Latest news with #anti-Tory
The National
10-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Launch of Corbyn-Sultana party has big implications for Scotland
Well, actually, it is. He can always be found getting up to something diabolical, but there's something else. Something the left has been crying out for is finally happening. Former Labour outcasts and arguably the most credible socialist voices the Labour Party has had to offer in recent years – Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana – are starting their own party. I have half expected a new Corbyn era for some time now, particularly since the Tories were ousted and Starmer made it clear that he wasn't going to let his electoral victory get in the way of the continuation of their miserable agenda. It also makes perfect sense for Sultana (below) to be Corbyn's partner in this move as she has been an unshakeable voice for the left despite being treated like a pariah by a party that, if it had any sense or eagerness to win future elections, would embrace the kind of politics she represents. The two-party system in Westminster is broken beyond hope, particularly for the left now that both major parties are undeniably off to the right. In that regard, it's great news for the political left who are facing the rise of the far-right and a Nigel Farage premiership without any solid left-wing antidote in Westminster. It's a matter of necessity at this point, with any hope Labour used to represent being well and truly obliterated. But what does it mean for the SNP? The answer is that it absolutely does have the potential to be difficult – or alternatively, a massive stride in the right direction for the independence movement. A new Westminster party might not sound like a major threat to the SNP's electoral dominance in Scotland – and it might not be. READ MORE: Labour should look to Scotland for reforms their MPs might support I imagine it will depend largely on two variables, the first being how the SNP leadership respond and whether they will finally embrace a less careful and centrist position than they have been of late; and whether the new Corbyn-Sultana offering will be a welcoming political home for independence supporters. From what has been emerging in the past few days, though, it sounds like the latter is increasingly likely to be the case – and it would be a smart political move for them to make if they were to make it. The SNP's appeal to progressives, independence supporters, young people and anti-Tory voters has been the key to their success, particularly since 2014. But this new party isn't being born out of nowhere. We're in the depths of a severe disillusionment with establishment politics and a fear of what lies ahead if we fail to meet the threat of the far right where it demands to be met. The left's disillusionment far from ends with Labour and the SNP are going to have a problem on their hands if the leadership continue to fail to inspire going forward. The Scottish independence movement has been grumbling in the background for quite some time now. Alba, in a completely different way, were another offshoot of the same problem for the SNP – disillusionment. Granted, with Alba there was a distinct sprinkling of right-wing narratives and political differences that emerged from an unsustainably broad independence support within the party. But that disillusionment was still a factor, and it's rearing its head again in a way that is a far bigger problem than Alba ever have been. Nicola Sturgeon's (below) departure rocked the party to its core, it was always going to. Humza Yousaf did his best with a bad situation but ultimately didn't have the time to embed that he needed to achieve what he was capable of; and now, with John Swinney back at the helm, the steadying of the ship has veered a little too far into a centrist bore-fest for those hungry for change. Enter an unapologetically progressive alternative headed by a man whose policies were incredibly popular in Scotland and a woman who has demonstrated a political courage Scots tend to reward; and factor in its potential support for Scotland's right to choose our own constitutional future – and therein lies a massive problem for the SNP leadership. Of course, all of this is still speculative. The new party doesn't even have a name yet, let alone a decisive position on Scottish independence, but even in its infancy, it does seem to be inspiring hope among those on the left who have been missing it. With that being said, this isn't quite a coronation. There's, typically speaking, a long road between forming a party and winning seats. But times are changing fast. It was just a short time ago that we thought Farage winning seats in Scotland was nothing other than a hate-encrusted pipe dream, and yet, here we are. It's also very true that this new party could help the independence movement and might even have the potential to break the deadlock it's currently stuck in. If it successfully attracts left-wing voters, particularly in England, who either don't engage with independence or remain opposed to it, and if it helps to push the idea that independence is a democratic necessity rather than a battle between opposing nations, that could be the breakthrough the movement has been crying out for. A path to the cordial divorce we long for – an outcome that frankly isn't going to be the result of a Starmer-Swinney centrist showdown. Though Corbyn and Sultana are well-positioned to make that argument if they're smart about it – and everything points to the likelihood that they will be. Independence as a concept isn't enough of a radical left policy on its own and the SNP are relying a little too heavily on the monopoly they have over independence supporters. READ MORE: David Lammy hands taxpayer-funded Foreign Office job to Labour donor The party's caution and lack of momentum under Swinney and Kate Forbes on issues that matter to the left is going to hinder support for independence within its ranks, even if Corbyn and Sultana don't come along and fill the void with big, radical ideas. And even if their new offering chooses not to support independence, the prospect of a genuinely socialist government in Westminster poses the threat of some independence voters turning away from the cause. It is a difficult line for this new left-wing offering to tread, though. Independence isn't a particularly popular policy south of the Border and ultimately, that's where they need to make ground if they're going to pose a credible threat to Farage and Starmer. And if they fail to support it in Scotland, this idea could be written off here as quickly as it began. But given both Corbyn and Sultana's commitments to democracy and progressive politics more generally, I think there's definitely room for them to tread it successfully. Things are broadly uncertain, but one thing is for sure – if the SNP aren't going to act like the party of hope and transformation, another one is going to, one way or another.
