Afternoon summary
Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, has said she would like to see the party whip restored to Diane Abbott. (See 4.07pm.)
NHS waiting lists in England have fallen for the fourth consecutive month, according to new figures, although the number of people waiting longer than 18 months for treatment has increased. As PA Media reports, cancer waiting times also remain well below target, the data shows, with charities calling for a long-term cancer strategy. An estimated 7.58 million treatments relating to 6.32 million patients were waiting to be carried out at the end of January, down slightly from 7.60 million treatments at the end of December.
What Tom Baldwin's biography says about Starmer and Labour's disciplinary machine
Comparing what Keir Starmer said about Diane Abbott’s suspension with what Angela Rayner said about it (see 4.07pm), it is tempting to conclude that, while Rayner wants her back in the party, Starmer definitely doesn’t.
Starmer’s interview with LBC could be seen in this light too. Asked about Abbott’s suspension, Starmer said this “needs to be resolved, of course it does”. But when Lewis Goodall, the interviewer, put it to him that it should not take 11 months to investigate a single letter, Starmer replied:
But it was a pretty offensive letter … this wasn’t just a casual remark.
However, Rayner and Starmer are in a different situation. As deputy leader, Rayner can say, as she did, she would like to see Abbott back, but it’s not a decision for her. In the Labour party, the deputy leader little or no power over the party machine. But the party leader can’t say he would “like to see” such and such an outcome without implying that he is putting pressure on those taking the decision. In its report in 2020 the Equality and Human Rights commission said “political inteference” in antisemitism complaints from the leader’s office meant the party was in breach of the Equality Act.
Under Starmer, Labour has been accused of developing a control freak culture that goes way beyond what happened during previous bouts of faction fighting in the party. This is apparent in candidate selection and in the way disciplinary rules are enforced. But it is not entirely clear to what extent Starmer himself is pushing this, and in his new biography of the Labour leader, Tom Baldwin claims that Starmer was worried when he heard about one of the most egregious examples of someone being purged – the Compass director Neal Lawson (who wrote about his experience for the Guardian).
Baldwin says:
It’s also fair to point out that Starmer is prevented from getting involved in any disciplinary process which, under his reforms, is meant to be independent of interference from the leadership. Indeed, he is understood to have been surprised and a little perturbed when it emerged that Neal Lawson, a longstanding campaigner from the soft left for a ‘progressive alliance’ with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, was under investigation for a social media post that showed him praising co-operation between parties as ‘grown-up politics’. Lawson, meanwhile, vented that Labour had been ‘captured by a clique who see only true believers or sworn enemies’ which was behaving like ‘playground bullies’.
Baldwin also says that Starmer is not involved in the murkier decisions about candidate selection.
Although Starmer had tightened central control over selections by pushing through reforms at the National Executive Committee, he keeps away from the business end of it, with one official saying: ‘Keir doesn’t need to know how sausages are made.’
Journalists often write mid-flight biographies of politicians on the basis that one day they might become prime minister, generally they are worth a read, but few of them are likely to stand the test of time. Baldwin’s book is an exception; as well as being very well written, he obtained considerable access and he presents a compelling picture of what Starmer is like, and in particular how he was brought up. If you admire Starmer, you should definitely read it. And if you don’t like him, you should read it anyway, because he could be PM for the next 10 years and it may be a very long time before anyone produces a better or fairer account of what makes him tick.
Updated
Starmer says Sunak 'failing test' on donations after report says Tories have had further £5m from Hester
Keir Starmer has renewed his call for the Tories to return donations from Frank Hester, saying that reports that he has given the party a further £5m “makes the situation worse”.
Earlier this week the Tories said they would not be returning the £10m they had already received from Hester, arguing that he had apologised. But a minister did not rule out further donations being accepted.
After Tortoise reported today that Hester has donated a further £5m, which has not yet been publicised by the Electoral Commission because it is recent, Starmer was asked on LBC what the Tories should do with the money. He replied:
Well, if that’s true, it makes the situation worse, because it begins to give an explanation as to why Rishi Sunak will not hand this money back …
This is a significant contribution to their electoral campaign. And he won’t hand it back.
Now this is the same prime minister who took it on himself to do a broadcast, essentially walking into our living rooms two weeks ago Friday, at ten to six, to parade as a unifier and a man that could bring people together.
Amongst the comments [from Hester about Diane Abbott], not just racist and misogynistic about Diane Abbott, this is a donor who said she should be shot.
There’s only one answer to returning that money. It’s a test for Rishi Sunak. He’s failing that test.
Angela Rayner says she wants to see Diane Abbott get Labour whip restored
Keir Starmer ducked a question about whether he wanted Diane Abbott to have the Labour whip restored to her when he was on Radio 2 at lunchtime.
Abbott has been suspended for almost a year because of a letter she wrote to the Observer downplaying the seriousness of antisemitism and implying it was not as serious as the racism experienced by black people. Jeremy Vine put it to Starmer that, in the light of what was said about her by Frank Hester, Starmer should restore the whip and '“put a welcoming arm around her”.
Starmer said Abbott had received more racist and misogynistic abuse than any other MP and “so we absolutely need to put our arm around her and give her support in relation to that”. At another point, he described her as “a trailblazer”.
