Photo: AP Images

France is engulfed in an unprecedented political crisis after Prime Minister Michel Barnier’s government was toppled by an unlikely alliance of the far-left and far-right forces intent on showing President Emmanuel Macron that his power exists only on paper.

Barnier, who lasted a mere three months in office, now holds the dubious distinction of being the shortest-serving PM in modern French history. His departure came after Parliament forced his resignation by rejecting his fiscal plan.

Yet this is merely the first major fallout from Macron’s political misstep earlier this year. His decision to call early parliamentary elections last June effectively handed power to France’s political extremes: Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s far-left La France Insoumise (Unbowed France), known for its anti-Israel stance; and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, the anti-immigration standard-bearer of the so-called “new right.”

Macron’s government must pass a budget law, but given its evident fragility, voices from the opposition and some media outlets are demanding the president’s resignation. Macron, however, remains defiant, promising to serve “until the last day” of his term in May 2027.

In the meantime, this political chaos highlights a troubling reality: the shrinking center in global politics. While Macron accuses both the far left and far right of “seeking chaos,” many believe the French president himself bears the greatest responsibility for the crisis.

To understand the turmoil facing French democracy, we spoke with French political analyst Jean-Yves Camus. Here are five key takeaways:

What Happened?

An unlikely alliance between the far-right National Rally and the far-left La France Insoumise succeeded in passing a no-confidence vote against Prime Minister Michel Barnier. At the heart of their objection was Barnier’s attempt to bypass Parliament with a maneuver to push through a social security financial bill.

The result? Barnier’s ouster and a political crisis that leaves Emmanuel Macron’s already precarious government in tatters. Macron now faces the unenviable task of appointing a new prime minister — though the political landscape makes meaningful change unlikely.

Why Did This Happen?

Macron’s government has been operating with a parliamentary minority since last June’s legislative elections, which he called early following his party’s disastrous results in the preceding European parliamentary elections. While Macron managed to prevent a full takeover by the far-right National Rally, his party emerged weakened and vulnerable. For the first time in French Republican history, the political extremes on both ends of the spectrum control the balance of power. The centrist mainstream has been relegated to minority status, leaving Macron hamstrung. Complicating matters further, France’s constitution prohibits calling new elections until at least June 2025.

Macron Stays the Course

Speculation had been swirling about a possible resignation by President Macron. “It would be the best thing for France’s political system,” Jean-Yves Camus told Mishpacha. But Macron dashed such hopes in a nationally televised address, firmly declaring his intent to serve out his current term.

No Lifeline in Sight

One potential avenue for Macron would be to appoint a prime minister from one of the powerful opposition parties, either on the far left or far right.

But Camus quickly dismissed this as implausible: “It’s not going to happen. Even if Macron extended such an offer, these parties wouldn’t accept. Their strength lies in opposition or in winning power through direct electoral means, not through compromise.”

What Does This Mean for French Jews?

Prime Minister Barnier’s departure could precipitate cabinet reshuffles, potentially altering alliances. For France’s Jewish community, the greatest concern is the fate of Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau. Retailleau has earned the community’s respect for his firm stance against anti-Semitic attacks, imposing penalties and ensuring their enforcement — a rarity in France’s recent history. Many local Jews hope he will retain his position, but with political uncertainty mounting, his future is anything but assured.

In a country where the center can no longer hold, France’s current political chaos may be a harbinger of the new normal in global democracies: a world in which extremes reign supreme, and the space for compromise narrows ever further.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1040)

The post Le Chaos first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

PHOTO: IMRAN KHAN'S PHOTOGRAPHY

L

ast week in London, a packed House of Commons debated on and voted for one of the most controversial and consequential laws in modern history. The Assisted Dying Bill for Terminally Ill Adults proposes to enshrine in law the right for people over 18 with a medical prognosis that gives them less than six months to live, to request to end their own life.

The bill, which was proposed by a non-government MP, was a free vote — i.e., MPs could vote how they liked rather than along party lines. It divided the government, MPs, and the country, and ultimately passed by a vote of 330-275.

The law presents serious concerns for the frum community. It rides roughshod over the idea of sanctity of life, raises serious risks that those who refuse the option will be viewed as an unnecessary burden, and is another symptom of the secularization seeking to replace traditional norms of morality. Here are six things to know about the bill, its pitfalls, and potential ramifications.

The Private Process

Unusually for such divisive legislation, the bill was brought forward by a backbench Labour MP under a Private Members’ Bill system that picks names in a lottery and grants the winners the opportunity to try and pass a law of their choosing.

Nikki da Costa, director of legislative affairs under former Prime Minister Theresa May, has pointed out that typically, such bills are relatively consensual, such as a tweak to a criminality threshold for a serious offense. This is to ensure that the backbench MP, who lacks the disciplinary mechanisms the government has at its disposal, can marshal enough votes to get it passed. It’s also because backbench bills get far less scrutiny and debating time than bills put forward by the government, and to try to pass a divisive bill under a relatively rushed process would raise serious questions.

The Devil’s in the Details

To qualify for assisted dying, patients would need two doctors to confirm that they have less than six months to live, signed off by a High Court judge, who would ensure that the patient has not been coerced in any way in arriving at this decision. Any coercion detected would be a serious criminal offense and carry a steep prison sentence.

But many questions remain, such as whether the service would be private or state-provided, where the resources will come from, and how already-overstretched courts will be able to allocate sufficient time to cases of such gravity. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the two ministers responsible for implementing the bill, Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, are both vocal opponents.

Furthermore, the law will only apply in England and Wales, so expect an influx of terminally ill patients from Scotland and Northern Ireland wanting the same choice.

The Ayes

Though the Cabinet was instructed to maintain a stance of neutrality, some had previously aired their views on the topic, most notably Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who’d been a vocal backer of assisted dying when it was last debated in 2015. He was joined in the “yes” lobby by most of the Cabinet, hordes of progressive MPs, socially liberal Tories, and some libertarians, who believe in maximum individual freedom and support giving people more choice.

There were also some skeptical supporters who want to see changes made in the next stages of the process to justify their support at the bill’s final vote. As for the public, recent polling showed 65 percent were in favor of the move, but 75 percent don’t think the National Health Service is in a state to provide it.

The Nos

Health Secretary Wes Streeting was the most prominent Cabinet member to break ranks and express his opposition to the bill on practical grounds, given the state-funded National Health Service is at a breaking point. As a practicing Muslim, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood had previously expressed her opposition and warned it would become a “state death service.” Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, a practicing Christian; Deputy PM Angela Rayner; and Foreign Secretary David Lammy were also in the “no” camp. Most Conservatives voted against, as did former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the “Gaza 5,” the five Muslim independent MPs who were elected in July exclusively on the Israel-Palestine issue.

The NHS Angle

Between a quarter and half of doctors are opposed, as is the Association of Palliative Medicine, underscoring Streeting’s concerns. With the NHS currently unable to provide quality end-of-life care, the bill’s critics argue that patients are not being offered a real choice between palliative care and an early death; inadequate care will compel patients to choose the latter. Hospices in the UK are only one-third state funded, severely limiting the patients they can service.

Then there’s the worry that patients who refuse assisted dying will be made to feel like a burden on a crumbling service, on which the heaviest burden is indeed the elderly and terminally ill. Add the question of where in the system there’s capacity for doctors to assess patients for assisted dying eligibility, and you have a toxic cocktail of ethical dilemmas that will only intensify if the bill goes into effect.

