Britain's 2024 General Election saw a historic increase in Muslim representation, with twenty-five Muslim MPs elected: eighteen Labour, four independent, two Conservative, and one Liberal Democrat, a six-seat rise from 2019. Public attacks on Muslim MPs are not new, but the sources of these attacks are shifting.
Since October, the Palestine-Israel conflict re-ignited protests across UK cities, with tens-of-thousands, sometimes hundreds-of-thousands, rallying consistently in months gone. YouGov data indicates consistent Britain sympathises for Palestine over Israel, even post-October 2023. This issue holds particular weight for Muslim voters, who are 22% more likely to prioritise it above all other factors in their voting decisions. Understandably, with the death count rising literally by the minute, every tragedy surpassing the scale of the one gone, and no end to the suffering the Palestinian people face in sight, change is wanted and is wanted fast.
The frustration within the UK Muslim community has led to intense criticism of Labour's Muslim MPs by UK Muslims. In contrast, Muslim MPs belonging to other parties, perceived as 'lost causes', are seldom mentioned anymore. This shift in attention certainly stems from a sense of betrayal felt by Muslims from the Labour Party under Keir Starmer who time and time again has restated his unshakable friendship with Israel. Labour Muslim MPs, therefore, are viewed as collaborators, facing significant backlash. Muslims cannot be blamed for feeling this way. With a history of generational support for the Labour party, Muslims want their representation in Parliament to be substantive. After all, what is the point of consistently diversifying Parliament by sending Muslim candidates into the Commons if it is merely to reach a diversity quota? This isn't a job application to TfL, it's democracy: the 'Mother' of them all at that. Prominent Muslim voices like podcaster Muhammad Jalal (@Jalalayn on X) say that there are no exceptions anymore for Muslim Labour politicians such as Zarah Sultana, once praised by him for her stance on Palestine, and that they all need to be removed from office by the ballot box.
I question, however, if this complete dealigning and rejection of the Labour party and the Muslims within it is really the answer. More than just unconvinced, I am alarmed. It is testing to keep a level-headed approach when all you see is death, starvation, and hell-on-earth being unleashed on the Palestinians. It is widely known that their misery did not begin on the 7th October. It started over seven decades ago and has been continuous since. However hard though, it is unspeakably important to keep a level-headed, strategically sound, and long-sighted approach. The Labour party is bigger than Keir Starmer and his cabinet. Just five years ago it was led by Jeremy Corbyn, someone who understood the Palestinian cause deeply and continues to stand alongside them. Some may anticipate the bulk of my argument and preemptively rebuke me and ask "Are we really going to wait and hope that Starmer falls from grace so we can then change the Labour party in time to help the Palestinians?". In reality, this question is redundant. It fails to appreciate the inescapable realities of the UK political system. There is no flawless strategy nor can one be devised. Instead, all options must be analysed and the least harmful, the least objectionable, and the most effective has to be chosen. Throwing away the only apparatus that realistically has hope of influencing change on an executive level (beyond the House of Commons) is not the way forward. This will demonstrate the deep inadequacies of the current approach and attempt to foster a relationship with Labour Muslim MPs and others who are publicly allied with the Palestinian cause. It is hoped that their actions in the weeks, months, and years to come won't come back to haunt this article.
Independent MPs are not a Replacement,
They are a Symbolic Supplement
Independent MPs from the 2024 general election should be celebrated for their ability to increase substantive representation in parliament for those who voted them in. Without a party, and therefore no party whip, they have nobody to answer to in parliament. In addition, the luxury of parliamentary privilege means they can speak as candidly as they like and is needed on key issues such as Gaza. They will ensure that in the chaos of approximately 645 other voices, Gaza is not forgotten.
Other than that, their utility stretches little further. Labour's huge majority means that Keir Starmer does not need opposition or independent MPs to support his legislative agenda passing through the House of Commons. While Private Members Bills do exist, they seldom succeed, especially when they pertain to controversial issues already addressed by government policy.
The empirics demonstrate that these independents will struggle to exceed a term in parliament. It's true Jeremy Corbyn seems an exception, but the reasons for his re-election transcended only Gaza. A forty-year presence in his constituency, diverse policy platform, and former leadership of the Labour party offered significant name-recognition and trust within the constituency he fought in. Other independents will lack these advantages come the 2029 general election. While not an independent, but practically being one, George Galloway exemplifies this challenge. Despite being recognised as a standard-bearer of the Palestinian cause over many years - essentially building a career from it - and contesting in a highly Muslim populated constituency, he still lost his seat in the elections just gone to Labour.
Evidently, there are limitations on the impact that independent MPs are able to make. Yet, many have a very unrealistic view of what they are able to do.
Parliament is an Art
When unpacking political systems, you will discover unfortunate truths. Parliament has existed for centuries and naturally has developed its own rules and ways of working, both formal and informal, and it is neither wise or fruitful to work against them. The best historical political strategists understood this. Joseph Stalin, as an example, did not grow his power by brute-forcing his way to the top from the very start. Instead, he took on the role of general secretary, a position others underestimated and sneered at: he was seen as a lowly, unintelligent administrator. This role, however, allowed him to grant membership to allies, gave him powers of patronage, influence committee placements, and incite meeting agendas. By the time Stalin's crosshairs were set on arguably his greatest rival, Leon Trotsky, the general secretary amassed so much power that he didn’t even have to take the shot. Owing him a favour or two, his loyalists took care of Trotsky on his behalf.
As different as modern politics is to Soviet Russia, there are unchangeable facts unfazed by the passage of time or condition. To succeed in Parliament, especially as an independent, the rules must be studied, understood, and played by. Independent status as an MP necessitates collaboration. Unfortunately, the five independents forming a coalition does not produce a solution, it produces five people facing the same circumscribing circumstances, merely together.
This all Means What Then?
For morale, it will be great to see independent MPs producing sound bites in parliamentary debates. But far from it, that isn't what they were elected to do. There is a choice to be made. The Labour party can continue to be treated as a crime scene in which everyone is guilty by association, leaving independents unable to build bridges and strategic alliances with. As made clear by now, this will inevitably render them single-term, inconsequential, symbolic politicians. Or, recognise that there are decent politicians left in the Labour party, Muslim and Non-Muslim, who are not only sympathetic to the platform the independents stood on, but also have more resources at their disposal by being part of the ruling party. It's not guaranteed that this will affect change, but it's surely preferable to the alternative which leads down to a cul-de-sac lifeless of success. There are no strings attached to the strategy this article posits. No one is suggesting that the Labour party has to be loved, unequivocally backed, or blindly supported; rather, the focus is on leveraging its existing structure and resources to achieve meaningful political influence and change for the issues that matter most. Independent MPs pressuring Keir Starmer can be brushed off by him, but noise coming from within his own party will be a much more serious cause for concern especially.
It is true that many of these independents themselves may be staunch opponents of Labour as a party, so these points raised hopefully are just as much of a wake up call to them as it is anyone else reading. But it also needs to be remembered that these independents are at the end of the day politicians. There is a direct relationship between our satisfaction with them, and their employment status. If there is a clear strategic shift demanded by those they represent, they must heed to that signal. Therefore it is incumbent both on voters and politicians to reevaluate their stance towards the Labour party. They may not be the absolute answer to the problems faced. This article never claimed that. But, the current approach is poor and ineffectual. It cannot be allowed that these independent MPs serve their time in Parliament and come out the other side with no success or progress. And when even progress, beyond symbolically, cannot be seen as even likely change must happen.
Do you agree with the contents of this article?
Yes
No
Somewhat
Comments