Latest news with #OwenJones
The Guardian
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Galileo's recantation and Palestine Action
Owen Jones writes well about the 'grotesque absurdity' of an 83-year-old priest being arrested while proclaiming her opposition to genocide and support for Palestine Action (This column does not express support for Palestine Action – here's why, 9 July). My MP sent me a long email explaining the government's reasons for proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. In my reply, I cited Galileo, who said, 'And yet it moves', when the religious authorities of his day insisted that the sun goes round the Earth and forced him to recant his view that the Earth goes round the sun. For the record, I do not support Palestine Action because, like Galileo, I have been forced to recant the truth. And yet … criminal damage is criminal damage, not terrorism, and a direct-action protest group is not a terrorist organisation. It is ironic that religious people should now take inspiration from Galileo, when decrying the Orwellian doublespeak of the secular authorities of our own day. Jones argues that the Labour government has crossed a Rubicon by this proscription. Well, they're not the only ones, since I am resolved, with regret, never to vote Labour ever Canon Dr Rob KelseyNorham, Northumberland Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
12-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Signs of new life: is the British left making a comeback?
In the past week alone, 100 people have signed up to Majority, a progressive coalition based in the north-east of England that advocates for wealth taxes, public ownership of important utilities and upholding universal human rights. It may not seem a huge number in a country of 57 million people, but it is part of a bigger picture of grassroots activity on the left that is fuelled by dismay at Labour's record after a year in government, anger over its perceived targeting of the poorest and most vulnerable with benefits cuts and explosive fury at the relentless killing of people in Gaza. Almost five years after Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the Labour party and the left retreated to lick its wounds, there are clear signs of renewed confidence and willingness to take on those standing in the way of their principles and goals. Leftwing initiatives and coalitions have sprung up. As well as Majority, there is We Deserve Better, set up by the activist and Guardian columnist Owen Jones, who left the Labour party after 24 years, which is raising funds to support alternative candidates; and Collective, a network of campaign groups and individuals led by two of Corbyn's inner circle, which claims to be the 'engine that will drive the formation of a new, mass-membership political party of the left in the UK'. Independent candidates on the left have done well at national and local elections. Corbyn, who was banned from standing as a Labour candidate in last year's election, won handsomely as an independent. Four pro-Palestine independents whose campaigns focused on the war in Gaza also beat Labour rivals, and another came close to defeating the Labour star and now health secretary Wes Streeting. The resurgent Greens won four seats. In last year's local elections, Jamie Driscoll, who set up Majority after being blocked from standing as a Labour candidate for the mayor of the north-east, came second with a 28% share of the vote. Majority, whose members include Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat activists as well as non-aligned community campaigners, is now aiming to take control of Newcastle city council in next year's elections. Meanwhile, at least 200 councillors across the country have quit Labour. And then last week came the left's biggest move in recent years. Zarah Sultana, the MP for Coventry South who was suspended from Labour after rebelling over the two-child benefit cap, announced she would co-lead a new party with Corbyn. 'The time is now,' she said in a post on X. Two polls suggested the new party could make a mark. More in Common found that 10% of voters would back a Corbyn-led party, rising to almost a third of 18-24-year-olds. According to YouGov, 18% would consider voting for such a party. Sultana's announcement came after Keir Starmer faced defeat over his welfare bill when scores of backbench MPs threatened to rebel. Huge concessions ensured the bill was passed, but 47 Labour MPs stood their ground in a significant act of defiance. This week, more than 100 Labour MPs backed a new group focused on living standards. In a sign of growing activism on the backbenches, they called on party leaders to talk less about the G7 and more about the price of groceries. Fractures in Labour's bedrock were highlighted on Friday when the leftwing union Unite said it was reconsidering its ties with the party over its stance on the long-running Birmingham bin workers' strike. It also suspended Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister. Meanwhile, the Green party is facing an insurgent challenge in its leadership contest from Zack Polanski, an anti-Zionist Jew who advocates radical 'eco-populism' targeting billionaires, water companies and corporations. There is 'serious vibrancy' on the left, said Rob Ford, a professor of political science at Manchester University. 'The left, far from being dead post-Corbyn, has never been stronger in the form of the Greens and the independents. I would say this move by Corbyn and Sultana is a consequence of the evident desire in parts of the electorate for a leftwing alternative, rather than a driving cause of it.' Disappointment in the Labour government was a significant factor, but another was the 'rapidly changing and fragmenting political landscape' in which voters were rejecting the main political parties. 