Added Nightmares

For the Torah-observant community, these developments are deeply worrying. In a society where religion is increasingly viewed contemptuously as a barrier to progress, patients in a health care setting may find themselves in an environment hostile to their most fundamental beliefs. Patients with grim prognoses are in a particularly vulnerable position already; having to battle a system that considers prolonging life an active choice would be an added nightmare. The fact that the weeks leading up to the vote were dominated by debate over whether religious belief was a legitimate motivator on how to vote on a conscience issue speaks volumes about how the tone of debate has shifted in the UK.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1039)

The post A Duty to Die?   first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

PHOTO: MX. GRANGER

O

rthodox Jewish schools in the UK face a financial crisis inflicted on them by the newly elected Labour government, whose ministerial ranks are filled with state-educated class warriors. Labour has long committed to changing private school status from educational charity to business. This means a 20 percent tax will be imposed on tuition, and schools will no longer be exempt from paying “business rates” — that is, commercial property taxes.

The change, which was confirmed in the government’s budget last week, will have potentially devastating financial ramifications for chareidi schools, the vast majority of which are private to enable them to maintain a curriculum compatible with Torah hashkafos.

The UK is renowned for its world-class, exclusive private schools, which have disproportionately produced figures of influence in British politics, media, and business. Eton College, for example, has produced countless prime ministers, cabinet ministers, and business leaders; it charges £52,750 per year, and boasts an indoor swimming pool and sports center among its amenities. Winchester College, which former PM Rishi Sunak attended, also charges around £50,000 annually, and is furnished with its own archery range and art gallery.

It’s precisely these elite institutions catering to children of privilege that Labour is targeting, arguing that either affluent parents can cough up an additional 20 percent, or these wealthy schools can absorb the cost of the tax increase without passing it on to parents.

Labour has promised to allocate the revenue it raises (projected to be around £1.6 billion, though estimates vary as to its true total when accounting for pupils who will have to move to the state sector as private education becomes even less affordable) to state education, which they claim will equalize outcomes for the privately and publicly educated.

Interest Groups Object

Caught in this tax trap are Orthodox Jewish schools, the vast majority of which are private (65 out of 74). These mosdos struggle for every penny and are a far cry from the stereotypical private school. Their weekly fees average £75 to £100 per pupil, while it costs the state £147 per week per pupil. Motty Pinter of Chinuch UK, which advocates for chareidi chinuch in the UK, told Mishpacha that they’ve argued that schools charging rates below the state’s per-pupil cost should be exempt from the tax, to no avail.

They haven’t been the only ones begging for a reprieve. Military and diplomatic families, who send their children to private boarding schools to avoid having to change schools every time they’re posted to a new location, lobbied intensively for an exemption, which they did not receive. The government has promised to increase their allowances to account for the increase, though parents will still have to pay an extra ten percent.

Independent schools in rural areas where there’s no accessible state provision are also outraged, and the Independent Schools Council, half of whose membership include small private schools in remote regions, announced its intention to sue the government over the change.

Still, there’s no doubt that the single most affected demographic is the Orthodox Jewish community, where schools compatible with religious belief is nonnegotiable, however difficult the circumstances. Only seven percent of non-chareidi Jewish pupils attend private school (around the same proportion as the general population), compared to 81 percent of chareidi pupils (the remaining 19 percent comprising of chareidi schools in the state sector). The majority of Christians and Muslims send their children to state schools (though many of the latter complain about the liberal curriculum).

Private schools warn these changes will disadvantage bright pupils who might otherwise have been able to access private education, either through their parents’ financial sacrifices or with scholarships that private schools will no longer be able to offer.

Multiple Avenues Exhausted

Chinuch UK made well-sourced and eloquent representations to Labour, before and after the election, arguing that chareidi schools are in a uniquely disadvantageous financial position, and such changes would have a profoundly negative impact on their finances and ability to service their communities.

MPs in areas with significant Jewish populations also lobbied the government, but they were knocking on a sealed door. The policy polls well with the British public, who believe the majority of privately educated children are from wealthy families. However, although negotiations have failed, Chinuch UK is actively pursuing the option of a legal challenge, whose proceedings could delay the date from which these new taxes have to be paid.

Dr. David Landau, chairman of Chinuch UK, doesn’t see the tax on tuition as the primary problem. “Many chareidi schools receive much of their income from voluntary contributions, which won’t be taxed, rather than from formal fees. In addition, the tax will be offset by some of the operating costs, where the purchase taxes can be claimed back by the schools. It’s the ‘business rates’ that are the big problem.”

An askan from a community outside London concurs. “They’re calculated by property space and local real estate values, so that would mean a bill in the hundreds of thousands [of pounds] for some schools, which have large buildings in areas with high property prices.”

Business rates, known elsewhere as commercial property taxes, are paid to local councils and are enforced locally. Is there any hope for well-connected communities to negotiate a more favorable settlement? Dr. Landau is not optimistic.

“It’s an ongoing discussion with local authorities, but it’s difficult to imagine [the councils] will be able to afford a discretionary rebate,” he says. “Maybe in certain places, there are sufficiently good relations to be able to help, but I can’t see it having a significant impact for many schools across the country. Even a goodwill gesture won’t make up for the hole the business rates will blow in schools’ budgets.”

Can chareidi schools become state schools, thus avoiding the new charges? Pinter says that door closed a few years ago. Recent curriculum changes mean that any school now wishing to become publicly funded must sign up to a curriculum incompatible with chareidi values. (These curriculum changes will only affect new state schools; chareidi schools in the state sector before the curriculum changes came into effect are still protected from these changes.)

Unless and until the curriculum becomes more chareidi-friendly, chareidi schools remain in the private sector, subject to the whims of progressive governments wishing to socialize education for the masses.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1035)

The post Class Warfare   first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

The headlines and the colored maps showed Keir Starmer’s Labour Party winning the United Kingdom’s 2024 general election in a landslide. But closer analysis of the results raises the question: Was it an earthquake, or an illusion?

“A new yawn has broken, has it not?” was Politico’s pithy if unkind summary of this Labour victory — a play on Tony Blair’s triumphant rallying cry, “A new dawn has broken, has it not?” when he swept to power in 1997 on a wave of optimism.

Veteran pollster Peter Kellner told Times Radio that this was one of the weirdest he’s covered in over five decades. Labour leader Keir Starmer won a huge majority on the lowest share of the vote and the lowest approval ratings for any victorious prime minister. A weary public looking for stability, change, and psychodrama-free government gave the Tories their worst kicking in history and Labour their second-largest postwar majority.

But beyond the headline stories of Labour victory and Conservative Armageddon, the tectonic plates are shifting yet again, revealing some surprising trends. The two stories of a dramatic night, and what might come next.

Conservative Carnage

It was an unprecedentedly bad night for the Conservatives, who had their worst result since the modern democratic system was established in 1832. They were reduced to a rump of just 121 — a third of their 2019 romp of 365, while Labour rode to victory with 412 seats, more than double the 203 of their 2019 doldrums.

The Liberal Democrats took scores of seats off the Tories, bagging their best-ever result of 72, up 61 from their 2019 count. They campaigned strongly on local issues like water pollution and social care provision in areas with high elderly populations, but their unique selling point was being the best-placed party across the South to topple Conservative candidates.

