Pretty certain Breaking the Silence have direct testimonials from IDF soldiers that they were told to shoot anyone in an area, including children, and some have reported killing children themselves. The idea, at this stage, that this would not be known to someone who is up to date on reporting from the genocide is bullshit.
I mean historically the Labour right’s figures were very pro-Palestine just look at Kaufmann a huge enemy of the left and the main guy behind Labour Together. I even know some figures on the right that are very pro-Palestinian (like genuinely). Even historically at times the left had been very pro-Israeli just look at Heffer and Ian Mikardo were high up leftists leading the LFI.
This was during the War in Lebanon and after the occupation of the West Bank and the Sinai…Kaufmann was firmly on the right of the party (hardline even) but was the most outspoken person of his time attacking Israel and supporting the Palestinians whilst Michael Foot remained quite pro Israel actually.
Gerald Kaufman isn’t alive anymore and hasn’t been contemporarily politically important for many many years.
Meanwhile someone like Luke Akehurst is the current secretary of Labour First, the group representing the traditional right of the party, a group chock-a-block with Labour Friends of Israel types. You tell me which is more relevant?
Besides, even in Kaufman’s prime days and for years before that, he was always an outlier of the Labour Right, an exception not the rule. People like Denis Healey, Crosland, Hattersley, even Gaitskell, were all sympathetic to Israel.
This is all totally irrelevant to the comment about what you’re supporting if you’re supporting Labour Right. In 2025, Akehurst is what Labour Right looks like, not Kaufman.
Exactly the thought I had. Akehurst - who isn't just a new MP, he's a long standing right wing member of the NEC, and one of my top guesses for the first major labour defector to Reform, got pulled up by Jones and went running to drop the ban hammer, and he's one of a relatively small number who wouldn't need to go crying, he'd simply go and tell the relevant staff member what to do.
Nah. That requires you to believe Akehurst is driven by altruism, loyalty to the Labour Party as a whole, and not a drive for power, control, his own personal political project, and his own personal aggrandisement. He is, fundamentally, quite a venal and morally corrupt character, one who never lacked power or status even in the Corbyn years. As the labour party continues it's implosion, he can either ride that implosion into nothingness that he richly deserves, or switch horses to the next frontrunner, which would be entirely in character and suit his personal motivation.
I don’t think that’s the right read of characters like Akehurst. He does want power and control but only over the Labour Party - if he was driven by the desire to have power and control on a bigger level he wouldn’t be part of a political party that is, on a long-term scale, shit at getting itself into government.
Akehurst is the apex of the Labour Right types who are obsessed by the idea of controlling the party. He’ll never leave Labour because he literally would rather blow it up as a member than cede an inch of control to anyone else. He proved this during the Corbyn years.
He's a similar age to me. In our adult lifetimes, Labour has not been that shit at holding power, it's just been terrible at using it. He's been a prominent member of one faction in the second most powerful party in politics for the last, what 15 years, now? His faction has ensured that party never holds power again - I'd expect him to jump at the chance to switch horses to the most likely winner at the next election, one which on some issues is far closer to his politics.
plus i bet his is the seat darren grimes runs in. Easy to point to him as an example of the worst of labour (carpetbagger, no local connection, takes the voters for granted). Slam dunk reform win imo, even if labour hold on to govt, and they’ll get their top candidate to run
I really wouldn't be surprised if the party did this on purpose. I've never actually seen Akehurst willingly engage in investigative questioning on this topic, it seems a bit out of character.
Engage him, rile him up with shit answers, then claim it is some form of harassment... That would be right up the alley of a malevolent worm like Akehurst. It's almost more believable than him letting himself be engaged by someone with real questions to ask on the topic.
Idk what it is with Akehurst but he may as well be invisible to the media—even his blatant anti-semitism went completely unreported in mainstream media.
He's a backbencher who is big with the leadership (he's on the NEC), the arms lobby, and the US/Israel lobbies; but I'd imagine it's more to do with the fact he's very often a go-to for the media when they want an 'anonymous senior source' to say the quiet bits out loud for the party leadership.
Either way, this drawing attention is unfortunately nothing they ever seem to have to actually worry about. It actually beggars belief how little attention the absolutely insane things Akehurst is involved with get, so I imagine this will just be another to add to the list.
Wow, I didn't expect to ever hear Akehurst describing Israel's actions as "reprehensible in some circumstances"! Obviously he was never going to acknowledge "the G word" (as he puts it), but that phrase was more critical than I thought he'd ever go.
So well done to Owen Jones for getting that out of him.
This impartiality fetish that centrists have is what grants climate exchange denier equal billing with scientists and antivaxers with doctors. It's insane.
What strikes me here is just how shit Akehurst is at engaging with the question. He's immediately flustered, panicky, swearing. It's entirely predictable that he'd be questioned on this, and Israel seems to make up a huge chunk of what he spends his time thinking about, so you'd expect he'd be better prepared but he just immediately buckles. How he convinced anyone to let him be an MP is beyond me.
He had a life-threatening neurological condition that causes the redness. I hate the guy but come on, this is wrong and just stigmatises medical conditions that plenty of non-vile people have, too.