But, on the subject of having the whip restored, Starmer claimed that was not a matter for him. He said:
That was about allegations of antisemitism in relation to a letter … which is subject to an ongoing investigation which is separate from me. That’s not something which I conduct. That’s an independent process.
When Vine said Abbott had apologised for the letter, Starmer replied:
Well, yes, but it’s not resolved.
But Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, was prepared to say that she wanted Abbott back in the party at a lunch with journalists today. Speaking to the parliamentary press gallery, she said:
Personally, I would like to see Diane back but the Labour party has to follow its procedures.
And for me, that is the most important thing – that we have made sure our party is fit to govern by making sure we have got complaint procedures that are robust and people can have confidence in.
So it doesn’t matter what I think because I don’t make that decision because it is done through a panel, it has gone through experts, and I’m not involved in that process.
Tories urged to return further £5m donation made by Frank Hester
The Conservative party has been urged to decline or return a reported further £5m donation made by Frank Hester, whose remarks about Diane Abbott have been widely condemned as racist and misogynistic, Peter Walker reports.
Organisers of pro-Palestinian marches describe extremism definition as 'assault on core democratic freedoms'
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other groups that have been organising the pro-Palestinian protests since the Israel-Hamas war started have issued a statement saying that Michael Gove’s extremism definition is “in reality an assault on core democratic freedoms, seeking to silence dissenting voices”.
In the statement, they said it is the government itself that is being extremist. They say:
The government has used the protests we have organised in response to Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people as a core rationale for the need to redefine extremism. Successive government minsters and pro-Israel voices have attempted to demonise those protesting as hatemongers, Islamist mobs and antisemites. The reality is that, as the police themselves have publicly affirmed, the marches have been overwhelmingly peaceful and attended by a broad cross section of British society, young and old, of all faiths and none.
It is the government, while claiming to champion democracy, that is eroding rights we are marching to protect – democratic rights at home and respect for international law globally. It is the government that is pursuing an Islamophobic agenda which seeks to confine the Muslim community to the margins of democratic society.
It is a government which has run roughshod over the rule of law, illegally proroguing parliament, illegally planning to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, and whose MPs have deliberately exacerbated racism and Islamophobia. It should stand charged of falling foul of its own definition of extremism.
The other groups that help organise the marches and that have signed the statement are: Palestinian Forum in Britain, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Stop the War Coalition, Muslim Association of Britain, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Gove named the Muslim Association of Britain today as one of three Muslim-led groups that he claimed might qualify as extremist under the new definition. (See 1.46pm.)
Muslim group Mend rejects Gove's claim it's 'Islamist', and suggests it will sue if he repeats claim outside parliament
Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development), one of the groups named by Michael Gove as a “rise for concern” under new extremism guidelines, has challenged the communities secretary to repeat his claim that it has called for the establishment of an “Islamic state governed by sharia law” outside of parliament without the protection of parliamentary privilege.
In a statement, Mend, an advocacy group, called the new definition a “blatant attack on civil liberties and free speech” and compared the move to something more “suited to stifling dissent in authoritarian repressive regimes”, saying it was being “used to silence those exposing UK government complicity in the Gaza genocide”.
In the Commons, Gove said:
Islamism is a totalitarian ideology which seeks to divide, calls for the establishment of an Islamic state governed by sharia law and seeks the overthrow of liberal democratic principles.
Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, which is the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups such as Cage and Mend give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views.
In response, Mend CEO Azhar Qayum said:
We challenge Michael Gove to repeat his claims outside of parliament and without the protection of parliamentary privilege if he believes he can provide the evidence to back up his view that Mend has called for the establishment of an ‘Islamic state governed by sharia law’.
Parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak in the House of Commons with legal immunity, including protection from defamation claims.
The advocacy group said Gove “has a long track record of Islamophobic views and associations” including leading the government’s role in the Trojan Horse affair, when it was falsely alleged that an extremist takeover of schools in Birmingham was under way; writing a book called Celsius 7/7 in which he highlighted the “threat of Islamism”; and being a founding member of the Henry Jackson Society, which they say “has promoted an anti-Muslim agenda over many years”. It went on:
Given his own ‘extremist’ credentials, for him to be lecturing others as to who is or is not an extremist is an example of rank hypocrisy, and there would appear to be a persuasive argument that he is also an extremist on his own definition.
Updated
According to a report by Cat Neilan at Tortoise, Frank Hester has not just given the Conservative party £10m, the figure that has been widely quoted in the reports about his comments about Diane Abbott and the controversy that has generated. Neilan says he has given another £5m, which has not yet been declared in the data published by the Electoral Commission because it is recent. It may appear in an update from the commission in early June, she says. She reports that the Conservative party did not deny getting another £5m from Hester, but just said: “Declarable donations will be published in the usual way by the Electoral Commission.”
MPs to get 5.5% pay rise from April, taking annual salary to £91,346
MPs are set to get a pay rise of 5.5% from April – bringing the overall salary to £91,346, PA Media reports. PA says:
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said the decision had been taken in line with the award recently agreed for the senior civil service.
The increase is considerably larger than the 2.9% pay uplift last year, when the expenses watchdog said it had “considered very carefully” the “extremely difficult” economic backdrop amid the cost-of-living crisis.