Reform UK, which Nigel Farage has only led since 2021, took five Tory-held seats. Even the far-left Greens took two rural Conservative seats, campaigning there on environmental issues like water pollution, rather than on the pro-Palestinian conflict (which did win them an additional urban Labour-held seat).

But ultimately, it was Reform who cost the Conservatives the most seats by splitting the right-wing vote. While the Tory vote share dropped 19.9%, Labour’s only rose 1.6%, and Reform were the biggest beneficiaries, increasing by 12.3%.

Senior Scalps

No fewer than 11 serving Conservative cabinet ministers lost their seats, many of whom had majorities over 10,000. They included leadership hopefuls like House of Commons leader Penny Mordaunt, Education Secretary Gillian Keegan, Defense Secretary Grant Shapps, and Science Secretary Michelle Donelan. Countless prominent backbenchers and former ministers lost their seats, too.

But the biggest shock of the night was the defeat of Liz Truss, whose Labour opponent overturned her majority of over 26,000 and squeaked over the line by 630 votes. It’s a final humiliation for the former prime minister, whose brief, chaotic premiership cost the Tories the election, according to Daniel Finkelstein, a former advisor to Conservative leaders.

“I believe if she hadn’t been prime minister, the Conservative position would have been vastly stronger, and it would have been at least contestable for the Tories to be the largest party,” Finkelstein told Mishpacha.

Truss has been famously uncontrite over her shambolic tenure, blaming her government’s failure on “the deep state.” Perhaps her inability to hold on to her own seat — previously the 11th safest in the country — will give her food for thought about what went wrong.

Where Next?

While it’s undoubtedly a crushing defeat, the Conservative seat count of 121 was higher than some of the more dire polls that predicted the Tories would only hold around 60 seats. Former Conservative leader William Hague, who led the Tories after their 1997 battering, has said it’s possible to rebuild from a triple-digit base, and if they get the right leader and mount an effective opposition, the Tories could avoid spending the next decade out of power.

“Whichever way people voted, they voted against the Conservatives, because they failed to deliver their promises,” says Finkelstein. “Parties try targeting voters like Mondeo Man [the aspirational suburbanites Blair won in 1997] or Worcester Woman [the socially liberal, economic conservatives Cameron won in 2010]. But there’s no such thing as Fiasco Father, so the Conservatives’ dismal record alienated everyone.”

With the party’s drubbing having come from so many directions, an almighty blame game and battle for its future is underway. Some hardline Tory MPs advocate a pact or merger with their populist rivals Reform, but more experienced voices are warning against a lurch to the right. Finkelstein pointed out the morning after the election that the Conservatives have won elections without the post-industrial North, where Reform made big gains, but they have never won without the prosperous South, where the Liberal Democrats decimated the Blue Wall of affluent commuter and rural seats that had been Conservative for decades.

Leadership Possibilities

Several contenders for party leader have lost their seats, and not many Conservative MPs are rushing to be opposition leader, dubbed the worst job in politics. A huge Labour majority and some eye-catching government appointments (more on that below) have rendered the diminished Conservatives utterly irrelevant as the hungry media pack focuses on the new government, and they will struggle to get any sort of message through.

But a few individuals are angling for the leadership, including former home secretary James Cleverly, who’s seen as a statesmanlike, popular, and unifying figure. Former security minister Tom Tugendhat, a centrist ex-soldier and foreign policy aficionado, has been beavering away at a potential leadership bid. So has former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who was a Sunak ally, but quit his government last year over his dissatisfaction with Sunak’s position on immigration, which Jenrick deemed to be insufficiently hardline. Brexiteer Priti Patel, home secretary under Boris Johnson, has been keeping her head down, showing surprising loyalty to Sunak, and could run as well.

Labour Luck

It seemed impossible just two years ago that Labour would surge to such a decisive victory, but the work that Keir Starmer put into rebuilding his party, wrenching it back from the left’s stranglehold, and moving back to the center, paid off. When Starmer got lucky, and his two main rivals, the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party, imploded, voters deemed Labour safe enough to entrust with the difficult business of governing a Western multi-ethnic democracy in 2024.

But the numbers, and some surprise Labour losses, underscore what voters have been grumbling about for months now: They don’t know what Labour stands for, and they find Starmer uninspiring, but they’re fed up enough with the Tories to give the other lot a chance.

Labour’s vote share in the seats they won in 2019 actually dropped, and they achieved their historic victory on just a 1.6 percent increase on their 2019 vote share, which means their mammoth constituency gains are spread relatively thinly. A large majority based on a wide but shallow coalition will make party management difficult, and that’s even without the grim picture of stagnant growth, record-high tax burden, crumbling public services, and rising community tensions that Starmer’s inherited. Here’s what happened on election night, and what it tells us we can expect from a Labour government.

The Gaza Vote

Labour suffered some shock defeats, with five independents who ran on a pro-Palestinian ticket taking seats in Labour strongholds, including Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer ousted his predecessor from the party over Corbyn’s remorseless response to a damning report into anti-Semitism in Labour on his watch, but the socialist crank ran as an independent on his 41-year record as a local MP, and on the Gaza issue.

Loyal Starmer lieutenant and skilled political operative Jonathan Ashworth lost his seat to a pro-Gaza independent. Three more Labour seats in areas with large Muslim populations also flipped to independents, but in good news for mainstream politics, anti-Israel firebrand George Galloway lost his seat by a whisker. Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Labour’s charismatic centrist rising star, held on to his East London seat by just a few hundred votes, and the shadow Culture Secretary Thangam Debbonaire lost to the Greens on the Palestinian issue as well.

The Muslim community, 80 percent of whom voted Labour in 2019, are furious with Starmer over his support for Israel after October 7, and many Labour MPs in Muslim-dominated areas with diminished majorities are worried their alienation could cause further losses.

Labour candidates faced intimidation and harassment from Muslims and activists during the election, so we can expect significant pressure on Starmer to take a more pro-Palestinian position. He’s already committed to recognizing a Palestinian state, but only as part of a wider solution to the conflict. This may well change in the face of a backlash from a voter base Labour clearly took for granted.

The Rise of Reform

While Labour lost votes to the left, Reform are also snapping at their heels, coming second in over 100 seats. It was only due to Reform’s surge in the postindustrial North, splitting the Conservative vote, that Labour regained its former heartlands. Longtime Labour voters lent their vote to the Conservatives in 2019, and, bitterly disappointed by their self-destruction and failure to deliver, handed it instead to Reform. At his count in Clacton, which he won with almost 50 percent of the vote, a triumphant Nigel Farage declared he was now gunning for Labour.

Farage has a track record of pushing governments to act on the issues he campaigns on. He was arguably the most influential figure in Cameron’s decision to call the Brexit referendum, and really spooked Tory MPs under Rishi Sunak on immigration — all without the platform of a parliamentary seat. Now, the former stockbroker and charismatic maverick intends to use his seat, and gaggle of MPs, to be “the real opposition to Labour,” suggesting the Conservatives are not too different from Starmer’s party.

Starmer, whose plan for lowering immigration is to continue Conservative attempts to break up smuggling gangs and police the Channel more effectively, will be under pressure from these MPs to be more hawkish on immigration than his liberal instincts would allow.