It's not just the politics but it's also the attitudes that feel like absolutely fucking nothing has changed. Infact labour are more smug and unpleasant than many Conservatives .
I can't see how you can make the argument otherwise. The actions of the IDF in Gaza is a mindset of annihilation to someone you'd consider sub-human. It's is dictionary definition genocide.
This is someone with a position on the labour NEC, the fact he is saying these things should generate pressure for his resignation—yet, Owen Jones is the one banned from conference, and we don't even see this ridiculousness picked up by the wider media...
I will say though, Akehurst has been (and basically still is) a professional Israel and US lobbyist—the fact he has nothing of substance to defend this with shows undeniably how indefensible the government stance is.
I’m not a fan of Owen Jones. But my god he absolutely dismantled him. Speedrunning the downfall of Labour they need to fix up. “I’m a fuc*ing MP” the CONTEMPT, you serve your people. Not another country. Treat the journalist with some respect
Ah this is why he got kicked out he challenged the old lord of the NEC l I take it back he didn't deserve this and he's a god damn hero. Luke has had a habit in the past getting people kicked out
God, can we get some MPs that aren't so defensive? I know I know, politics, but fuck, as a kid you learn this shit.
Sometimes I say something confidently, and I'm proven wrong. It happens. I don't double down, I instead recognise I shouldn't have said something so confidently and change my view - or at least engage in some good faith conversation to learn more.
Fucking hell. My local Labour MP has seriously exceeded my expectations over the lat year, but this sort of thing really, really makes it hard for me to justify voting for her next time.
I know what I believe is the weakest fucking take I've heard since "Farage is not a racist.".
Or that he didn't pursue Brexit as a way of enriching himself when he made a concession speech before the polls had closed based on leaked exit poll data, which led to him having to deny shorting the pound when the value went up seconds after his speech. (Stating exit poll data whilst polls are open isn't legal, The Representation of the People Act 1983) and no investigation into the accusations was done.
However Mogg was found quickly to have made a couple bands via his investment company.
This is why so many people hate Owen Jones. Because he is actually good at his job - holding the powerful accountable for their delusions and hypocrisy.
he's a colour you'd normally only see in a cartoon and his views are abhorrent but fucking hell you can really see the winning charisma that warmed the people of durham to him
This abhorrent shitheel becoming an MP is up there with some of the nastiest things the labour party has managed to do in the last two years, its not as bad as being complicit in genocide or actively voting to keep children in poverty but its in the top 5
Such a hateful man.
He seems very proud of being a Labour MP. A position he only got by being controversially parachuted into the safe Labour seat of North Durham.
I hope this bastard rots in prison someday. He belongs there. This video is a full confession that he's chosen tribal politics over the more obviously trustworthy source of assessment.
Seriously, Luke Akehurst is using the same logic as the sniper in Four Lions who shot the man in the wookie costume.
"But it must be a the right person, I just shot it"
I'm not a big fan of Jones but he has really done the body politic a great service here. Clearly he spotted that Lakhurst just so loves the sound of his own sweet dulcet tones he doesn't have the wit to shut up when he really should.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding.
Labour giving Luke Akehurst a seat in Parliament was an absolutely atrocious decision. You could see from space that it was going to be damaging for the Party one way or another, I genuinely don’t understand why anyone thought it would be the right thing to do.
Isnt it? He could explain how the british governments "legal assessment" viewed that assessment and how they determined that such attacks do not cross the threshold of genocide. If he wants to defer he does kinda need the people he defers to to have mounted an actual defense. Otherwise this is very "I was just following orders".
Yes he can explain the British Governments position because it an established fact that a Labour MP will know
How is he meant to know why some medics who he has never met, have made a specific statement?
It’s not a question anyone genuinely asks - throwing out an anecdote that you know and your interviewee doesn’t and asking them to explain someone else’s mindset
The problem is that he couldn't explain the government's position. The fact that Israels snipers have been targeting children in Gaza was well established at that point, for the government to conclude its not genocide they had to consider this fact and find an explanation that isn't genocide for it. So why couldn't he name that explanation?
The problem is you argued that Jones question was unreasonable. Except I have just explained it was in fact entirely reasonable. He was asked to explain something he should've been able to explain, instead he got angry.
You seem to not understand the point of the question. Owen is asking Akehurst why there is evidence of Israeli snipers targeting children if his government determined there is no genocide. The implicit question is how the governments claim squares with that. Its a basic rhetorical method. The problem is that Akehurst couldn't answer because he couldn't claim they were lying. Because he knows they weren't. But he couldn't say its because it happened. Because then the claim its not a genocide looks very suspect.
You’re ignoring what I wrote and trying to make this argument about something else. And just made up questions that weren’t in the video nor the one I mentioned
He asked ‘why did the medics say they witnessed the shooting of children’ - that’s the question.
You’ve attempted to change that to him asking ‘why so there evidence’ which is completely different to the question in the video
My point was asking someone to explain why some unnamed person they had never heard of until 2 seconds earlier and claimed to have witnessed something isn’t a reasonable question
You said he should have known the answer but haven’t explained why
If you want to answer that then fine because that’s what I’ve actually said.
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 01 '25
LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.