions, including in candidate selections. But long-term, to be successful in Government, people from different parts of the party need to work together. There are plenty of historical examples in both UK and NZ politics of factionalism undermining the long-term success of the parliamentary party, especially when in government.

Finally, on a more lifestyle/entertainment note, one constituency of interest in the upcoming UK General Election will be the previously “safe” Tory seat of Mid Sussex. The Labour candidate is David Roundtree, drummer for the iconic Brit Pop band Blur. Due to both his profile, and ability to fund the campaign, Roundtree may be elected next month. If elected, the mountain of constituency casework may really make him think that modern life truly is rubbish.

Sunak skips D-Day landing 80th anniversary

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s decision to to leave the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landing early, may become a defining moment of this General Election and of Sunak’s time as Prime Minister.

Why would a Prime Minister, whose party is behind in the polls 28 days from the General Election, do something so utterly stupid?

This morning, Rishi Sunak was forced to issue an apology for what his opponents have described as a dereliction of duty, unpatriotic and disrespectful towards those who fought and those who gave their lives in this battle.

Conservative MPs, already fearing political oblivion next month, were horrified when images from the D-Day anniversary showed former PM and Foreign Secretary David Cameron and not the current Prime Minister. One does not envy Conservative candidates having to defend this on the doorstep this coming weekend.

With just under a month to go until the General Election, any hope of a come-back like that achieved by John Major in the April 1992 election, looks highly unlikely. Instead, polls now suggest this could be the largest Tory defeat since 1906.

Who won the ITV Leaders Debate?

Who won last night’s ITV leaders debate? Certainly not ITV.

If undecided voters were hoping the first leaders debate hosted by ITV would enlighten them on the key issues, they would have been sorely disappointed.

The short answer quick-fire nature of last night’s debate lent itself to an environment where the leaders spoke over each other and the adjudicator at times appeared to struggle.

At certain times, the leaders were asked yes or no questions on important policy topics. Important policy questions should not be left binary yes or no.

The slightly longer 30-second answers also barely gave the leaders time to say anything of substance.

Generally, I am not a fan of going after the media. But last night, British voters were let down by the fourth estate.

In terms of which leader won the debate, a YouGov snap poll released just after the debate said 51% thought Sunak performed better compared with 49% for Starmer. However, another poll conducted by Savanta said Starmer with 44% performed better than Sunak with 39%.

In terms of who was better at interrupting the debate to repeat pre-prepared attack lines, it was Sunak. He continued his line about Labour increasing taxes by £2000, again and again. Starmer responded that this was garbage. BBC fact-checkers on Radio 4’s Today Show said the £2000 figure was based on presumptions rather than a statement of fact.

Starmer got a line in about Rishi promising NHS waiting times would come down when in fact they have gone up. He landed a similar body blow on Sunak’s promise to reduce immigration numbers when again, the numbers have gone up under his premiership. The cringe moment with Starmer is when he reminded viewers, more than once, that his father was a tool-maker.

One important area of policy that was addressed in the debate was Britain’s membership of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). This court is separate from the European Union and was set up at the end of the Second World War to uphold human rights in Europe. Starmer expressed his continued support for the ECHR and reminded Sunak that Conservative Prime Minister Winston Churchill had been a strong advocate for the court.

Sunak’s response was that the UK should withdraw from the ECHR. He is doing so to stop the drift of his more right-wing supporters over to Nigel Fararge’s Reform Party. It seems populism has triumphed over human rights, at least on the right of UK politics.

Only the Labour and Conservative Party leaders were part of the debate. One commentator on Conservative Home has suggested it is not impossible the Tories come third in this general election (though not likely). While these two parties have dominated Westminster since the Second World War, other parties should have been included. But given the terrible format of last night’s debate, it is unlikely viewers would have heard much of substance from them either.

The UK Election: Impact on Parliament’s Facilities and Services: Researcher’s Reflection

Since January 2020 I have worked in the House of Lords as a Researcher, first for Baroness Sally Greengross, then after she passed away I worked for Baroness Usha Prashar. Both Crossbench Peers, meaning they do not take a party whip. Like many Crossbench Peers, both women were put in the Lords due to being subject matter experts and prefer to work with politicians from across the House rather than take a party whip.

Last Wednesday Rishi Sunak called a General Election. For the next two days, MPs and Peers worked on the wash-up whereby the parties decide what bills to complete, removing any controversial amendments or clauses, and abandoning others. Bills such as the Renters Reform Bill which would have banned landlords being allowed to issue no fault evictions, bit the dust. So too did the proposed smoke-free legislation, similar to that recently repealed in New Zealand.

When I arrived at Parliament on Thursday, MP staffers were already carrying boxes out of the parliamentary estate. Westminster, usually a hive of activity, already felt like a ghost town.