Class Warfare

One of Labour’s more eye-catching and concrete policies is their pledge to levee a 20% VAT (value-added tax) on private schools and change their status from educational charities to businesses.

This would obligate schools to charge an extra 20% on fees, effectively handing over a fifth of their income to the government, and pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in property taxes, which educational charities have been exempt from. Designed to harvest funds from some of the wealthiest private schools to boost state schools, this is deeply worrying for chareidi schools, most of which are private.

Chareidi private schools can no longer become state schools, because curriculum changes in recent years require public schools to teach topics antithetical to Torah values. Unless the curriculum changes, the state sector is blocked to chareidi schools.

Motti Pinter, head of communal affairs at chareidi education advocacy bulwark Chinuch UK, told Mishpacha they’re working with senior Labour figures on solutions that wouldn’t undermine the policy but that would exempt chareidi schools from the tax.

“It’s existential,” Pinter says. “Schools barely survive already with fundraising campaigns. If they have to pay 20 percent of their income in tax, and are saddled with hundreds of thousands in property taxes, most of them will simply fold.”

Pinter is hopeful that Labour’s upper echelons will be receptive to working out some kind of compromise. “They recognize that there’s a problem with the chareidi sector,” he says, “and they’ve assured us they’ll come back to us to implement a solution before they go ahead with the policy.”

Pragmatism over Principle?

Speaking in front of 10 Downing Street, an exultant Keir Starmer promised a government of service and unity, unencumbered by dogma. But one man’s pragmatism is another man’s spinelessness.

Finkelstein personally believes governing by common sense rather than by ideology is the correct strategy for Labour, but he warns that Starmer must establish a narrative for his government, or risk being perceived as reactive, weak, and buffeted by events.

“Labour have not yet framed that narrative,” says Finkelstein, “and they’ll have to do it quickly.”

Some of Starmer’s cabinet appointments are notable for their apolitical bents. He appointed businessman James Timpson to oversee Britain’s overcrowded prisons and former Chief Scientific Advisor Patrick Vallance as a science minister.

Timpson’s chain of shoe repair stores is famous for employing ex-convicts, and he’s a vocal advocate of rehabilitation over incarceration. Timpson himself has previously said that a third of prisoners shouldn’t be in prison at all. While providing respectable employment to ex-prisoners has proven effective at preventing repeat offenses, Timpson’s stance on overall prison numbers could well alienate voters who value law and order, and will likely clash with the new home and justice secretaries’ more tough-on-crime agendas.

Vallance was chief science advisor during Covid, and worked for the Tony Blair Institute, the think tank founded by Labour’s most successful prime minister, which has deep pockets, and an open door to Starmer’s Number 10. He recently endorsed Labour’s net-zero ambitions, and Starmer hopes his expertise could harness the UK’s world-leading research and life sciences sectors to spur much-needed economic growth.

SNP Wipeout

After the 2014 independence referendum, the Scottish National Party won 56 of Scotland’s 59 parliamentary seats at the 2015 election, ending Labour’s decades-long dominance north of the border. They achieved a similarly clean sweep in 2019, taking 48 seats, leaving Labour with just one Scottish MP. Now, Labour have roared back to life in Scotland, taking 37 seats, and leaving the SNP with just nine.

Like the Conservatives, the SNP were beset by a dismal domestic record (they’ve run the devolved Scottish government since 2007), corruption scandals, and a rapid turnover of leaders. Voters were tired of hearing about independence as the cure to all ills, and returned to Labour in droves. For now, the union looks safer than it has for a decade.

Tradeoffs? No, Thanks

Voters broadly found the choice before them uninspiring, hence the surge of support for smaller parties and independents. Labour’s strategy was to stay far away from any controversial or politically unpalatable decisions, playing it safe policy-wise — and vague —to get to the finish line. Neither they nor the Tories were offering bold or deliverable solutions to the country’s deep-seated problems, and the reason for that, Finkelstein believes, is rather depressing.

“Voters are simply unwilling to accept the difficult tradeoffs that are needed,” he says. “They always say they want the politicians to tell them the truth, but they don’t, really.”

No wonder voters were unenthused by the two main parties. But perhaps they only have themselves to blame. —

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1019)

The post An Underwhelming Landslide  first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: AP Images

The UK goes to the polls on July 4, after a snap decision made by beleaguered Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak.

The picture is unrecognizable from 2019, when Boris Johnson led the Tories to a landslide victory, defeating hard-left Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and promising to deliver Brexit. Boris fell on the sword of party mismanagement and self-inflicted scandals, to be replaced by the disastrous and short-lived Liz Truss. Panicking Conservative MPs installed Rishi Sunak to steady the ship, but their poll ratings continued southwards, and they now trail Labour by 27 points, according to YouGov.

Under the more moderate Keir Starmer, Labour have moved to the center on policy, removed Corbynites from influential positions, and look poised to capitalize on an overwhelming sentiment that it’s time for a change after 14 years of Conservative government and five prime ministers. But has Labour done enough to reassure voters, particularly in areas like anti-Semitism, defense, and the economy?

They need the largest swing in the party’s century-old history just to get a majority of one. Their 10.2% swing in 1997 overturned a ten-seat majority and gifted them a landslide; this year they need a 12.7% swing to overturn the Conservatives’ 45-seat majority. A Labour victory would be the largest electoral upset since 1945. A Conservative victory, a vanishingly unlikely prospect, would take them into an unprecedented fifth term. Here are six things to know about the upcoming contest.

1: Coalition Dissolution

Boris Johnson’s electoral coalition in 2019 was united in its desire to see Brexit delivered after years of deadlock and Jeremy Corbyn defeated. Now, with Brexit a non-issue and Corbyn no longer even a Labour MP, both ends of their coalition have become disaffected with the Tories.

Affluent, socially liberal voters in southern England are unhappy with the high tax burden and the Conservatives’ stance on social and cultural issues, and they’re tending toward the center-left Liberal Democrats. Meanwhile, Boris’s emphasis on green issues and relaxed attitude to immigration, combined with crumbling post-Covid public services, has turned off working-class, culturally conservative Northern “Red Wall” former Labour voters, many of whom intend to vote for populist insurgent Reform.

Polling shows if the charismatic anti-EU campaigner Nigel Farage returned to leading Reform, they could take 15%to 20% of the vote, which would drive the Conservatives close to extinction. There’s been an exodus of donors to Labour and three defections of Conservative MPs to Labour, two in recent weeks.

2: Why the Wonder Boy Went Wrong

The 44-year-old Sunak was a popular chancellor during Covid, when he dished out billions in support, but by the time he became PM in 2022, he was tainted by the revelation that his billionaire wife was using a tax loophole. The country was in the grip of an inflation-driven cost-of-living crisis, which voters viewed him as too out-of-touch to manage. Sunak’s unusually swift ascent to high office meant he lacked political experience; he’s made some avoidable misjudgments on personnel and zigzagged between different strategies in desperate attempts to turn things around.

The government has also failed to deliver on its promises: state-run National Health Service waiting lists are at a record high, Sunak hasn’t “stopped the boats” (illegal migrants arriving via the Channel, which is driving the surge in Reform’s vote, similar to what is happening with the Republican vote in the US), and voters feel worse off. Just 8% of people, mostly in southern England, told YouGov earlier this year that they feel better off.