Announcing the 2024 pay decision, Richard Lloyd, chair of Ipsa, said:
Ipsa has been responsible for deciding MPs’ pay since 2011. Since then, our aim has been to make fair decisions on pay, both for MPs and the public.
Serving as an MP should not be reserved to those wealthy enough to fund it themselves. We believe our decision recognises the vital role MPs play in our democracy and considers the continued economic challenges facing the country. We are committed to supporting a parliament that reflects our society, where people from all walks of life can decide to become MPs.
Ipsa has published a report explaining in more detail how it decides what MPs should be paid. It includes this chart showing how their pay compares with that of parliamentarians in other major democracies.
UK embarks on post-Brexit trade talks with Turkey
The UK and Turkey have started talks about a post-Brexit free trade agreement targeting the service sector of the economy, Richard Partington reports.
No 10 says list of groups deemed extremist will be published 'in coming weeks'
Downing Street has said that the list of organisations covered by the government’s new definition of extremism will be published in the coming weeks.
At the No 10 lobby briefing, asked when the list would be published, the PM’s spokesperson said:
There is going to be a robust process led by subject-matter experts within the department, advised by other experts, with ultimate sign-off from the communities secretary and the home secretary.
I’m not going to put a timeframe on this now, other than saying that it will be in the coming weeks.
London mayor Sadiq Khan says new extremism policy could increase division and drive some groups underground
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, told the World at One he was worried that the government’s new extremism policy could drive some groups underground and increase divisions, not reduce them. He explained:
My concern is some of the people we engage with in some of our programmes, which work with young people, whether it’s those who may be going down the path of the extreme far-right, whether it’s those who may be going down the path of the Islamist … My worry is by labelling these groups, many local authorities, mayors, public authorities won’t engage with them and they’ll go underground …
I’m nervous that what Michael Gove will do – intentionally or unintentionally, it’s for him to answer – is lead to a situation where many Muslims think it’s ‘them and us’.
What Gove told MPs about five Muslim-led or far right groups that may be categorised as extremist
This is what Michael Gove said in his opening statement to MPs about the five groups he named as at risk of being deemed extremist.
Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, which is the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups such as Cage and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development) give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views.
We will be holding these and other organisations to account to assess if they meet our definition of extremism and will take action as appropriate …
We are in no way intending to restrict freedom of expression, religion or belief, but the government cannot be in a position where unwittingly or not we sponsor, subsidise or support in any way organisations [or] individuals opposed to the freedoms we hold dear.
I’m sure that we would agree that organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative who promote neo-Nazi ideology, argue for forced repatriation, a white ethno-state and the targeting of minority groups for intimidation, are precisely the type of groups about which we should be concerned and whose activities we will assess against the new definition.
The activities of the extreme-right wing are a growing worry, the targeting of Muslim and Jewish communities and individuals by these groups is of profound concern requiring assertive action.
Updated
During his statement it was not just Labour MP who criticised Michael Gove over the fact that groups that are branded extremist by the government under his new system won’t have a right of appeal. Kit Malthouse, the Tory former policing minister (and also education secretary for a few weeks under Liz Truss), also expressed concern about this. He said:
I share, along with many other members, some alarm at the emergence of this new definition.
Is there really to be no appeal process in this branding of particular groups as unacceptable? Not least because … putting them on a government blacklist effectively will have a chilling impact more widely on their place in society from financial services, to the media, who is likely to engage with them.
Gove said groups could challenge the government’s decision by judicial review.
The Conservative MP Miriam Cates said she was worried gender critical feminists could be labelled extremist under these guidelines. She said:
In separating the definition of extremism from actual violence and harm and using terms like fundamental rise which don’t actually have a definition in law, we do risk criminalising or at the very least chilling speech of people who have perfectly legitimate, harmless views.
Gender critical feminists might be intolerant of the rights of people to change their sex on their birth certificates, they might be seeking to undermine that right by seeking to appeal the Gender Recognition Act, for example.
They will be labelled extremists under these regulations as I can see it, and as to impartial civil servants deciding these things, I’m afraid I just don’t think that’s always the case, and certainly I have seen civil servants wearing very impartial lanyards on this particular issue.
Gove replied: “There’s nothing in this which would lead to a ban, it is simply about saying which organisations government should and should not engage with.”
Earlier he insisted gender critical feminists would not be covered by the definition. See 12.10pm.
Updated
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has published three documents alongside its news release about the new definition of extremism:
A paper about the new definition
A paper on standards that will apply when the government engages with community groups.
A paper on best practice for community engagement
George Galloway, the newly-elected Workers Party of Britain MP, told Gove he was not reassured by his assurance that his announcment would not change the criminal law. “You try getting a bank account once you’ve been branded by Michael Gove as an extremist,” he said.
Galloway said that he was branded an extremist when he was campaigning for the overthrow of apartheid.
Labour’s Andy Slaughter asked Gove how he squared his definition of extremism with accepting donations from Sir Paul Marshall. He said that a recent investigation showed that Marshall, who co-owns GB News, liked tweets including one saying “there has never been a country that has remained peaceful with a sizeable Islamic presence”.
Gove said he deprecated that attack on Marshall, whom he described as a “distinguished philanthropist” because of his contribution to the Ark academy schools.
Sir Edward Leigh (Con) said he said he was worried about this announcement. He said the right to offend should be protected.