I use the gym at Parliament and try to go there most workdays. When I spoke to the manager, she said they expect to lose money over the election period. With a record number of MPs standing down, and polls suggesting many more will not return on July 4th, they would lose quite a few members. Their experience was that new MPs generally took about 3-4 months to find the gym and join. This year it will be compounded by the election being held just before summer recess, which is always followed shortly by the Party Conferences (another recess). New MPs may only spend about 3-4 weeks in parliament between July and October.

It won’t just be the gym impacted by this. Catering services throughout parliament will now be quiet in June when normally they are busy. Functions, including the Sally Greengross Memorial Lecture scheduled for June, are now postponed. The cafeteria and tearooms will now run a skeleton service on the estate for those still coming in, where opening hours will be reduced and only a handful of staff will be onsite.

My hairdresser in Parliament will still be open. Usually, it is quite difficult to get an appointment when parliament is sitting. This should not be a problem over the next few weeks. I imagine their income will be reduced significantly as well.

On Thursday afternoon I received an email about access to services during the election. Pretty obviously it stated that the parliamentary estate and resources could not be used for election campaigning. What I and fellow researchers not around at the last election had not realised was that this included access to the parliamentary library.

The Library’s research and reference
services will not be available during dissolution. Research assistants will be excluded from the Palace Library.
No pre-paid envelopes will be issued during dissolution. House of Lords stationery should not be used for party-political purposes.

House of Lords: Arrangements during the dissolution of Parliament, Thursday 30 May 2024

As Parliament will not be sitting I will have no need to access the Library or to order stationary.

Until the State Opening of Parliament on the 17th of July, visiting the gym will be my main reason for entering the estate. At least it will be quiet.

Iran launches missiles at Israel in retaliation for consulate strike in Damascus

In the last few hours, Iran has launched 300 missiles at Israel. Most of these were shot down by the Israeli missile defence system, and by Israel’s allies including the UK.

An antimissile system targets an Iranian aerial attack on Israel 14/04/2024

This attack was in retaliation for the Israeli bombing of the Iranian consulate annexe building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, killing 16 people. This was part of Israel’s broader campaign to target Hezbollah assets in Syria since 2011. This has escalated since October 7 2023 and the intensified conflict between Hamas and Israel.

In October I described the attacks by Hamas on 7 October as horrific and appalling. I went on to say:

Hardliners in both Israel and Palestine are in control, which makes the prospect of peace or a lasting resolution to the conflict in the region seem a distant prospect at this stage. Whether it is a two-state solution, a one-state solution with power sharing, or some other construct, there needs to be a way that Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace. Until this happens, this conflict will destabilise not only the Middle East but the whole w

The horrific situation in Israel and Gaza

This conflict has indeed now escalated and the region is increasingly unstable. This is the first time that Iran has directly attacked Israeli territory. US President Joe Biden has told Israel that it will not participate in a counter-strike against Iran. However, Netanyahu and his hard-line coalition have ignored similar wise words of caution from the US in recent weeks. If Israel does respond, Iran has already signalled there will be further retaliation.

Since the 7 October attacks, Israel has argued that it has a right to defend itself. Israel does have this right, but it also has a responsibility to comply with international law and to the human rights of people living in Gaza. Israel also has a responsibility to stop the settler attacks in the West Bank, which have intensified since the 7 October 2023 attacks. It has a responsibility not to escalate violence by attacking Rafah, again something Biden has warned Israel against.

The South African Government has taken the Israeli Government to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Israel is responsible for violations of the Genocide Convention in respect of its actions taken in Gaza. While it will likely be years before any decision is made by the ICJ, there is growing evidence that Israel has attacked hospitals and other civilian targets.

Historically the US Government has been Israel’s strongest ally, under both Democrat and Republican Presidents. Therefore it is no small thing that in a recent UN vote calling for an immediate ceasefire in Israel-Gaza, the US abstained rather than using their power of veto. Many supporters of Palestine and those on the left have been critical of the Biden Administration over its response to the Gaza conflict. In reality, Biden has pushed back on the Netanyahu Government much harder than his predecessors. Unfortunately, the response of the Israeli Government to the horrific attacks by Hamas on 7 October has escalated the violence and has now drawn Iran into active conflict against Israel.

Israel should not have bombed the Iranian consulate buildings in Damascus. Iran should not have fired 300 missiles at Israel in response. Neither of these actions should have happened, but they now have. The world now watches to see if there is further retaliation and escalation of violence, or if calmer and wiser heads prevail.

The prospect of peace or a lasting resolution to the conflict in the region seems more distant than ever. But only by doing everything possible to achieve such an outcome will there be any chance of this conflict de-escalating and a lasting peace being achieved.

In an episode of The Rest is Politics recorded shortly after 7 October, Alastair and Rory interviewed historian Yuval Noah Harari who had family caught up in the Hamas attacks on Israel. During this interview, Yuval rightly said that for people living in places like London instead of taking a side in this conflict, we need to be seeking long-term solutions to this conflict. I do not claim to have these solutions. But as a first step, an immediate ceasefire and a return to peace talks is an essential first step. By contrast, any escalation in this conflict will do untold harm both in the region and globally.