Despite his formidable intelligence, personal integrity, and punishing work ethic, Sunak has failed to restore his party’s fortunes, and he leads the party into an election with a favorability rating of minus-51.

3: Brand Rehabilitation

Voters are no longer frightened of Labour, as they were in 2019, and believe that after the Conservatives’ turbulent tenure, Labour surely can’t be any worse. In polls, Labour leads on who is most trusted to handle a range of issues, from the NHS to immigration and the economy. Starmer has successfully “de-Corbynified” the party, purging Corbynite shadow ministers and party officials. He’s junked most of the left-wing manifesto he ran on as a leadership contender to win over the party membership, and while he hasn’t specified much in the way of concrete policies, he’s made it clear Labour are at the center on most politically salient issues like the economy, immigration, crime, and strikes.

4: Anti-Semitism, Adios?

Starmer’s expended considerable efforts to rid the party of Corbyn-era anti-Semitism, though the Gaza conflict has given voice to the more hostile left, renewing fears in the Jewish community that while the leader has changed, the party itself retains anti-Semitic elements that could mean trouble in a Labour government.

At a recent Labour event designed to reassure the Jewish community, Jewish Chronicle columnist Melanie Philips drew applause when she said, “If the majority of [Labour] members support the [Palestinian] cause, you have a structural fundamental problem.”

However, polling shows that most seats with large Jewish populations are predicted either to remain, or swing to, Labour, including Finchley and Golders Green, Barnet, and Bury, where the Tory MP defected to Labour in 2022.

5: Starmer Stirs up Apathy

Voters don’t fear Keir Starmer, but they neither like nor trust him; they find him dislikeable by 43% to 29% in YouGov’s latest tracker (though it’s a lot better than Sunak’s 54% to 27%). Voters describe him as dull, lacking an alternative vision, and unprincipled. “Cringy car salesman” and “worthy supply teacher” are some of the more vivid, if unkind, comparisons that focus group participants have made. Labour’s proposals for government are heavy on rhetoric but light on policy detail, which gives downbeat Conservative strategists hope that when it comes to it, the public will stick with the Tories for lack of a substantial alternative.

6: Broken Britain

There is an overwhelming sense of exhaustion and despair among the electorate, particularly about public services. A recent Times survey revealed only one in four are satisfied with the NHS, despite billions being thrown at it by consecutive administrations. There is a Covid-induced courts backlog, the police are too overstretched to respond to low-level crime, and police chiefs are being told to make fewer arrests because the prisons are full.

Though voters primarily blame the Conservative government and the 2010–15 spending squeeze, which saw departmental budgets slashed, some of these problems are institutional, with no obvious quick-fire solutions. The reluctance of thousands of departmental officials to return to the office hasn’t helped; according to the government’s own Office for National Statistics, public sector productivity fell 2.3% since 2023 and is 6.8% below pre-pandemic levels.

The next six weeks will reveal whether the public trust Labour enough to solve the state’s deep-seated problems, or conclude that they don’t yet have the answers and it’s best to stick with the devil they know.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1013)

The post Britain at the Ballots — 6 Things to Know  first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: AP Images

A

lthough the war in Gaza is being fought thousands of miles away from London’s Houses of Parliament, political events in the UK laid bare the direct effects that the conflict is having on British politics.

In what has been called a “seismic political upset,” a by-election in Rochdale, North Manchester — triggered by the death of Labour incumbent Sir Tony Lloyd — saw veteran political disruptor, Israel hater, and radical left-wing firebrand George Galloway voted back in after a 12-year break, overturning Labour’s lead and handing the party the biggest drop in support at a by-election for 70 years.

Galloway’s political résumé is the story of a controversial and divisive figure who, over four decades, has been elected to Parliament seven times to represent voters in four cities — and bouncing between three different political parties in the process. With the Rochdale by-election victory, he again bucked political norms, precipitating an extraordinary electoral event in which his miniscule Workers Party of Britain trounced the big two, Conservatives and Labour — their combined share of the vote plummeting by over 60 percentage points.

But while campaigning candidates normally focus on local issues to gain support, Galloway ran his campaign almost exclusively on a pro-Palestinian platform. For decades a vigorous promoter of the Palestinian cause, Galloway found a willing audience in Rochdale, home to a substantial Muslim population.

Running a campaign rich in pro-Palestinian imagery and rhetoric, Galloway’s campaign photo pictured him standing outside his headquarters, a large Palestinian flag attached to the railings. Outside one mosque after Friday prayers, he asked worshippers whether on “judgment day” they would be able to tell their children and grandchildren that they had opposed Keir Starmer’s position on Gaza.

But although Galloway sought to capitalize on local antipathy toward Israel’s actions in Gaza to win his seat, he was also the unwitting beneficiary of an internal Labour party problem in Rochdale — one that also relates directly to the Gaza war. Labour’s own candidate for the Rochdale seat, Azhar Ali, got himself embroiled in controversy when he was recorded saying that Israel had allowed the October 7 attacks by Hamas to take place as a pretext to invade and take control of Gaza.

Once again finding themselves at the center of an anti-Semitism storm, Labour withdrew support for Ali and, being so close to election day, were disallowed by electoral law from fielding an alternative candidate. Lacking support, Ali’s vote collapsed and Galloway steamed to victory.

For Labour leader Keir Starmer, the Rochdale fiasco is yet another unwanted Gaza-related headache in a general election year in which he hopes to end 14 years of Tory party rule and gain the keys to 10 Downing Street. His party is a big tent, with many on the left critical of what they perceive as his soft stance on the Gaza conflict and his reluctance to call for an immediate cease-fire until recently. All the while, Starmer continues his efforts to rid the party of Corbynite anti-Semitism ahead of an expected election in the second half of 2024.

Since late 2022, Sir Keir’s opposition Labour party has been consistently polling around 20 percentage points ahead of the ruling Conservatives. Although that didn’t stop Galloway, with characteristic bombast, from predicting doom and gloom for his former party on his big night in Rochdale. Approaching the podium once the votes were counted — and aware that he had just presided over a mini political earthquake — Galloway didn’t waste a moment in taking a swipe at Starmer.

“Keir Starmer,” began the political rabble rouser, “This is for Gaza. You have paid, and you will pay, a high price for the role that you have played in enabling, encouraging, and covering for the catastrophe presently going on in occupied Palestine in the Gaza Strip.”

Most concerning for British Jews is the fact that the journey from Rochdale to the chareidi strongholds of Broughton Park and Prestwich, home to thousands of Jewish families, takes less than 20 minutes.

Dave Rich of Community Security Trust (CST), who liaise with the government on security matters relating to the Jewish community nationally, says that while Galloway’s return has caused a lot of concern in the local community, it’s how he will use his newfound influence in Parliament that is the real concern.

“If this is anything like his previous runs, we won’t see much of him locally, because he doesn’t do the local MP bit very well,” says Dave Rich.

Galloway has a reputation for parachuting into constituencies where he thinks he can get a quick win. Then, job done and seat in Parliament secured, he all but disappears from the local scene. Indeed, some voters have accused him of using Rochdale — and the Gaza conflict — as his springboard for re-election.

“The worry is that now, with a seat in Parliament, if he starts repeating his obnoxious views in the House, that would be shocking and pose a real challenge to Parliament as to whether that’s deemed acceptable,” says Dave Rich.