New Statesman
25-06-2025
- Business
- New Statesman
Labour is losing its mind
Labour is attempting to govern in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. In terms of the geopolitical order, demographics, class relations and technologies this is a period of revolutionary change and political reaction which is sweeping away the old political settlement and its established ideological forms. There is widespread economic insecurity and disaffection. The country's criminal justice system, welfare system, water industry, universities, housing market and armed forces are either impoverished, broken or dysfunctional. Over-regulation stifles initiative and our ability to build. Governance and administration are hamstrung by a state bureaucracy mired in HR regulations, complacency and risk-aversion. Local authorities are bankrupt. Yields on 30-year government bonds are rising as markets lose trust in indebted Western capitalist economies, foremost being the US, Japan and the UK. 'Nothing works' is a common refrain. The political corollary of 'nothing works' is what in France is called dégagisme: clear them out. Confronted with these systemic crises, Labour faces a populist revolt that is gathering energy and confidence. The party's difficulty in understanding populism risks echoing the American army in Vietnam. Its generals were fighting a previous war, incapable of adaptation, intellectual curiosity or revolutionary organisational change. Labour won on an anti-Tory majority not on a pro-Labour coalition, and so it lacks popular consent to govern. It has a large majority but is politically insecure, already u-turning less than a year into office. And because it has no diagnosis of the crises assailing the country it has no political narrative or strategy to guide it in office. What are the obstacles relating to Labour's own politics that stop it taking the country into a new political settlement and how should it overcome them? The obstacles Since the 1990s, the professional and managerial class has surpassed organised labour as the dominant political force within the party. This change has happened in tandem with Labour's loss of the working class vote which in turn has been caused by the disintegration of the industrial working class and organised labour, a process first recognised by Eric Hobsbawm in Marxism Today in September 1978. The dominance of this class and its culture – higher educated, socially liberal, based in the cities and regions of prosperity – replaced the old Labour collectivism with a liberal progressive politics. This enabled New Labour to build a majority coalition in 1997 around aspiration, globalisation, and individual consumer choice. Regional and class inequalities were offset by redistribution via a steadily growing economy. However the party failed to recognise that it was starting to sow the seeds of a populist revolt with its class-based cultural values, its support for high levels of immigration, and failure to recognise the early years of wage stagnation. In 2016, this class along with Labour suffered a profound political defeat when the Remain vote lost in the EU Referendum. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Labour currently lacks a feasible alternative to the class ideology of progressivism and its cultural politics. The party membership is dominated by what the campaigning organisation More in Common describe as 'Progressive Activists', who form under 10 percent of the population. Like the Conservatives, dominated by an aging rentier class, Labour is no longer broadly representative of the voters it seeks to attract, nor is it able to intuit the populist mood of our times, and so forge a winning national cross-class coalition for 2029. The economy and society have profoundly changed since the New Labour years. Progressivism as an ideology and worldview is incapable of responding. And yet Labour has made no radical reassessment of its politics or its political economy, nor has it sought ignited energy but could never lift itself out of the politics of the 1980s. This failure is spread over its 14 years in opposition. The party lacks a diagnosis of the systemic crise and so it has no strategy to match Reform in breaking the political inertia. Instead it has fallen back on a pragmatism of 'what works' and technocratic solutions to systemic crises. These have proved grossly inadequate to the challenges of government. Over this same period, the party did not give thought to renewing the media, intellectual, and policy making infrastructure necessary for its political renewal. Much of it has now disappeared or become ineffective. Successful attempts at fashioning new political and economic settlements, such as in 1979 or, to a lesser degree, in 1997, have all leant on such an infrastructure, yet Labour has allowed it to ossify. Both the government and the PLP find themselves isolated from pluralist cultures of intellectual curiosity, thinking and ideas. How to respond? There is a great deal at stake in resolving Labour's historical predicament. A divided right opens up the prospect of an unloved Labour limping over the line again as part of a progressive coalition. This would only cement the class, cultural