Politics: come friendly bombs

By Richard North - June 17, 2024

Following on from yesterday’s piece where I commented on the lack of British media coverage over an incident in Slough where Labour MP candidate Tan Dhesi attempts to distribute leaflets outside a mosque in Slough were rebuffed by the Muslim “brothers”.

For some reason, though, I missed this piece published in the Telegraph headlined: “‘Zionist devil’ insults hurled at Labour MP canvassing outside mosque”, with the sub-heading telling us: “Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi accosted by crowds condemning Labour’s stance on Gaza”.

The text captured the essence of the incident, recording how a Labour candidate had been forced to abandon leafleting outside a mosque in Slough on the Friday after a crowd had barracked him as a “Zionist devil” with “the blood of Palestinian children on his hands”, whence he was driven off by men hurling abuse over Labour’s stance on the conflict in Gaza.

But what should make any knowledgeable reader pause for thought is that there was scarcely any attempt to put the report in a broader context. It was treated essentially as a local incident, the only hint of it having wider implications coming at the end of the piece with a reference to the local elections in May when Labour experienced “a voter backlash in some parts of the country with large Muslim populations”.

There was no mention of The Muslim Vote organisation nor any suggestion that the “voter backlash” has transformed into an organised, nationwide political movement and that, as a result, Dhesi’s seat, and many other Labour seats, might be at risk.

What I should have done when writing yesterday’s piece was to conduct an online search for “Dhesi” and “Slough”, which is the sort of thing I usually do when covering a particular topic. When I finally got round to it, after the event, the results were extremely interesting.

One immediate link was to the English language version of Eastern Eye, styled as “Britain’s best known and most respected Asian weekly newspaper with national coverage”, an offshoot of the London-based Asian Media Group, writing mainly for British-Indian audiences.

One article dated 7 June was headlined: “Labour ‘needs help’ holding Slough amid anger over war in Gaza”, with the sub-heading: “Slough is among the places across Britain that Labour has singled out as ‘battleground’ areas it wants its campaigners to focus on”.

This was a reference to the report in LabourList which I had featured in this blog, retailing how the Labour Party had listed safe seats in places with large Muslim populations, designating them as “battleground areas”, to which extra campaigning resources had been allocated.

Then, on 13 June, a further article illustrated the fruits of that resource allocation, as Labour big guns – including London mayor Sadiq Khan, former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, and shadow education minister Seema Malhotra – turned out to speak alongside Dhesi (illustrated) who “stressed his support for Slough’s communities and his calls for a ceasefire in Gaza”.

Dhesi meanwhile had criticised independent candidate Azhar Chohan – endorsed by The Muslim Vote – whom he accused of trying to encourage Muslims to “vote in a block” against him. Chohan, we were told, had made support for Palestine a large part of his campaign – and had denied that his campaign is dividing Slough’s communities.

These two articles alone were more than enough to demonstrate, by way of background, that the mosque incident had wider implications, but these were by no means the full extent of the coverage. To its very great credit, the local newspaper, the Slough and South Bucks Observer had been covering the saga since its inception.

On 26 May, only a few days after the election had been announced, the paper was telling us: “Slough MP Tan Dhesi warns against ‘toxic’ community politics”, as he “urged voters to put aside religion and community divisions ahead of the general election – warning of the risk of faith groups being encouraged to ‘vote in a block’”.

This was followed on 29 May by an article having the independent candidate Azhar Chohan denying that he was trying to “toxify” Slough, telling the paper, “I’m not trying to divide anyone. All the issues I talk about don’t only affect Muslims. They affect anyone – my faith is humanity”.

The 3rd June, however, brought the shock news that seven Slough councillors had resigned from the Labour Party – citing “profound disillusionment and anger” over its treatment of Diane Abbott and Faiza Shaheen, its position on the war in Gaza, and at Tan Dhesi’s stance.

This was quickly followed by a report headed: “Slough councillor who quit Labour will ‘work against’ party”, retailing how ex-councillor Sabia Akram was planning to work with “an independent” group, alongside the other resigned councillors.