Rich is referring to Galloway’s penchant for spreading conspiracy theories, not to mention his idolization of dictators and autocrats. He met Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, famously telling him, “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.”

More recently, he was a presenter on the Kremlin-backed news channel RT, giving him airtime to dwell on conspiracy theories about the war in Ukraine.

And he hasn’t held back about the October 7 massacres either, saying that they were created by Israel as an excuse to invade Gaza. He’s also been known to talk about Israel’s supposed hold over British politics, in classic conspiracy theory language.

While Galloway’s victory is highly concerning, commentators have pointed out the bizarre set of circumstances that caused it, warning against being too quick to draw conclusions as to wider political implications. The Labour Party insists this is a short-term blip for Keir Starmer, saying that the only reason Galloway was victorious was because of Labour’s inability to field an opponent against him. For his part, Starmer has told voters he will field a “first-class candidate” for Rochdale in the upcoming general election, hoping upon hope to oust the renegade Galloway.

While Starmer’s language is intended to reassure voters, he may need to go further to calm his own MPs in constituencies with large Muslim populations. They will no doubt have been jolted by Galloway’s victory, considering what the prospect of facing off against candidates standing on a pro-Palestinian platform might mean for their re-election chances.

Political commentator Sir John Curtice told the BBC that these MPs may be looking to Sir Keir perhaps to toughen his stance on Israel in order to try to head off a repeat of Galloway’s victory elsewhere. Equally, he’ll have to work overtime to assure Jewish voters — who abandoned the party over Corbyn — that his own party can be trusted when it comes to Israel.

Regardless of whether Galloway’s return to Parliament will be noisy and disruptive but short-lived, or whether he’ll manage to hang on beyond the general election, his presence rings alarm bells.

“We thought we’d seen the back of him,” says Dave Rich, “but for now he’s back again and we’re going to have to deal with whatever that involves.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1002)

The post A Galling Victory first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: Shomrim

North London’s Jewish community was shaken last Thursday when an Orthodox woman was beaten unconscious on a Stamford Hill street by two local teenage girls on their way home from school, who then jeered and joked over their victim as she lay unconscious on the sidewalk.

A local Shomrim representative told Mishpacha that although Middle Eastern crises invariably result in a rise in hate incidents, the spike since October 7 has been unprecedented.

“We average around 150 reported hate crimes per year, about three per week,” he said. “Since the attacks, we’ve had 96 crimes reported in less than two months.”

The true figure is thought to be at least 50% higher given the tendency of chareidi communities to underreport incidents. This past Shabbos, a Holocaust survivor in his eighties, visiting from the States, had “Heil Hitler” shouted at him from a car window, and a bochur was assaulted in broad daylight.

But what makes last week’s incident a watershed event for Stamford Hill residents is that whereas until now they have primarily been subjected to verbal assaults — with shouts of “Free Palestine,” references to Hitler, and other anti-Jewish epithets — the attacks have now turned physical.

In just one week, Shomrim recorded three incidents in which children as young as nine years old were kicked and punched, a yungerman was pushed into traffic, and another was rammed by a cyclist. This latest incident made Shomrim see red, so they posted a clip of the attack on social media. By the end of Shabbos, it had two million views and had been picked up by dozens of news outlets.

Since the October 7 attacks, London has often been in the news, but not for the right reasons: weekly pro-Palestinian marches in Central London featuring overt Jew-hatred, the Metropolitan Police dithering on dealing with calls for violence, and a dramatic uptick in anti-Semitic incidents across the country.

It’s perhaps the brazenness of the latest incident that is most jarring; the perpetrators are only 13 and 14 years of age. They were picked up on CCTV eyeballing passersby, looking for a target, eventually following the 20-year-old, obviously Jewish-looking woman to a nearby street, where they asked her for cash. When she refused, they punched her; when she threatened to call the police, they stepped up their attack, grabbing her coat and hurling her to the ground, continuing to rain down blows.

At one point during the attack, the helpless victim blacked out. Witnesses reported that as the high school teens stood over her prone figure, they said, “Oh — she must be dead,” continuing to jeer and laugh before making off.

“People are very worried,” said a representative of Shomrim, “and we’ve stepped up our patrols.”

Fertile Ground for Hate

While the recent spate of violent attacks in Stamford Hill is highly concerning, it doesn’t necessarily align with the picture nationally, says Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust (CST), who liaises with the government on security matters relating to the Jewish community nationally. The CST are also the conduit through which, since 2014, government funding is made available to shuls and mosdos for security measures such as CCTV and guards.

“Anti-Semitic incidents have skyrocketed,” he said. “We’ve recorded more anti-Semitic incidents since October 7 than in all of last year. But in terms of incidents involving any level of violence, that’s actually dropped in numbers, which is unusual, especially considering that in other countries, Jewish buildings have been firebombed. In the main, the incidents remain verbal with people expressing hatred of Jews and Israel and anger at events in Gaza.”

But whether violent or not, the dramatic increase in anti-Semitic incidents is giving the community the jitters. Negative media coverage from Gaza combined with the weekly marches through Central London have created an environment that allows anti-Semites to feel comfortable expressing their views, and serves as fertile breeding ground for anyone looking to jump on the bandwagon.

“The wider atmosphere right now emboldens anti-Semites and winds them up, making them think that people agree with them, says Rich. “That gives them the confidence to go out and express their inciteful views.”

This perhaps explains why over a mere eight weeks, the CST has seen the highest number ever of anti-Semitic incidents in a 61-day period.

As in all Western democracies, the next stop is always the police. Earlier on in the conflict, people leveled robust accusations at “the Met” — London’s Metropolitan Police force — for not doing enough to stem the tide of hate coming out of the London marches, and for dealing too softly with protestors. The rhetoric and the placards were at best inciting hatred; at worst, calling for outright genocide. Disappointingly, the police were coy about arresting offenders on the spot, preferring to issue appeals for witnesses that often came to nothing, damaging confidence in the police.

Dave Rich says the police have been on a learning curve that is the product of constant dialogue between community organizations and law enforcement. Apart from deploying lots of extra physical protection for communities, they have adopted ways of working to ensure that arrests can be made more easily.

“People are getting arrested and charged for carrying placards that before this conflict they would not have been arrested for,” he says.

If there’s one message that Shomrim have for the Stamford Hill community, it’s about reporting all and any hate crime, however minor. “We continue to encourage the community to report. The police work off data and stats to plan their response, so the more incidents they see, the more they can respond accordingly.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 990)

The post Living Dangerously in London first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: AP Images

Just how worried Britain’s Jewish community is by the open displays of anti-Semitism in recent weeks became clear at a massive rally in central London on Sunday. An estimated 105,000 people gathered at the “March Against Anti-Semitism,” far exceeding even the rosiest forecasts by event organizers.

Given that Britain’s entire Jewish population is about 280,000, it was a historic turnout. This compares to the 300,000 attendance for Washington’s “Stand with Israel” rally two weeks ago, in a country with one-fifth the US population, and one-twentieth of its Jewish population.

Highlighting the way that anti-Semitism is seen by many as a national problem, not just a Jewish one, many non-Jews turned out as well, from the Christian, Hindu, and Sikh sectors.

Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis addressed the crowd, emphasizing the fact that the gathering was London’s largest demonstration against anti-Semitism since the 1936 “Battle of Cable Street.” At that event, hundreds of thousands of counter-demonstrators showed up at a march by Oswald Mosely’s fascist Blackshirt movement. He recalled the import of that historic event for the current moment.

“We must teach our children that the superheroes of our society are those who pursue peace and loving kindness, and not those who glorify violence and murder, and we must teach people that they must draw their conclusions from historical facts and not from what they see and hear on social media,” Rabbi Mirvis said.

Over the last two months, a survey conducted by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism suggested that almost a half of the Jewish community have considered leaving the country due to the rise of anti-Semitism and the intimidation they feel from anti-Israel voices.

The center of London has become a no-go area for many Jewish people over the last two months as Palestinian marches take place, sometimes three times a week. Main train stations have become focal points of hated at which terror is glorified and anyone seen supporting Israel or the release of hostages is vocally condemned as a “supporter of genocide.”

A Climate of Fear

It was against this background that Gideon Falter, CEO of the London-based Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), decided to take action.

“We said we have to do something about this, and in a very short span of time,” Falter said.

The CAA embarked upon a mission of raising funds for advertisements, banners, a large sound stage at Parliament Square, all with a goal of bringing out a maximum of 20,000 to 30,000 supporters onto the streets.

The historic turnout exceeded all expectations. Crowds arrived from across the country on buses, trains, and the London Underground network, to gather outside the Royal Court of Justice in the center of the city.

At 1:45 p.m. the march began its slow progress to Parliament Square, led by community dignitaries and members of Parliament.

The march headed toward Temple Station turning right on the Embankment with the River Thames to the left, as freezing rain began to fall in bitterly cold weather conditions. But the mood was joyful as crowds waved their Israeli flags and British Union Jacks. At one point, the marchers even broke into a rendition of the national anthem, “G-d Save the King.”

Many observers noted the difference in tone between this march and the previous seven weeks of continuous violent pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London, Manchester, and other cities throughout the UK.

Journalists have been fearful of covering the anti-Israel marchers, and at least three separate teams from the conservative GB News network in the UK have been attacked by pro-Palestinian activists, who call them fascists and “supporters of genocide.” And there have been no Union Jacks flown at these gatherings; in fact, one was scheduled on Remembrance Day, in defiance of British patriotic sensibilities.

Perhaps fearing the worst, the police brought over a thousand officers into London from across the country to protect Sunday’s marchers. But at the actual event, police and other security officials looked relaxed. The only chants they heard were for “Peace” and “Free them now,” referring to the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

Working with the police in the massive operation were the Community Security Trust (CST) and its CEO, Mark Gardiner, who told Mishpacha, “This is the biggest operation we have ever conducted.”

Marchers passed Downing Street and slowly made their way into Parliament Square, where a massive stage and large speakers were set up.

What Comes Next?

Speaking on behalf of the government, Conservative MP Robert Jenrick, currently the minister of state for immigration, told the large crowd, “We will do whatever is needed to be done to stamp out anti-Semitism.” Jenrick also repeated his call to “deport the anti-Semitic migrants” to the sounds of huge applause.

But how much the government can do legally remains to be seen, as it is coming under increasing pressure to halt the illegal immigration into Britain.

Furthermore, the government has appeared hesitant in combatting the large, violent, anti-Semitic demonstrations against Israel the past few weeks. Home Secretary Suella Braverman publicly took the Metropolitan Police to task for failing to enforce anti-hate laws against the protestors — but was then made to step down from her government position. Police officials insisted they were taking proper action, and argued that the term “jihad” carries multiple meanings.

Peter Kyle MP spoke on behalf of the Labour front bench, and reiterated his party’s strong support for the Jewish community. Mr. Kyle said, “We cannot escape and cannot ignore the tsunami of anti-Semitism that has swept the country since October 7. Your community will never stand alone.”

Notably, some Labour front-benchers declared they would not attend this march — even though it was a march against anti-Semitism, not a march in solidarity with Israel.

Other speakers included Conservative MPs Tom Tugendhat and Robert Halfon, and Boris Johnson also joined the march at one point. Many rushed to have selfies with the former prime minister who is popular with the Jewish community. He later told LBC Radio how much he supported Israel and the contribution that Jewish people had made and were constantly making to the UK.

But the question going forward for the Jewish community is how to translate those warm sentiments into concrete action. Although Sunday saw strong messages of support from many friends of the Jewish community, this week anti-Israel haters were back out on the British streets again, calling last week’s event “a march for genocide.”

The question remains, what new legislation, if any, will be passed by the government to give police more power to tackle the anti-Semitic sentiment on the streets of Britain.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 988)

The post A Peaceful London March, for a Change first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

The prime minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni, is now seen by many as the leading light of the European right. Despite fears over where she might lead her country, given her dalliance with fascism as a youth and the far-right orientation of her party, Fratelli d’Italia (“Brothers of Italy,” known by its initials FdI), opinion surveys in July gave her the highest approval ratings of any leader in Europe.

She remains resolutely opposed to uncontrolled immigration and unapologetically defends traditional Catholic values; but her unwavering support for Ukraine in its war against Russia earned her a warm White House welcome from President Biden. Possessed of a strong self-assurance and the ability to think on her feet in a debate, the 46-year-old prime minister appears to be in firm control of her right-wing governing coalition and will likely be on the scene for a while.

Here are five key insights to know about Giorgia Meloni.

1

Leading the European Right

The ascent of Giorgia Meloni to power has demonstrated that, when it comes to inclusivity, the left may talk a good game, but the right appears to be making more substantial strides. In an era marked by progressive demands for female “empowerment” and “diversity,” Meloni achieved success at the ballot box despite her firm opposition to the “woke” agenda.

She may be the leading edge of a trend on the Continent, where France’s National Rally is led by another woman with far-right origins, Marine Le Pen; and Spain’s conservative Partido Popular has a rising star in the president of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso.

“I am a right-wing woman, and I proudly support women’s issues,” wrote Meloni in her book We Believe. “In recent years, we have had to endure contempt and racism from feminists... Perhaps, as far as feminism is conceived in this way, it is more a question of ideology than of gender and substance.”

2

Relationship with Jews

Jewish observers looked on at the rise of Giorgia Meloni with concern, given her background. She got her feet wet in political activism with Azione Studentesca (“Student Action”), a youth group connected to the Italian Social Movement (MSI), the postwar successor to Benito Mussolini’s Fascist party. In 1996, at age 19, she told a television interviewer, “I think Mussolini was a good politician.” She claims to have mellowed since then, and has charted a path considered moderate at least within the context of her far-right party.

As a minister in a previous Italian government in 2009, she visited Yad Vashem on a visit to Israel. Just before the 2022 election that brought her to power, she fired a party member who praised Adolf Hitler. And taking a page from Hungary’s Victor Orban and others on the modern European far right, she has sought to quell fears of anti-Semitism by presenting herself as a friend of Israel.

“The relationship between the Jewish community and the government is one of close collaboration, and we are in constant communication with the prime minister and her associates,” says Mr. Victor Fadlun, president of the Jewish Community of Rome, to Mishpacha. “Just to give an example, the government is on the verge of approving a €10 million contribution toward the construction of a new Holocaust museum in Rome.”

Meloni has found a natural ally in Binyamin Netanyahu, emphasizing that Israel is a “fundamental partner” for Italy, and frequently comparing her own party, FdI, to the Likud.