'More than half of the electorate are consistently saying now that they want to vote for somebody other than Labour or the Conservatives – that has never happened before,' said Ford. 'My working assumption is Labour is going to get an absolute hammering next year, from the left and from the right.' Even so, a long history of rancorous factionalising in leftwing politics could hamper any new party's chances of success. In the hours after Sultana's announcement, underlying tensions were exposed. Some saw Sultana as a bold figurehead, while others were uneasy about formalising leadership roles too soon. Corbyn is said to prefer 'consensus politics' and is understood to have leaned toward a looser formation – one that builds on parliamentary independents and grassroots groups rather than a fully-fledged party. Corbyn's closest allies were not on board with the timing of Sultana's announcement. Messages shared afterwards suggest some were caught unaware and had concerns about how it would be interpreted. Since then, efforts to manage tensions and reconcile the two camps are believed to be in progress, with further meetings planned to re-establish a common position. Some insiders acknowledged 'increasingly chaotic' factionalism around the time of Sultana's announcement, and described current efforts as an attempt to 'stabilise the ship' with a unified strategy. Informal discussions about how to chart a path forward could produce a shared position as soon as this weekend, they suggest. Others involved said the whole project could still unravel. For now, the question of leadership remains unresolved. While Sultana, 31, has long been seen as one of the left's most visible next-generation figures, some supporters say the project should be built around shared ownership and diffused power, not a single leader. The veteran leftwing MPs Diane Abbott and John McDonnell are unlikely to be formally involved, in part – it is understood – because of the loose structure being discussed. For all the internal discord, those involved in the embryonic leftwing party insist the project remains viable. The ambition, they say, is real – and the need, even more so. The past week's turbulence, in their view, should not be seen as failure but as evidence of how hard it is to capture a rising energy and channel it into one durable, structured form. Meanwhile, some MPs on the left say that trying to shift Labour leftwards from within is a better strategy than breaking with the party. 'We're still connected to the unions. Labour is an institution. It's not about individuals,' they said. 'Until I'm thrown out or smeared, I'm staying,' said one leftwing MP. Another figure on the Labour left said the recent rebellions over the government's welfare bill demonstrated it was possible to wield influence within the party. 'These were not just symbolic moves. We're actually getting policy changed. That matters.' A new party would not have the reach needed to form a mass political movement, the MP added. 'We're staying in – and encouraging our supporters to stay too. The last fortnight has shown it's still possible to win change inside Labour. That didn't feel true a year ago.' The experience of breakaway parties is not encouraging. In the 1980s, a group of centre-right Labour MPs formed the Social Democratic party, arguing that Labour was too leftwing. Despite high hopes and some early successes, by the end of the decade it had been subsumed into the Liberal party, renamed the Liberal Democrats. At the other end of the spectrum, the maverick George Galloway formed the hard-left party Respect after he was expelled from Labour in 2003. Respect was in essence a one-man band; Galloway won several elections but the party was dissolved in 2016. And the challenges are not unique to Britain. In France, Jean-Luc Mélenchon's Nupes alliance has made electoral gains but remains fragile. In Spain, Podemos surged then splintered. In Germany, Die Linke has lost national coherence, while in Italy and Portugal, left movements have fragmented. Tensions – over egos, ideology, and institutional pressures – have proved difficult to overcome. The incipient Sultana/Corbyn party 'could fall apart before it even begins', said a senior leftwing Labour MP. There are also warnings that a rival party on the left of British politics could split the progressive vote and facilitate greater electoral success for Reform UK, the rightwing populist party led by Nigel Farage that has had a huge surge of support over the past year. A source close to Reform said Farage had long predicted that a hard-left party could win up to 30 seats at the next general election, and said its presence would ultimately help Reform. 'I look forward to them standing in every seat across the country and helping deliver a Reform government,' the source said. A senior Labour MP said the party should not dismiss the risks posed by Reform or a new left alliance – but warned that panic would be the worst response. 'If voters don't feel better off by the next election, if public services are still creaking and small boats keep coming, then of course people will start looking elsewhere,' they said. 'That's why Labour needs to be relentlessly focused on delivery, and be clear about what we're doing and why. We don't win trust by ignoring disillusionment on either flank – we win it by showing we're serious about fixing the country.' In the north-east, it is already too late, according to Driscoll. 'What people were expecting from the Labour government isn't what they've got – and I'd include Labour MPs in that. 'I estimate that 80% of people support a wealth tax and public ownership of utilities and a block on arms sales to Israel. But they're also fed up with potholes in the streets. 'They don't see that anything has got better in the past year, and some are now coming to the conclusion that we've got to make change ourselves. It's time to take back control.'