and regional divisions in the country. More likely, though, failure in government will mean either Reform or a right-wing coalition wins the next election. And what comes with the failure of a Reform or right-wing government? The stakes are high in a country where disaffection is so great. Farage understands this. But does Labour? There is both deep threat and historic opportunity. Labour is unprepared for either. Some may reject this analysis as too negative, pointing out that Labour has four years to turn things around. But four years to do what? Labour possesses one highly significant advantage which is state power. To use this power with the necessary force requires a strategy and a powerful executive leadership able to overcome the obstacles facing Labour. A political strategy would be based on a two-fold political purpose with different timelines. One part would be geared towards the short-term, building a Labour coalition for the next election. The other part would be longer term, defining a programme for a decade of national reconstruction and social renewal. Each would give definition to the other. Broadly speaking this means restoring Britain's broken social contract between government and citizens and developing an economic analysis and political economy that unites the national interest with the labour interest. This coordinated work must go on inside the government machine, outside in a community of thinking and analysis, and within the PLP. Political choices and policy priorities must directly contribute to this governing narrative. The aim is to build popular consent for a Labour government. The basic elements of a governing narrative already exist. The idea of a social contract has been a constant if irregular expression of Labour's politics both in opposition and in government. It offers the government a potentially powerful story about its national purpose, and provides a catalyst for building a new coalition across class, region, and nation for the 2029 election. However to date the idea has remained unexplained and undeveloped. It has been used to suggest both a liberal social contract and the more radical idea of covenant. Keir Starmer first used the idea of a contract with the country in a speech in Birmingham in 2022, when he called for a contract with the British people, defined by 'security, prosperity and respect'. It was soon dropped. It reappeared in a more covenantal form two years later in January 2024, when he spoke to the Labour and Civil Society summit. Starmer called for a 'social contract' with 'a new focus on those who build the bonds that connect us, the communities that nurture us, and the institutions that support us.' In January 2025, and now Prime Minister, his statement on the murders of the three small girls in Southport acknowledged the loss of a social contract, recognising the growing sense that the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another, the unwritten rules that hold a nation together, 'have in recent years, been ripped apart'. 'More and more people retreating into parallel lives, whether through failures of integration or just a country slowly turning away from itself'. He went on to say, 'We will have to ask British industry, British universities, British businesses, and the British people to play a bigger part; use this to renew the social contract of our nation, the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another.' Economic security is national security but both will require 'a whole society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people'. On February 25th in the House of Commons, responding in a way to this earlier speech, the PM defined the political future of the country as a form of national covenant. He committed the government to stand behind the people of Ukraine. It will require, he said, extremely difficult and painful choices through which the country must find social unity. In March, in a speech on the reform of the state, he accused politicians of 'hiding behind a vast array of quangos, arms-length bodies and regulators' – a 'cottage industry of blockers and checkers'. The state demanded more and more from people as it failed to deliver on its core purpose. And then in May, his statement on immigration reaffirmed this emerging narrative. The PM redefined Labour's view of immigration by describing the Conservatives 'one-nation experiment in open borders conducted on a country that had voted for control'. A country depended upon fair rules and responsibilities, 'the obligations that we owe to one another.' The current system of immigration was threatening to pull the country apart and lead to an 'island of strangers'. To settle in this country, 'is a privilege that is earned, not a right, easier if you make a contribution, if you work, pay in, and help rebuild our country'. A new social contract Instead of shying away from this language Labour needs to explain its social contract and identify the causes of social disintegration and political disaffection which have led to social anomie and the collapse in trust in the government. They extend beyond immigration and include crime and social disorder (including the perception of the contrast between the