Gove said he could not agree more with Leigh about the importance of free speech.
UPDATE: Leigh said:
[Will Michael Gove] reassure me that nothing in this statement is going to add to the increasing culture, in what should be a free country, of the intolerance of the right to offend.
I may be offended if people make extreme attacks on Christianity but they have an absolute right to do so, and people have a right to criticise religious people or particular religions.
Equally orthodox Jews, or devout evangelical Christians with a particular view of the Bible, or devout traditional Muslims have an absolute right to say what they believe in a free society, even if it’s very unfashionable.
Updated
Labour’s John McDonnell said the Muslim Council of Britain had had its name “dragged through the mud” as a result of leaks in recent weeks suggesting it would be covered by the new definition. He praised it for for supporting integration and asked, given organisations will not be able to appeal against being labelled extremists, if they would be able to get legal aid for a judicial review challenge.
Gove said it was the last Labour government that first raised concerns about the Muslim Council of Britain. He said that the government would be “very, very careful” about describing an organisation as extremist, and that evidence to justify such a decision would be published.
Jeremy Corbyn said people who campaigned against apartheid, or for peace in Northern Ireland, were condemned at the time but subsequently vindicated. He asked for an assurance that this will not happen again.
Gove said the new definiton would be applied with caution.
Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, said he felt this definition had landed “in no man’s land”. He said:
I fear that the definition, though well intentioned, lands in no man’s land, not going far enough to tackle the real extremists, not doing enough to protect the non-extremists, those people who are simply expressing contrarian views who might find this definition used against them.
Gove replied:
I think it is much less likely that this definition could be misused than the preceding definition, which was looser, baggier and capable of many more interpretations than this much tighter definition.
Updated
Labour’s Imran Hussain said he regarded Gove’s announcement as a “further draconian attempt to continue with the Tory agenda of culture wars”.
Gove said he was sorry that Hussain was politicising this. He pointed out that Labour’s front bench was not taking this approach.
Labour’s Stephen Timms asked if an organisation described as extremist would be able to appeal against that decision.
Gove said the option of judicial review would be available – implying no.
Dame Priti Patel, the former home secretary, asked how the new guidance would be applied.
Gove confirmed that the new definition would not change the threshold for a criminal investigation.
Alison Thewliss, the SNP spokesperson on home affairs, asked Gove if the what the Tory donor Frank Hester said about Diane Abbott would meet the definition of extremism.
Gove said those comments “were clearly racist and regrettable”.
And he said that, given that he was targeted by the person who went on to murder Sir David Amess, he took comments like Hester’s extremely seriously.
In an interview this morning, Gove was more explicit, suggesting the Hester comments would not be enough to trigger the involvement of the new counter-extremism centre. (See 9.38am.)
Gove names Muslim-led and far right organisations which could meet definition of extremism
In his opening statement Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, named organisations that he said were a cause for concern under the new definiton.
He named two that he described as neo-Nazi:
The British National Socialist Movement
Patriotic Alternative
And he named three that he associated with Islamism:
Muslim Association of Britain (which Gove described as the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood)
Cage
Mend
Gove said the government would be holding these organisations to account “to assess if they meet our definition of extremism and will take action as appropriate”.
UPDATE: See 1.46pm for the full quote.
Updated
Gove is responding to Rayner. He welcomes the constructive tone of her comments.
Nothing being said today means the government does not want to see free speech exercised as vigorously as possible.
He says he deprecates the leaking of some information about this announcement.
(At least one MP appears to laugh at this point.)
Gove says a leak inquiry has been launch.
If an organisation is named as extremist, the government will “show our working”, he says.
As for why the government may have engaged with extremists in the past, that was because previous advice was “perhaps insufficient”, he says.
Rayner is still responding to Gove. She asks when the hate crime action plan will be updated.
And why are government anti-hate crime and antisemitism working groups no long meeting.
She ends by quoting what the archbishops of Canterbury and York said about this.
Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader and shadow levelling up secretary, is responding. She says all MPs should take the threat posed by extremism seriously.
She criticises the way the government floated possible definitions over the past week.
And she says it was not right to leak the names of groups that might be affected by this.
She asks if this new definition will only apply to engagement with government. Or will it apply to engagement with groups like the police and universities?
And she asks why it has taken the government so long to address this. She says Gove’s statement implies the government has until now been engaging with extremists.
Gove says the government will shortly be responding to the reports done by Sara Khan, the former counter-extremism adviser, and by Lord Walney (former Labour MP John Woodock), the independent adviser on political violence.
Gove says Islam should not be confused with Islamism.
Islam is a peaceful religion, he says. But Islamism is a totalitarian ideology, he says.
Gove says trans, gender critical, religious conservative and green activists won't be covered by extremism definition
Michael Gove is speaking in the Commons now.
He says extremism can lead to terrorism.
Most extremism is legal, he says. But it can lead to illegal acts.
He says council meeting have been disrupted. Councillors talk about walking a tightrope. This shows the chilling effect that extremists are having.
He says there is some evidence that Islamists and the far right are working together.
The government has provided extra funding to address antisemitism and Islamophobia, he says.
He says the government should not fund extremist organisations. In the past they have sometimes presented themselves as moderate to get access to government, he says.
He cites Shakeel Begg as an example of an extremist who was able to benefit by engagement with the government.