3

Links with Uncle Sam

The ascension of a right-wing prime minister in Rome did not make a good first impression on Democrats in Washington. Nevertheless, Meloni’s actions as prime minister have compelled the White House to set aside superficial political differences and focus on common interests. President Biden has particulary appreciated Meloni’s strong, vocal support for Ukraine in its war against Russia, something that he has failed to secure from other right-wing European governments, like Hungary.

When Meloni was received in the Oval Office at the end of July, the president’s first words to her were, “I compliment you on your very strong support in defending against Russian atrocities.”

Meloni has also been open about her desire to pull Italy out of the Chinese mega-infrastructure project known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). A previous Italian government joined the venture in 2019, potentially giving China a foothold in Europe and drawing criticism from the US.

“It is possible to have good relations with Beijing… without necessarily being part of an overall strategic plan,” she said in May.

This decision to distance herself from Xi Jinping has been well received in Washington.

4

Union Worker

While Giorgia Meloni has expressed her support for the European Union, she has made it abundantly clear that she intends to challenge the de facto center-left EU leadership of Germany and France. She has clashed numerous times with French president Emmanuel Macron, primarily over border protection. A video of a 2019 speech Meloni made before being elected prime minister went viral, because of her unsparing criticism of France’s policy toward its former colonies in Africa.

“It’s disgusting that France continues to exploit Africa by printing ‘colonial money’ for 14 African countries [which all use the CFA franc], charging them fees to mint the currency, and by using children labor in mines and to extract raw material, as is happening in Niger. France extracts 30 percent of the uranium it needs to run its nuclear reactors, while 90 percent of Niger’s population lives without electricity. Do not come to teach us lessons, Macron, the Africans are abandoning their continent because of you. The solution is not to transfer Africans to Europe but liberate Africa from some Europeans.”

A minister in Macron’s government excoriated the anti-immigrant turn in Italy’s policies after Meloni took power, prompting Italy’s foreign minister to cut short a visit to Paris. In June, Macron and Meloni met personally and publicly proclaimed that they had patched things up.

But Macron still regards Meloni’s strength with a wary eye, especially in advance of elections for the European Parliament in 2024. The Italian PM could potentially lead a campaign for the center-right European People’s Party (EPP).

5

Inside Italy

When Italians elected Giorgia Meloni, they knew they were getting a populist leader, as evident from her campaign slogan, “Italy and Italians first.” Her policy agenda included tax cuts, subsidy reductions, and, of course, a crackdown on immigration. Interestingly, however, this last item seems to have represented more of a wish than a reality. From January 1 to July 12 of this year, 73,414 migrants arrived on boats in Italy, compared to 31,333 for the same period the previous year, and more than the total for all of 2021, according to data from Italy’s Interior Ministry.

The Meloni government offers by way of defense that “miracles cannot happen overnight.” Meloni herself has even asserted that “Italy needs immigration,” albeit through legal channels. In response to her critics, she says she prefers to let her actions speak louder than words.

When asked about the New York Times’ characterization of her policies as “scary,” Meloni, always quick-witted at press conferences and in interviews, replied, “There is nothing I want to tell to those who criticize me. I think it is a right they have. The only way I like to respond is with results.”

So far, things seem to be going well for her: According to the latest survey from the Pew Research Center, nearly six out of ten Italians (57%) approve of Meloni’s performance.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 974)

The post Rising Star of the Italian Right first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Boris Johnson’s former editor once offered a perceptive insight into his erstwhile colleague’s tumultuous media and political career: “Johnson is useless in every job,” he wrote when Johnson became prime minister in 2019, “except the top one.”

A scant four years after scrambling to the top of the political pyramid, not only is Johnson out of the top job — his recent resignation as an MP in the long shadow of a Covid scandal means that he’s out of a job altogether.

Like an asteroid on steroids, Boris Johnson’s streak across the firmament of British politics was brief but spectacular. As the door (seemingly) closes on his political career, it’s time for a retrospective: What led to his rise and fall? What is his legacy? And is this the end of Boris?

The Outsider

Johnson himself memorably described his own outsider status: “I’m about as likely to become prime minister as to be reincarnated as an olive,” he said back in 2012. The quip was testament to the widespread feeling that, despite two (successful) terms as Conservative mayor of London, Boris was too erratic for the top job. But the remark also highlighted the way he disguised a ferocious ambition with humor and a tousling of his blond mop, leading many to underestimate him.

Body Count

Against that background, Boris’s rise was a product of one thing: the body count of Brexit. At a late stage of the referendum campaign, Johnson came out in favor of the “Leave” campaign. Unlike then-prime minister David Cameron, who called the referendum assuming that the “Remain” side would romp home, Johnson read the political tea leaves accurately and became a Brexiteer figurehead while Cameron’s political career ended prematurely. It was Theresa May’s failure to deliver a Brexit deal as Cameron’s successor that killed her premiership in 2019, at which point Johnson’s election to “finish the job” was an inevitability.

Era Defining

It’s now hard to remember, but Johnson’s victory — the largest Conservative majority since Margaret Thatcher — was so convincing that there was heady talk of a “Boris decade,” akin to Tony Blair’s decade-long reign.

It wasn’t just that Boris was British politics’ most successful international brand since Blair himself; Johnsonism was based on a fundamental realignment of the political system. Within the space of one election, the Conservatives destroyed the Labour Party’s historic power base in England’s working-class, post-industrial north, and built a so-called “Blue Wall” instead. The dramatic turnaround promised to wipe out Labour — reeling from their drubbing under the Corbynistas — for a generation.

Liberal Legacy

In office, though, delivering Brexit proved to be the only truly conservative policy that Boris made good on. The facile comparisons drawn with Donald Trump were mostly unfounded: Johnson governed like the metropolitan liberal he really was, championing radical environmental targets and failing to clamp down on immigration. Boris was also an early and strong champion of Ukraine’s fight against Russia — again at odds with Trumpian conservatism across the Atlantic.

For Britain’s Jewish community, though, Johnson’s legacy has nothing to do with the finer points of conservatism; his role in singlehandedly preventing Jeremy Corbyn from taking power will earn him their undying gratitude.

Covid Costs

So where did it all go wrong? In a few words: Covid, and Johnson’s own failures as a leader. An opponent of the lockdowns that other ministers evangelized, Johnson presided over public health measures that unleashed a wrecking ball on the economy.

The resulting sense of malaise would have challenged any leader, but allied with the “Partygate” scandal — revelations that Johnson’s own staff had broken the severe social-distancing laws that he’d passed for the rest of the country — it led to his ouster as PM. The public discovered, in the words of ConservativeHome editor Paul Goodman, that Boris was a “stupendous campaigner, but a fitful executive.”

Show Over

Johnson’s resignation looks like the end of the road for the Boris Roadshow. According to ConservativeHome, about 20 percent of Conservatives want to see him return as leader. Among voters in general, almost three-quarters see him as untrustworthy.

With a general election due next year, Johnson might well envision an attempt to take the reins should his successor Rishi Sunak fail to deliver a fifth consecutive Conservative victory over Keir Starmer’s Labour. But having defied the political odds once, Johnson is indeed more likely to be reincarnated as an olive than to repeat the trick again.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 965)

The post Boris, the Reincarnation first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.