militant policing of 'online hate crimes' vs burglaries, anti-social behaviour and theft); restoring the visibly decaying public realm; the shortage of decent homes; the porous border of which the boats are a daily reminder; and the perception of asymmetric multiculturalism and 'two-tier justice' in which the elites, associated with identity politics, are perceived to favour minority cultures over the majority culture. The first and essential task is to restore a social contract in order to secure democracy and start to win popular consent for a Labour government. In the longer term, reducing social disaffection and restoring popular trust in our democratic institutions depends on national social and economic developmental growth and the reconstruction of the national economy across the UK. In opposition, Labour defined its economic approach in a series of shifting abstractions and half-formed ideas – the Everyday Economy, Levelling Up, National Missions, Industrial Strategy, Green Prosperity Plan, Plan for Change, Securonomics, then Growth. These culminated in Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves' 2024 Mais Lecture, in which she argued that her economic policies represent a break with the liberal market order and the beginning of a new economic settlement. They herald a 'decade of national renewal' that will shape the institutional architecture of the British economy with the central mission to restore economic growth. Reeves declared that globalisation 'as we know it' has ended. Where things are made and who owns them matters. The economy is rooted in the places people live, and industrial policy should focus on the Everyday Economy that sustains daily life. Entrepreneurial risk taking and workers capacity to move jobs to better their circumstances require economic stability, safety and security. Reeves called her thinking, Securonomics. The development of the national economy is linked to geopolitical strategy, social stability and national security, in order to reconstitute the government's social contract with the people. By the time Labour took office it was trailing behind it a series of priorities, plans and commitments but no clear agreement about its economic thinking. The Everyday Economy quietly disappeared having never been properly developed. Levelling Up was left behind when Lisa Nandy was moved from her brief. The Green Prosperity Plan, stripped of its annual £28bn funding became a vehicle for wishful thinking. No-one spoke about Securonomics. Instead the new government had one answer to Britain's social and economic dilapidation: growth. The 2024 Green Paper Invest 2035 the UKs modern industrial strategy is emphatic: 'growth is the number one mission of this government.' In addition to driving growth nationally, the government will support regional growth, net zero and the UK's economic security and resilience. It identifies eight growth-driving sectors. But as the economist, Andy Haldane has pointed out, in many regions these sectors do not cover 80-90 percent of the workforce, 'especially the poorest areas'. There is no obvious underlying methodology behind choosing so many sectors. Should the government focus effort and resources on areas of comparative advantage or on areas of deprivation? There is no clear answer. Events have overtaken the Green Paper and it is being rewritten. But without undertaking the necessary work, much of this approach will remain in place. The lack of theoretical depth and practical substance to Labour's attempts to reshape its political economy leaves it reliant on the liberal market model which cannot resolve the economic problems the country faces. Compounding this is Labour's commitment to fiscal rules designed to reassure the bond market, and the widely held perception that Labour expends its political energy not on ordinary working people as a whole but on small politically charged subgroups – migrants, benefits claimants, etc. Who then does Labour stand for and who should growth be for? Growth is a precondition for national reconstruction but there are political choices involved in how and where it is generated. The answer must be those who, 10 years ago, Theresa May called 'the just about managing class'. Without their support Labour has little chance of winning in 2029 and therefore limited ability to pursue its agenda. Today the living standards of many in this class are precarious. Working hard does not translate into being better off, and yet they are the workhorse of the economy. Aged around 35-60, their households have the highest proportion of people in jobs and the highest proportion of children. They are a mix of middle and working class (mostly B, C1, C2 and D) who work mostly in the private sector. They are a generation beyond their parents'traditional lower middle and working class ways of life. They feel the loss of these cultures, but they want a better world for their children. Labour should be their natural home but they no longer see a party cast in their image or one which holds their values. They have diminishing confidence in any political party turning the country around. They would give Reform a go without much confidence. To win the support of this large