He says the new definition of extremism will help government bodies know whether or not they are engaging with extremist groups. And a new new counter-extremism centre of excellence is being set up, he says.
He says the new definition will not affect people like gender critical campaigners, or environmental groups.
It draws on work done by Sara Khan, the former counter-extremism adviser, and Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, he says.
UPDATE: Gove said:
Our definition will not affect gender critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech.
The government is taking every possible precaution to strike a balance in drawing up the new definition between protecting fundamental rights and safeguarding citizens.
Updated
Gove denies claims new extremism definition amounts to attack on free speech
Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, has denied claims that his new definition of extremism amounts to an attack on freedom of speech. (See 11.39am.) This is what he told GB News this morning in response to that claim.
There is absolutely nothing in this definition or any of the actions that we’re undertaking that curtails free speech. In fact, it’s vitally important that all of us uphold free speech.
Indeed, some of the people who are extremists want to close down free debate in order to advance their agenda. And this definition is only about access to government money and to government platforms.
So an organisation that is, after appropriate scrutiny, classified as extremist and one with which we will not deal, is still an organisation which is free to argue its case in the public square, it’s just that we don’t believe that taxpayers’ money should be used to subsidise that.
The Liberal Democrats say Michael Gove’s new definition of extremism (see 8.51am and 11.31am) could increase division. The party’s home affairs spokesperson, Alistair Carmichael, said:
After weeks of Conservative uncertainty, it is disappointing to see this new definition - which is at best vague, and at worst risks sowing even more division.
In working up this new approach, the Conservative government has failed to consult communities, while bringing forward concerning unilateral powers for ministers. With something as important as countering extremism, they cannot get away with this botched job.
Muslim groups dismiss Gove's extremism definition as attack on free speech and 'solution looking for a problem'
Groups set to be named by Michael Gove as “divisive forces within Muslim communities” today have warned against allowing the “personal biases of one man” to determine government policy on extremism, claiming the communities secretary has a history of promoting Islamophobic policies.
Gove is set to unveil a new, broader definition of extremism that will affect those who are deemed to have promoted or advanced an “ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance”, replacing the old definition that defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to British fundamental values”.
In a joint statement, Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development), Cage, Friends of Al Aqsa, 5Pillars and the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) warn that freedom of speech in the UK is under threat by this new definition, citing widespread opposition to the change from former home secretaries Priti Patel and Sajid Javid, LGBTQ activist Peter Tatchell and the Countryside Alliance, among others.
A draft version of Gove’s ministerial statement, which has been seen by the Guardian, names the five groups as “divisive forces within Muslim communities”. They say they have not been contacted by the government for their view on the new definition.
The statement also cites a number of associations and incidents related to Gove that the group deems Islamophobic, including leading the governments role in the Trojan Horse affair, where it was falsely alleged that an extremist takeover of schools in Birmingham was underway, writing a book called Celsius 7/7 where he highlighted the “threat of Islamism” and being a member of the Henry Jackson Society which they say “has promoted an anti-Muslim agenda over many years.”
A spokesperson for the five groups said:
This new extremism definition is a solution looking for a problem. It attacks one of the cherished cornerstones of our pluralistic democracy – that of free speech. Anyone, regardless of faith or political colour should be free to criticise the government of the day without being labelled as ‘extremist.
Updated
Gove to make statement to MPs about new definition of extremism
Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, will soon be making a statement to MPs about his new definition of extremism.
Here is our overnight story by Rajeev Syal, Ben Quinn and Daniel Boffey.
Here is the government’s news release. Here is an extract explaining what Gove is trying to achieve.
The updated and more precise definition of extremism will be used by government departments and officials alongside a set of engagement principles, to ensure they are not inadvertently providing a platform, funding or legitimacy to groups or individuals who attempt to advance extremist ideologies that negate our fundamental rights and freedoms and overturn the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy. This definition is not statutory and has no effect on the existing criminal law – it applies to the operations of government itself.
Since the 7 October Hamas terror attacks in Israel concerns have been raised about the wide-ranging risk of radicalisation. On hate crime, since 7 October the Community Security Trust recorded 4,103 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2023, an increase of 147% compared to 2022, and Tell MAMA recorded a 335% increase in anti-Muslim hate cases in the last four months.
As the prime minister said recently, this kind of behaviour and intimidation is unacceptable, does not reflect the values of the United Kingdom and must be resisted at all times.
The new definition and engagement principles will make sure those who promote extreme ideologies or spread hate in their communities are not legitimised through their interactions with government. Following publication, the government will undertake a robust process to assess groups for extremism against the definition, which will then inform decisions around government engagement and funding.
We posted the wording of the new definition at 8.51am.
Boundary changes may reduce access to MPs in UK’s poorest areas, research finds
Some of Britain’s most deprived communities could find it harder to get parliamentary representation based on how UK constituencies have been redrawn, according to research backed by anti-poverty campaigners. Ben Quinn has the story.
