Labour MP given formal reminder after sharing post about Israel
The party said the message contained 'incorrect and unacceptable tropes' and that Clive Lewis had 'rightly apologised for the offence caused'.
The post originated from the X account of historian Louise Raw, who had shared an image of a child along with the words: 'Very sorry about the photo but I want to understand how everyone isn't screaming inside.
'A precious baby still trying to smile and show love. How aren't you in tears every day @Keir_Starmer? You have kids. How are you still taking Israel's money & orders? HOW?'
Mr Lewis, who has been the MP for Norwich South since 2015, reposted it before deleting it, Labour said.
A community note added to the post later said the image was 'unrelated to Israel's war on Hamas' and instead showed a young Turkish boy with a rare genetic skin disorder.
A party spokesperson said: 'This social media post expresses incorrect and unacceptable tropes.
'Clive Lewis MP has deleted the repost and rightly apologised for the offence caused.
'Mr Lewis has been reminded about the high standards of conduct expected by representatives of the Labour Party.'
The MP has been contacted for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Wales not given fair funding for rail, says Lee Waters
Wales does not get its "fair share of rail funding" and the system must be "fixed", said a former Labour minister responsible for for a £6.6bn Oxford-Cambridge rail line were previously classified as an England-only project, which means Wales could have been entitled to more the Treasury announced there was a "publishing error" in a 2020 document and it should have been classified as an England and Wales Waters, the Labour MS for Llanelli said the "cock-up" highlights the broader issue of how "unclear" and in need of reform the funding system is. Rail in Wales is not devolved, which means funding is determined through the UK government using the Barnett formula. Speaking to BBC Radio Wales Breakfast on Monday, Waters said: "Is it cockup, is it a conspiracy? Who knows - almost always a cockup in my experience."But he said "it speaks to the broader truth" that "the system needs fixing".He said: "We have not had our fair share of funding, the formula does not work to our advantage. "It is not clear how the formula works and therefore we don't trust when things like this pop up."Waters said only a few weeks ago the Welsh government "had to dip into our own coffers" to pay for the national insurance costs, which should be covered by the UK government as per a Treasury agreement."We need to reform the Barnett formula," Waters said. "We need to have the UK treasury acting as a UK treasury for the whole of the UK, not just for whoever happens to be in government in England at the time."He added that this is not "a party issue" because "this happened under the last government, it's happening under this government".He said it is "the government machine" which must be "changed and fixed".He said he is "confident" his London colleagues are ensuring Wales gets more funding, but is "less confident" they are trying to reform the Barnett said part of the issue is there "is not a Wales pot of money for rail, we have to fight our corner in the England and Wales pot."Waters said: "There's a UK Labour manifesto commitment to create a Wales fund for schemes so there can be transparency."But he said he is "nervous" about "wholesale devolution of rail without the extra funding", because it comes with the responsibility of repair work. He said: "You can argue we should get the extra funding, but it's back to 'do we trust the UK funding arrangements to do that?'"The UK government previously said the "error" over the Oxford-Cambridge line classification "will be amended when an update is published at the spending review".The HM Treasury has been approached for comment.
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves has made tax rises inevitable
This Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will be in the firing line once again. The event in question will not be a Budget, or even a mini-Budget, but rather a spending review. But such is the pressure on the public finances that the political and economic ramifications will be significant. On the face of it, this review is meant to spell out the details of departmental spending within the overall totals that have already been set to 2028/29 for current day-to-day spending and to 2029/30 for capital spending. Such reviews are not, therefore, meant to be the vehicle for announcing major changes in fiscal policy. There is now supposedly only one major fiscal event for this purpose, namely the autumn Budget, with a subsidiary event, the Spring Statement, which was delivered in March. That said, it would not come as a surprise if the Chancellor increased the spending totals on Wednesday. After all, if defence spending is increased to 3pc of GDP (costing over £17bn per annum by 2029/30) and spending on health increases by 3.4pc in real terms per annum, this would imply that other departments would have to suffer an average real terms reduction in their budgets of 1.8pc per annum out to the end of the review period. Good luck with selling that to the Labour Party. Admittedly, although at one point increasing defence spending to 3pc of GDP was supposedly a 'commitment', more recently it seems to have been downgraded to an 'ambition'.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Rachel Reeves wants to teach her critics a lesson
Photo by Hannah McKay -. The toughest job in politics is usually said to be the leader of the opposition – an impression that Kemi Badenoch's tenure has done nothing to dispel. But it is arguably rivalled by that of chancellor. Every incumbent since the 2008 financial crisis has faced a version of the same dilemma: the UK is a poorer country than it once expected to be. At last year's Budget, Rachel Reeves escaped her fiscal straitjacket through two manoeuvres: she raised taxes by £41.5bn and loosened her debt rules to increase investment. The Spending Review is the moment at which the Chancellor gets to distribute the bounty that resulted. Reeves has already launched a pre-emptive strike against critics who liken her to the flinty George Osborne. A graph shows how Labour's spending far exceeds that planned by the Conservatives before the election (one aide calls it 'the honesty chart'). This isn't just spin: Reeves intends to increase day-to-day spending by £190bn – the biggest real-terms rise since Gordon Brown occupied the Treasury in 2000 – and capital investment by £113bn. Austerity this is not. But two things can be true. Yes, overall spending is rising by £303bn but some must lose in order that others may win. The latter includes the NHS – which has secured a 2.8 per cent real-terms rise – and defence (even if plenty regard 2.5 per cent of GDP as inadequate). Ed Miliband's energy security department will enjoy a large increase in capital investment including on nuclear power (allies point to the Energy Secretary's long-standing support for the sector as part of 'the sprint for clean energy abundance'). Other departments, however, face average real-terms cuts of 0.3 per cent to day-to-day spending. Hence the fraught negotiations of the last week. Angela Rayner – that former trade union negotiator – reached a settlement with Reeves last night having warned that cuts to affordable housing would render Labour's target of building 1.5 million new homes impossible. Yvette Cooper – who knows her way around the Treasury as a former chief secretary – is still holding out. After public dissent, the police will receive a real-terms increase but this will entail cuts to other Home Office areas. Last week I detailed Andy Burnham's rhetorical fusillades against the government. This week it's Sadiq Khan who is unhappy, with concern inside City Hall that Reeves will announce no new projects or funding for London at the Spending Review (key demands include Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line extensions, a tourist/visitors levy and a significant rise in funding for the Met Police). 'We must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government, which would not only harm London's vital public services, but jobs and growth across the country,' one person close to the Mayor tells me. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Here is further evidence of why some inside government believe that Reeves needs an 'economic reset' – abandoning her tax lock or further loosening her fiscal rules. But the Chancellor will have a message for such critics in her speech, which aides describe as a chance to 're-educate' these errant foes. Rewriting the UK's fiscal rules, Reeves will warn, would not be a cost-free choice, but one that would entail higher borrowing and higher mortgage rates. An ally speaks of a 'terrifying' gap between a commentariat that pleads for more taxes and more borrowing, and a much more sceptical electorate. 'They think we tax too much, they think we borrow too much, and a lot of people probably think we spend too much.' The Chancellor is seeking to pull off a tricky double act – assailing those who accuse her of austerity while reassuring those who fear Labour profligacy. This week will test whether she can keep her balance. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Rachel Reeves wants to level up your commute. Does she have the money?] Related