demographic, Labour needs to develop a political economy that will shift the economic balance from wealth extraction to creation and from asset wealth to production, increasing working people's share of national income. It means focusing a new industrial strategy around their economic interests, as well as intervening on their side against those who threaten their economic interests. National economic reconstruction needs to build up the necessary productive power for place-based reindustrialisation, utilising new technologies and AI, investing in our armament production, national defences and so raising per capita GDP across the regions. Regional, social and economic development should prioritise work, skills, and the local places people live. The crucial factors for a thriving national economy are strong local economies and communities. When community subsides, so too does the economy. Government needs to recover its unfinished work in opposition to develop a new approach to political economy. The only viable programme for national reconstruction is a levelling up to radically reduce regional inequality on a similar scale to Germany's rebuilding of East Germany. It will require a radical reform of statecraft asserting national sovereignty, backing our AI and technological innovation, establishing the political primacy of No.10 over the Treasury, and institutionalising a national developmental approach to economic policy under the authority of the PM, and restoring parliamentary democratic power over unaccountable quangos. A Left infrastructure needs rebuilding to provide intellectual thinking, analysis and critical support to help reconnect the governing class to the people, and win the commanding heights of national intellectual life. A Labour narrative about the country must be hopeful and patriotic. It must be covenantal in its political economy, and it must be authentic and heartfelt. The current system is condemning Labour to political failure. The task of political leadership requires an insurgent, radical politics that integrates the theoretical, political and organisational, using concentrated state power to drive forward a national popular politics toward a new political settlement, in a way quite foreign to Labour's recent history. Is it possible? Without it the future will be dark. Related
New Statesman
06-05-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
Starmer can turn Reform's rise to his advantage
Photo by. Last week's election results have proven to be far more consequential than normal. Much of the focus (including mine) has been on the dismal results for the Tories but there is no doubt that Labour has cause for alarm too. Its decline in support was much more substantial than Labour a year after 1997 or the Conservatives a year after 2010, when our vote remained flat (helped to a large extent by a collapse in support for our coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats). Cutting winter fuel payments and disability benefits, and increasing employers' National Insurance Contributions were all, apparently, issues on the doorstep. No doubt that is all true, although to some extent this simply reveals that governing at a time of low economic growth and strained public finances is difficult. Tough choices have to be made. But this is an environment in which there are advantages to having clean hands. Reform benefited from having no record in government; the Liberal Democrats' record has now been forgotten or forgiven. The increasing inclination of voters to shop around, having repeated bouts of buyers' remorse, has contributed towards a move away from incumbents (current or recent) and the rise of multi-party politics. But, paradoxically, the changing alignment of British politics may yet work in favour of the incumbent party. The lesson from last year's general election is that, in a first-past-the-post, multi-party system, tactical voting becomes crucial. The reason that Labour ended up with a landslide victory, while the Conservatives were reduced to a rump, was the efficiency of the anti-Tory vote. Large numbers of voters worked out who was best placed to defeat the local Conservative candidate and voted for them. The election was essentially a referendum on the Tories' record in office, a referendum it emphatically lost. The next election was always likely to be more complicated with Labour as the incumbents and events such as partygate and the mini-Budget more distant. A risk for Labour, and a hope for the Conservatives, was that anti-Tory tactical voting would unwind. Even without gaining any extra support, the Tories might win additional seats as non-Conservatives simply vote for their preferred candidates. What complicates matters is the rise of Reform. The party clearly has substantial and well-motivated support, but it is also a very polarising force. Much of the public may well be motivated to vote for whoever is best placed to keep it out (47 per cent of Britons have an unfavourable view of Farage compared to 29 per cent with a favourable one). Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Most obviously, many Lib Dem or Green sympathetic voters are likely to be open to voting tactically to defeat Farage's candidates. It does not end there. On the day of the Runcorn & Helsby by-election, a senior Labour figure told me that there was anecdotal evidence of moderate Conservatives voting tactically to keep out Reform. Evidently, it was not enough, but it should alert Labour to the potential to win over support from unexpected sources. Tactical voting is essentially a negative instrument. It is used by voters seeking to prevent a candidate being elected, rather than a positive expression of support for another candidate. If an election becomes a referendum on a particular party, and overall opinion is negative towards that party, increased tactical voting can have a devastating impact, as 2024 shows us. This is not to be complacent – Reform will be able to squeeze some of the Conservative vote, especially in the 88 seats where it sits second to Labour – but the strong negative view much of the country has of Reform can be exploited. This does require Labour to think hard about how to do so. It will mean nullifying Farage's appeal on some cultural issues by closing down vulnerabilities. Parts of the liberal left are too quick to dismiss this part of the strategy but it is true to say that Labour needs to avoid giving the impression that Farage was right all along. At the same time, on its chosen issues, Labour must demonstrate greater willingness to take Reform on. Farage, for example, used highly incendiary language immediately after the Southport murders last year, language which may well have contributed to the subsequent unrest. Ministers could have been more willing and forceful in condemning this. Europe is a sensitive issue, but Labour should lean into it by arguing that Farage would reverse the work done to repair our trading relationship with our biggest market. The Reform leader's relationship with Donald Trump is also a vulnerability, albeit one that is difficult to readily exploit when the government is seeking a constructive relationship with the US. Nonetheless, Starmer can find proxies who can make sure that Farage's friendship with the unpopular US president is kept in the public eye. By 2029, it should be all too apparent from the American example that right-wing populism cannot solve society's problems. Then there will be the opportunities that accrue as a consequence of Reform being in power at a local authority level. Labour should be meticulous in pulling together examples of incompetence and ensuring that they are disseminated. In other words, Starmer should be prepared to take on Reform aggressively, even if it risks antagonising some Labour voters who have a soft spot for Farage. Last year, the overwhelmingly anti-Tory mood, plus tactical voting, was a formula for Labour success. Next time the formula might still involve tactical voting, but with a focus on keeping out Reform instead. A general election which is a referendum on Reform, rather than the record of the incumbent government, is one Labour should be able to win. Related
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kneecap's downfall is a warning to pathetic Left-wing provocateurs everywhere
When Kneecap – the fanatically anti-Israel, anti-Tory, pro-Republican rap group from Belfast – were awarded almost £15,000 in state funding, I rolled my eyes. I thought: what a waste of taxpayers' money. Now, however, I've changed my mind. Because watching the abrupt downfall of these smug millennial pseudo-rebels has been worth every penny. In the past week, two fascinating pieces of video footage have emerged, both taken from Kneecap concerts. In one, a member of the group appears to declare: 'The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP!' And in the other, a member of the group appears to shout: 'Up Hamas, up Hezbollah!' Since the footage started circulating, Kneecap have been facing a furious backlash. So on Monday night, in a desperate attempt to limit the damage, the group's members released a statement that is almost hilarious in its self-pity. They claim that the footage has been 'deliberately taken out of all context', and that they are merely the innocent victims of a 'smear campaign'. But hang on, chaps. The question is: did you say the words you're alleged to have said, or not? If you did, this can't be a 'smear'. But if you didn't, why are you now offering your 'heartfelt apologies' to the families of the murdered MPs Jo Cox and Sir David Amess? If you didn't tell your audience to kill MPs, then you've got nothing to apologise for, have you? My favourite part of the statement, however, is the claim that 'Kneecap's message has always been – and remains – one of love, inclusion, and hope'. I see. In which case, gentlemen, why exactly did you choose to name yourselves after an extremely brutal method of paramilitary torture? And, while we're on the subject, why does one of you always insist on wearing a balaclava? Does his mummy make him wear it, in case he catches a chill? At any rate, the statement clearly hasn't saved them. The organisers of a music festival in Cornwall have cancelled Kneecap's slot. The First Minister of Scotland has called on a Scottish music festival to ditch them, too. And a Downing Street spokesman has indicated that they won't be getting