Keir Starmer normally takes questions from journalists at events like this, but he did not today. That is probably because he was not keen to talk about Diane Abbott’s article in the Guardian today. In it Abbott does not just criticise the Conservative party, in relation to the Frank Hester controversy, but also Labour. She says she has not received an apology for racist comments made about her by party staffers, and she asks why she is still suspended from the parliamentary Labour party. She says:
In 2022, the Forde Report – commissioned by Keir Starmer – into allegations of racism, sexism and bullying in the Labour party was finally published. Martin Forde himself is a distinguished King’s counsel. His report set out how abusive senior Labour party officials were about me in their WhatsApp groups. Among other things, they said that “[Diane Abbott] literally makes me sick” and that I was “truly repulsive”.
The report went on to point out that the criticisms of me by these senior Labour staff were “not simply a harsh response to perceived poor performance – they are expressions of visceral disgust, drawing (consciously or otherwise) on racist tropes, and they bear little resemblance to the criticisms of white male MPs elsewhere in the messages”. They did not actually call for me to be shot but the tenor was not dissimilar to what Hester said. However, to this day none of the individuals concerned have apologised to me, and the Labour party has not apologised to me personally.
As the general election draws near, it will be important for the Labour party to step up to challenge racism, even if it costs us a few points in the polls. Starmer did refer to me in PMQs but all the indications are that the people around him are digging in against any suggestion that I should have the whip restored. It will be both sad and strange if Starmer throws Britain’s first black woman MP out of the PLP because of an eight-line letter, for which I immediately apologised.
Starmer may not be keen to talk about this, but during his Q&A he said something that suggests on one point he and Abbott do agree. He specifically accused the Tories of using culture war issues as a distraction because their record in office has been so poor. (See 10.45am – I have updated the post with the direct quote.) In her article Abbott says much the same thing. She says:
As the election draws nearer, and Labour stays 20 points ahead in the polls, the Tories are desperate. Their political trump card has always been low taxes and the sound management of the economy. But Liz Truss blew out of water any claim the Tories had to superior economic competence, and taxation is now at its highest sustained level on record. So the only card the Tories have left to play is the race card, and they are going to play it ruthlessly.
Starmer claims Tories 'think working people don't need culture'
In his speech Starmer also mentioned Dear England. Just after the announced the measures to combat ticket touts (see 10.35am), he cited it in a passage in which he argued that Conservatives “think working people don’t need culture”.
Referring to the importance of capping ticket prices, he said:
Because this is something I don’t think the Tories understand.
Look how the Tory culture secretary in 2014 – if you can cast your mind back a dozen culture secretaries or so –said that only the ‘chattering middle classes and champagne socialists’ care about ticket prices.
[Starmer was referring to something Sajid Javid said when he was culture secretary.]
They think working people don’t need culture.
There is a patronising view that working people don’t care, and shouldn’t care, about the arts.
When I went to see Dear England, I saw so many people in the audience who maybe hadn’t been to the theatre before – hadn’t thought it was ‘for them’.
We should be welcoming and encouraging everyone to our theatres, museums and galleries.
I mean - just look at how the Tories sneered at Angela Raynor for daring to enjoy the opera.
And try telling my dad – who loved Shostakovich – that working people don’t need culture.
Try telling that to thousands of working class kids who might long to work in the arts …
… but have got the message loud and clear from this government that it’s not a ‘real job’.
That ballet dancers should be retraining as cyber experts.
That’s why the Tory culture wars always end up as a war on culture.
The creative arts shouldn’t tell working class kids to ‘know their place’.
They should help them find their place in the world.
Arts and culture are about bringing us together, finding what we have in common, searching for truth and meaning.
But these culture wars are about dividing us, distracting us and disrespecting working people.
Starmer says he is really pleased James Graham’s play Dear England, about the England football team, is going on tour. He says it brought people into the theatre who might not have been before. They will have seen it and thought, this is for me, he says.
And that is the end of the Q&A.
Q: How will you use the soft power of the creative industries overseas?
Starmer says he thinks the power of the UK overseas is diminished. As DPP, he realised that people in other countries admired the power of the UK. That has changed, he says.
The UK is “brilliant” at arts, he says. Most of the time talk about being a global leader is “rhetoric from useless ex-prime ministers”. But, with the arts, it is true.
He says 75% of people who came to the UK for tourism say they are coming because of arts and culture.
Starmer claims Tories using culture wars to distract from their poor performance in office
Q: What do you think the role of the arts are in a time of division?
Starmer says he thinks the world feels more divided than in the past. Partly that is because of the culture wars. He claims the Tories, because their performance in office has been so poor, are distracting people by “finding enemies that don’t really exist, and then [having a fight], which is exhausting and divisive. instead of actually bringing people together”.
He says the arts can being people together.
But that requires a government with the right mindset.
He says during the pandemic he was struck by some of the simple things people did, such as knocking on the door of a neighbour they did not know well and asking if they were alright. That is “the power of coming together”, he says. He says the government does not really understand that.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
Whether it’s domestically or internationally just at the moment, it feels that we’re more fractured, divided world than we were a generation ago.
Partly that’s driven by the politics, the culture wars, where your performance in government is so poor that you have to distract, when you distract by finding enemies that don’t really exist, and then have a fight with them, which is exhausting and divisive, instead of actually bringing people together.
Updated
Q: What role do you see arts and culture playing in public services?
Starmer says music and drama at school can give people a lifelong love of the arts.
He says he inherited a love of music from playing the flute. As a teenager, he got to the Guildhall school of music through hard work, he says. When he got their, he realised other people were there through talent.
He says arts can also teach children about things like working as a team.