The Independent
11-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Fact check: Clip about October 7 attack was taken out of context
A video has been widely shared on social media appearing to show political commentator Owen Jones saying: 'In 2023, 240 Palestinians had been killed that year by the Israeli state, including 40 children. What else was Hamas supposed to do on October 7?' Another video which was also widely spread on social media included only the last sentence. Evaluation The clips have been taken out of context. Mr Jones was making a point that asking such a question would be 'outrageous'. The facts The mention of October 7 is a reference to the terrorist attack carried out by Hamas against Israel on that date in 2023. The attack killed around 1,200 people and Hamas took hundreds of hostages. Following the attack, Israel attacked Hamas in Gaza, a conflict which has claimed more than 54,000 lives by an official count. The clip shared on social media was taken from an episode of Piers Morgan's YouTube show Uncensored. Mr Jones was interviewed about the situation in Gaza on the show on July 3, starting at around 42 minutes into the episode. The clip was from a section where Mr Jones attempted to make a point about Mr Morgan's questioning. Slightly before the clip starts, Mr Morgan had asked about how Israel should have responded to the October 7 attacks. He said: 'Three thousand terrorists have come over the border. They've annihilated 1,200 people. They've captured 250-plus hostages. Seven thousand people were wounded, many of them with irrevocable injuries. What would you have done?' After some back and forth, Mr Jones said: 'You would find this question offensive if I had put it to you. If I had said to you: 'In 2023, 240 Palestinians had been killed that year by the Israeli state, including 40 children. What else was Hamas supposed to do on October 7?' What would you say?' Mr Morgan: 'Are you justifying…' Mr Jones: 'No, no, that's the point. I'm saying: You would say – correctly – 'there is never any excuse for war crimes, this is an outrageous question for you to even ask me'.' Links Britannica – Israel-Hamas War (archived)
Telegraph
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
When will angry men learn not to pillory JK Rowling?
When will the small, angry men of the Left learn what a folly it is to come for JK Rowling? She'll only make mincemeat of you, fellas. Serial court-case loser Jolyon Maugham tried it. He called her 'anti-trans', 'amoral' and a 'bigot'. Big mistake. In the tweeting equivalent of a surgical strike, Rowling did to Maugham's reputation what he did to that unfortunate fox while wearing his wife's kimono on Boxing Day 2019. Don't make me sue you, she said, not least because it would be a terrible waste of taxpayers' money to 'have to construct a courtroom large enough to accommodate your ego'. Next up was ex-pop star Boy George. He branded her a 'rich bored bully'. Bully? That's rich, she quipped, from someone who was 'given 15 months for handcuffing a man to a wall and beating him with a chain'. And now we have Owen Jones. Yes, completing the trifecta of gender-crank Rowling botherers, the Guardian's pipsqueak Leftist has come out swinging for the woman who dares to believe in biology. He seems to be upset because she had a chuckle about his erratic behaviour on Piers Morgan Uncensored last week. In response to an X user who wondered if Jones might have partaken of the white stuff before fidgeting and gurning his way through Morgan's show, Rowling tweeted: 'Well, he is known as Talcum X.' Jones is hopping mad. He's even written a 1,300-word screed on what a rotter Rowling is, which I'm sure we can all agree is a perfectly normal response to a woman making a joke. His line of attack is that Rowling has been shamefully silent on the suffering of Palestinians. She claims to stand up for women, he says, yet she's schtum on what is happening to women in Gaza. His Rowlingphobic diatribe drips with haughty sexism. He bemoans her 'useless obsessions', by which he presumably means her valiant defence of the reality of sex and her financial backing of women and homosexuals who have been persecuted for their beliefs by either their bosses or the state. Sounds pretty useful to me, Owen. He commands her: 'End your silence.' Maybe he didn't get the memo – men don't get to tell women what to do anymore. Women are free to think and say whatever they please. Radical, I know! But it's the disingenuousness of his blokeish moan that is most striking. He accuses Rowling of only caring about certain women. Yet as you read this rant from one of Britain's noisiest Israeliphobes, you realise that is far truer of Jones and his fellow woke bros than it is of Rowling. Rowling's big issue is the gender madness. She has made it abundantly clear that she thinks every woman, regardless of age, background or station, deserves dignity and liberty. No woman, she says, should be made to undress with or compete against men who masquerade as women. In both word and deed, she's been admirably consistent in her defence of the truth of womanhood and the rights of women. The same cannot be said for Jones and the other digital windbags of the 21st-century Left. Indeed, Jones' grossly inappropriate moral preening over how much he cares for Palestinian women instantly raises the question of why other women caught up in awful conflicts rarely seem to prick his conscience. Rowling's bold defiance of the gender cult is a strike for the autonomy of all women. In contrast, the myopic Israelophobia of the whackjob Left fashions a ruthless hierarchy in which the pain of Palestinians counts for more than the pain of anyone else on earth. What's more, these faux-feminists zip their lips when women are being oppressed by Islamists. They cosplay as feminists at home, holding forth on the gender pay gap and whatnot. Yet they fall silent in the face of the Iranian regime's mass murder of women who want more rights or the Taliban's medieval subjugation of its female population. They're so antsy about 'Islamophobia' that they will happily turn a blind eye to Islamism's truly brutish crushing of female freedom. Here's my question for Jones: why do you get so much angrier over conflicts involving the Jewish nation than you do over any other war? What explains that glaring disparity? Today, a report was released detailing the horrific sexual violence Hamas meted out on 7 October 2023 as part of its 'genocidal strategy'. I look forward to Jones' commentary on it. Wait – you do care about Jewish women, right?