any more taxpayers' money. (Kemi Badenoch blocked the funding award for the group during her time as business secretary, only for the money to then be handed over in November last year after Sir Keir Starmer's administration conceded that withholding it had been unlawful.) Perhaps what will alarm Kneecap most of all, however, is the response from their own fans. Because, now that the group's members have insisted that they've 'never supported Hamas or Hezbollah', they're being inundated with indignant messages from Western admirers of these proscribed terrorist organisations, calling Kneecap 'sellouts' and 'cowards'. (Sample tweet: 'Wow. What a disappointment. Long live the resistance and glory to the martyrs.') For the rest of us, though, it's tremendously entertaining to watch them get their comeuppance. Let Kneecap's downfall be a warning to pathetic Left-wing provocateurs everywhere. Anyway, if they're feeling sorry for themselves, here's one small thought to console them: it could be worse. Imagine if there were a Right-wing rap group called, say, Goosestep. And imagine if video footage emerged of Goosestep's members appearing to call for the deaths of Labour MPs, and appearing to voice support for the proscribed far-Right terrorist organisation National Action. Do we think the organisers of Glastonbury would be taking this long to decide whether or not to cancel their slot? Trick question, obviously. Because such a group would never have got booked in the first place. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Kneecap's downfall is a warning to pathetic Left-wing provocateurs everywhere
When Kneecap – the fanatically anti-Israel, anti-Tory, pro-Republican rap group from Belfast – were awarded almost £15,000 in state funding, I rolled my eyes. I thought: what a waste of taxpayers' money. Now, however, I've changed my mind. Because watching the abrupt downfall of these smug millennial pseudo-rebels has been worth every penny. In the past week, two fascinating pieces of video footage have emerged, both taken from Kneecap concerts. In one, a member of the group appears to declare: 'The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP!' And in the other, a member of the group appears to shout: 'Up Hamas, up Hezbollah!' Since the footage started circulating, Kneecap have been facing a furious backlash. So on Monday night, in a desperate attempt to limit the damage, the group's members released a statement that is almost hilarious in its self-pity. They claim that the footage has been 'deliberately taken out of all context', and that they are merely the innocent victims of a 'smear campaign'. But hang on, chaps. The question is: did you say the words you're alleged to have said, or not? If you did, this can't be a 'smear'. But if you didn't, why are you now offering your 'heartfelt apologies' to the families of the murdered MPs Jo Cox and Sir David Amess? If you didn't tell your audience to kill MPs, then you've got nothing to apologise for, have you? My favourite part of the statement, however, is the claim that 'Kneecap's message has always been – and remains – one of love, inclusion, and hope'. I see. In which case, gentlemen, why exactly did you choose to name yourselves after an extremely brutal method of paramilitary torture? And, while we're on the subject, why does one of you always insist on wearing a balaclava? Does his mummy make him wear it, in case he catches a chill? At any rate, the statement clearly hasn't saved them. The organisers of a music festival in Cornwall have cancelled Kneecap's slot. The First Minister of Scotland has called on a Scottish music festival to ditch them, too. And a Downing Street spokesman has indicated that they won't be getting any more taxpayers' money. (Kemi Badenoch blocked the funding award for the group during her time as business secretary, only for the money to then be handed over in November last year after Sir Keir Starmer's administration conceded that withholding it had been unlawful.) Perhaps what will alarm Kneecap most of all, however, is the response from their own fans. Because, now that the group's members have insisted that they've 'never supported Hamas or Hezbollah', they're being inundated with indignant messages from Western admirers of these proscribed terrorist organisations, calling Kneecap 'sellouts' and 'cowards'. (Sample tweet: 'Wow. What a disappointment. Long live the resistance and glory to the martyrs.') For the rest of us, though, it's tremendously entertaining to watch them get their comeuppance. Let Kneecap's downfall be a warning to pathetic Left-wing provocateurs everywhere. Anyway, if they're feeling sorry for themselves, here's one small thought to console them: it could be worse. Imagine if there were a Right-wing rap group called, say, Goosestep. And imagine if video footage emerged of Goosestep's members appearing to call for the deaths of Labour MPs, and appearing to voice support for the proscribed far-Right terrorist organisation National Action. Do we think the organisers of Glastonbury would be taking this long to decide whether or not to cancel their slot? Trick question, obviously. Because such a group would never have got booked in the first place.