And there is a health component too. The mental health of young people is a real issue, he says. He says the arts can help.
That is why it is dangerous to think of the arts as “a nice to have add-on”, he says.
Starmer has finished his speech. He is now taking questions from people from the creative industry sector who are in the audience. Journalists have been told he is not taking media questions at the event.
Q: Will you be able to achieve these things if you inherit a broken economy?
Starmer says there are some things that can happen immediately, like changing the curriculum.
But he concedes that other measures will take time. He says he has spoken about the need for a decade of renewal.
Starmer says Labour would cap ticket resale prices for arts events to stop touts ripping off fans
In his speech Keir Starmer has just confirmed that Labour would stop ticket touts buying up tickets for events and re-selling them at rip-off prices.
This is what Labour said about the plan in a news release this morning.
Reselling tickets for profit has already been banned in many countries, but under the Tories, fans have been let down.
Too often, genuine fans are missing out on getting tickets only to see those same tickets on secondary ticketing websites at far higher prices, making them unaffordable and putting them out of reach.
Labour says this “not only rips off hard working Brits wanting to enjoy their favourite band or actor, but it damages the relationship between venue, artist and fan”
Many reselling websites are dominated by large-scale touts, rather than just those who can no longer attend an event. Touts use different illegal and unethical means, including false IDs, bots, and automated systems to skip online queues and hoover up large numbers of tickets.
Labour’s plan to clamp down on ticket touts will:
-Strengthen consumer rights legislation on this issue to restrict the resale of tickets at more than a small, set percentage over the price the original purchaser paid for it (including fees).
-Limit the number of tickets individual resellers can list to the number of tickets that individuals can legitimately buy via the original platform.
-Make platforms accountable for the accuracy of information about tickets they list for sale and ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority has the powers that it needs to take swift, decisive action against platforms and touts, to protect consumers.
Updated
Starmer is speaking at the Guildhall school of music in London. He started his speech by recalling how, as a teenager, he used to come here every Saturday to play the flute. He had a scholarship because he was especially talented.
Starmer said music gave him great opportunties.
My first ever trip abroad was to Malta with the Croydon youth Philharmonic Orchestra. You will know that excitement you feel when you have an encounter with the arts that changes your life. Everyone in the room will know that the sense, I suppose, of being drawn into something that seems bigger than ourselves, of being truly moved by a piece of music, or painting, or a play …
Even now even now, listening to Beethoven or Brahms as I read the Sunday papers, takes the edge off some of the more uncomfortable stories.
Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, taking over from Amy Sedghi.
Keir Starmer has just started his speech on the arts. Peter Walker has previewed what he will be saying here.
And here is a live feed.
Updated
Keir Starmer is about to deliver his speech about Labour’s “access to the arts” plan. There is a live feed on YouTube.
Starmer is also being interviewed by Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 at 12.30pm
Later today, at about 11.30am, communities secretary Michael Gove will present the new extremism definition, which is already being challenged by Muslim groups and experts, in a statement to MPs
Although, government sources have said that groups, that will be effectively cancelled by ministers for falling foul of the new definition, will be named in the coming weeks, Politico are reporting that “Gove looks set to use parliamentary privilege to name a clutch of organisations today”.
Elsewhere, prime minister Rishi Sunak will be conducting five seperate visits with MPs in Gloucestershire today, including a chat with regional media.
There will be more on the subject of Hester’s comments about Abbott, as an increasing number of Conservative peers, including Chris Patten and Stuart Rose, call for the Tory donor’s £10m to be handed back.
And at lunchtime the deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner will face the media today for the first time since news of the sale of her council house when she speaks at a press gallery lunch in the Commons.
That is all from me for today. Andrew Sparrow is now taking over
Updated
Michael Gove suggests Tory donor's comments would not be deemed 'extremist'
Michael Gove has suggested a Tory donor’s alleged call for an MP to be “shot” would not be referred to the government’s new extremism taskforce, reports the PA.
Businessman Frank Hester is alleged to have said that Diane Abbott, Britain’s first black female MP, made him “want to hate all black women” and that she “should be shot”, in comments the prime minister described as “racist” after initially refusing to do so.
Gove described the remarks as “horrific” but said he was exercising “Christian forgiveness” after the entrepreneur had “shown contrition”. It came as the cabinet minister unveiled the government’s new definition of extremism on Thursday.
Speaking ahead of a speech to the Commons, Gove said it was not up to him to rule whether Hester’s words were extremist. “It is important that any decision about individuals and organisations is taken after a rigorous assessment of evidence and a consistent pattern of behaviour,” he told Times Radio, saying an “expert team of civil servants” would be running that process.
He went on to indicate that “an individual comment” would not be enough to be examined by the team.
The senior Tory told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
We have to be clear, we’re looking at organisations with a particular ideology. The individual concerned said something that was horrific. I wouldn’t want to conflate those motivated by extremist ideology with an individual comment, however horrific, which has quite rightly been called out and which has quite rightly led to an apology.”
Gove noted that he took “these issues incredibly seriously” as someone who was targeted by an extremist who went on to kill Sir David Amess MP.
Amid continuing calls for the Tories to return the £10m Hester has donated to the party, the communities secretary reiterated the government’s line that Hester’s apology should be accepted.