It was only then on 7 June – just as the national media was focusing on the fallout from the D-Day anniversary commemorations – that the local paper ran the headline “Labour ‘needs help’ keeping Slough amid Gaza war anger”.

This was followed, the next day, 8 June by the headline “Sadiq Khan in Slough to back Tan Dhesi after difficult week for Labour”, mirroring the Eastern Eye piece.

Once the social media reports of the mosque incident started appearing on 14 June, therefore, there was more than enough material to demonstrate that there was an important story in the making, with national implications. But, apart from the lacklustre story in the Telegraph, the national media remained silent – the dog that didn’t bark.

Coincidentally, on the day the social media reports first appeared, the Oaf Johnson was also on Twitter, with 2.1 million views, advertising his overpriced column in the Mail, asserting: “ If Labour wins big, the Commons will be crammed with Palestinian-flag waving Corbynistas – and it won’t just be the rich getting soaked, it’ll be everyone. Voting Tory is the ONLY way to stop Starmergeddon”.

There could not be a better illustration of the aphorism that, if you don’t read a newspaper you will be uninformed, but if you do read one, you will be ill-informed”. The Oaf, like the rest of the national media seems to have only a very limited grasp of what is happening on the ground.

This includes the “respected” experts such as Robert Ford, professor of political science at Manchester University. In an analytical piece in the Observer, he makes a passing reference to Muslim voting intentions, effectively dismissing the problem as “wobbles on the left flank”.

One helpful intervention he does make is to remind us that Labour vote shares were overstated in all but one of the elections between 1992 and 2015, while the Conservative vote share was underestimated in every election in this period. If the polls are wrong again, he says, history suggests it is Labour they will disappoint.

Elsewhere in the Observer though is the one exception to the reporting desert on the Muslim vote, in a piece headed: “Labour sends activists to 13 seats where it fears losing Muslim voters over Gaza”, amplified by the sub-heading which tells us: “Concern continues after local elections and George Galloway win that party’s position on Israel-Gaza war still eroding support”.

Here, we are told that Labour’s website invites prospective canvassers to submit their postcode and then suggests up to three target seats for them to campaign in – sometimes seats dozens of miles away.

Of the 28 constituencies in England where Muslims make up at least a fifth of the electorate – all of which were won by Labour at the 2019 general election, including Rochdale – the paper says that the website directs volunteers to campaign in 13 of them, including three of the four Birmingham seats on the list, both Luton seats, and both Bradford seats.

However, the Labour website only directs volunteers to one of the 11 London seats with large Muslim populations – Bethnal Green and Stepney, the successor seat to Bethnal Green and Bow, which Galloway previously won from Labour in 2005 in the wake of the Iraq war.

Small details, such as the fact that there are three Bradford seats at risk, not two, and the reluctance to highlight the multiple issues in London, suggests that the problem is much bigger than 13 seats – and Labour knows it.

And the problem seems to be intensifying. Yesterday, the Pakistani news website 5Pillars posted on social media a clash in Blackburn between a group of Muslim Labour supporters, accompanying Labour candidate Kate Hollern and those supporting independent candidate Adnan Hussain, another endorsed by The Muslim Vote organisation.

Amid pushing and shoving, the groups are on the brink of violence, with one supporter telling a rival, “You want it? We’ll f**king give it to you!”.

The interesting thing about this fracas is that it shows there are still Muslim Labour loyalists who haven’t peeled away. There is clearly an internal battle between Muslims which may have a significant effect on the Muslim Vote and reduce its impact. The former MP Kate Hollern, who is standing for re-election, had a pretty strong majority of over 18,000 but with 36,000 Muslims in the constituency, her seat is vulnerable. TMV’s Adnan Hussain could take the seat.

Nothing of this, of course, has got as far as the national media. As for Slough, one wonders what John Betjeman would have made of it all. “Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough! It isn’t fit for humans now”, he wrote in 1937. He wasn’t wrong then, and he wouldn’t be wrong now.