Telegraph
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Be careful what you wish for, Owen, ethnic tribalism may engulf us all
It is not very British to wish death to things. That's a translation of an Arabic chant that has been injected into our culture by the hard-Left. Welcome to Britain of 2025. The departure from traditional slogans like 'down with' in favour of 'death to' in the progressive lexicon is symbolic. For years, the Corbynites and jihadis have been travelling in tandem, or as Magic Grandpa himself once put it, as 'friends'. Now we are seeing them converge. In the process, the Left is being dragged away from Britain's shared values and customs and into ugly new depths. Take the The Guardian firebrand Owen Jones. Don't sniff: he has 500,000 fans on Instagram, almost 800,000 on YouTube and a million followers on X. On the day Zarah Sultana announced her new political venture with Jeremy Corbyn, Jones couldn't contain his excitement. 'We need a Red-Green Alliance to tax the rich, invest in people and services, support public ownership, stop arming genocide,' he posted. This was the first time I'd seen that term used outside of a disparaging context. 'Red,' of course, means the hard-Left, while 'Green' in this context appears to refer to sectarian Muslim voters. Is that what you meant, Owen? Ever since the Enlightenment, our political preferences have been distinct from ethnic or religious backgrounds. Hindus or Jews or Sikhs may have a particular fingerprint of priorities, but they vote like any other citizen according to their consciences, not as a tribe. Some Hindu Britons may tack to the Left, others to the Right. Members of Conservative Friends of Israel may include many Jews, as well as Gentiles, but it is not an alliance between Conservatives and Jews, seen as two distinct groups. And, of course, there is also a Labour Friends of Israel. According to our way of doing things, it would be nonsensical to call for a coalition between a political party and an ethnic bloc. Ironically, it was Britain's emphasis on individual rights that allowed the successful integration of outsiders. Half of my family is Jewish, from both Sephardi and Ashkenazi lineages, while the other is mixed British and Burmese. They could all belong to this country – indeed, fight for it – due to the separation of ethnicity and Britishness. Different relatives voted in different ways. This is unique to the West. As Sir Roger Scruton observed: 'Our obligations to others, to the country and to the state have been revised in a direction that has opened the way to the admission of people from outside the community – provided that they, too, can live according to the liberal ideal of citizenship.' This is our miracle. Only now it is being undone. Before our eyes, great numbers who reject Scruton's 'liberal ideal of citizenship' are organising along tribal lines. Once this foundation-stone is lost, the cathedral of our civilisation will be in danger of collapsing into tribalism, demolishing the synagogue within it. In truth, this has been done to us by centrist fundamentalist elites. Did they really think that abandoning our schools, universities, public institutions and – worst of all – our borders to radical progressive ideologues would have no effect? The backlash against the proscription of Palestine Action was another sign of this cultural shift. In one revealing video, a middle-class activist in a short skirt and two keffiyehs, flying a Palestine flag, accused the government of choosing 'war and profiteering'. Her closing remark was chilling. 'As always,' she chuckled gleefully, 'I cannot wait for the West to fall.' God knows what she hoped would replace it. But it couldn't be clearer. This is not Israel's problem, it's ours.