Asked whether the businessman’s apology was genuine if he did not acknowledge his remarks were racist, Gove told Sky News: “I haven’t spoken to Mr Hester, but I think that when someone says that they are sorry, and I understand he’s deeply sorry for these remarks, then my natural inclination is to exercise Christian forgiveness.”
Abbott has accused the Conservatives and Labour of failing to tackle racism. In newspaper articles on Wednesday, she said the “reluctance to call out racism and sexism” was “shocking, but hardly surprising”, and warned the Conservatives would “play the race card … ruthlessly” at the next election.
Updated
Labour say the new government definition for extremism raises more questions than answers
Labour have said the new government definition for extremism raises more questions than answers and is “very unusual”, according to the PA.
Shadow treasury minister Darren Jones told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
Clearly, there is a cross-party political consensus that hateful extremism is not welcome in our society, should not be tolerated and action should be taken. So we all agree on the starting position.
The slight confusion really is that the government has focused on this definition today, which is not in relation to the counter-extremism strategy, which is now nine years out of date, it’s not an action plan for agencies and others about what action they should take in communities across the country. It’s not even a legal definition.
All it really does is prevent the government from financing organisations or individuals. That rather implies that Michael Gove is worried they’re doing that at the moment, which raises more questions than he’s been able to answer this morning.
Asked if Labour would not adopt the policy, Jones said: “Well it looks like he’s doing it today, and so if we win the next election we will inherit the status quo, but I do have concerns around the process and the checks and balances here.”
“It’s very unusual for officials to make recommendations to Michael Gove … to designate organisations in this way,” he said.
Attempts by the government to capture more groups in its official definition of extremism risk fuelling the very extremism it claims to be trying to oppose, Greenpeace UK has said.
Ahead of an expected announcement by Michael Gove on Thursday, Areeba Hamid, joint executive director of the group, warned that shrinking the space for peaceful protesters in the UK would encourage others to go down the path of more destructive and unlawful forms of protest.
Hamid told the Guardian:
Cracking down on peaceful protest won’t help combat extremism, but risks fuelling it instead. The right to protest is the safety valve of a healthy democracy – it provides people with a space to express their dissent peacefully. When you make peaceful, legal protest off limits, you exclude peaceful, law-abiding protesters from the conversation, and give their space to people who are less concerned about peacefulness and legality.
Updated
New extremism definition to be published by Michael Gove explained
In their Guardian piece on UK ministers and officials to be banned from contact with groups labelled extremist, Rajeev Syal, Ben Quinn and Daniel Boffey have outlined the new extremism definition to be published by Michael Gove. Here it is:
The new definition, which will be distributed across government and Whitehall, will say: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: 1 negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or 2 undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or 3 intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”
The previous guidelines, published in 2011, said individuals or groups are only defined as extremist if they show “vocal or active opposition to British fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
Bringing communities together should be the “priority” in government, its independent adviser on antisemitism has said, reports the Press Association (PA).
Asked whether the government’s new extremism definition was a mistake, John Mann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
I think that the government needs to listen to people who are advising that the politics of division will not work.
The Jewish community is under tremendous harassment and the hassle at the moment, feels very bombarded by everything.
Bringing communities together is the key role of government, so that should be the priority. There’s certainly been some move in that direction – I think pressures from Conservative backbench MPs are playing out.
But anything that leads to division amongst communities is bad for the country; is bad for the politics of the country.”
Mann, a former Labour MP, said a number of Conservative MPs were concerned that “the politics of division doesn’t work electorally” and that “there isn’t even a voting dividend in doing it”.
Updated
Opening summary
Good morning and welcome to today’s politics blog amid the continued fallout from the revelations over Tory donor Frank Hester’s remarks about Diane Abbott.
Last night, in a comment piece for the Guardian, the veteran MP said Hester’s remarks left her “upset but not surprised”, given the amount of racist abuse she receives. Hester said in a 2019 meeting that he did not hate all black women but seeing Abbott on TV meant “you just want to hate all black women because she’s there”. He also said she “should be shot”.
Calls are growing for Rishi Sunak to return £10m donated by Hester, with most voters thinking the Conservatives should hand back the cash and key figures urging the NHS to cut ties with his IT company, TPP.
Meanwhile, the communities secretary, Michael Gove, has been on the morning broadcast round, partly to talk about the government’s new definition of extremism. On Times Radio he declined to say whether Hester could be considered to be an extremist under the incoming rules.
Different people will have different views... It is important that any decision of about individuals and organisations is taken after a rigorous assessment of evidence and a consistent pattern of behaviour.
Asked whether the Conservative party has a racism problem, Gove said:
“I think there are individuals who’ve certainly said things that are unacceptable and racist and that needs to be called out. But again, I also think that if individuals repent, apologise, show contrition, then the right thing to do is to accept that.
After the publication of Hester’s remarks earlier this week, a statement from TPP said he “accepts that he was rude about Diane Abbott in a private meeting several years ago but his criticism had nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin”. The statement said Hester abhorred racism, “not least because he experienced it as the child of Irish immigrants in the 1970s”.
The statement added: “He rang Diane Abbott twice [on Monday] to try to apologise directly for the hurt he has caused her, and is deeply sorry for his remarks. He wishes to make it clear that he regards racism as a poison which has no place in public life.”
Updated
