Not even the sweetest biscuit can make this by-election less toxic.

Batley and Spen, the latest by-election Labour might lose, takes the narrative on from Hartlepool: from alienation to conflagration.
This constituency is a collection of towns and villages south of Leeds, known once for a thriving textile industry. Batley is the major town, made of blackened stone. It has fine Victorian buildings — as ever in the North, you see past glory — amid decline. The Fox’s biscuit factory looms like a drawing from a child’s story book. The Prime Minister, ever soothed near food, toured it last week with his candidate Ryan Stephenson, a councillor in Leeds, who is willing to be interviewed by a biscuit, but usually refuses to meet journalists.
It is self-seeking and short-sighted: a mistake. There is a vacuum to be filled because Tory and Labour are a functional absence. I come upon them only through campaigning literature on lamp posts and under foot: it floats around the constituency like tumbleweed. Party leaders come for photo opportunities so there is evidence for posterity that they exist. Press officers rarely respond, even to requests for information. So, others come to fill the void. Their complaints are superficially rational — opposition is easy — but they are here not to soothe but to ignite. George Galloway, a charismatic, wants to exploit the racism British Muslims face because major parties will not grapple with it. Laurence Fox is here too, offering support to the teacher at Batley Grammar whose use of an image of the prophet Mohammed led to protests at the school, and the teacher choosing exile from the town. It is astonishing to see Fox and Galloway on the same platform but, as self-defined mavericks, perhaps it is not so strange.
Last week, the Labour candidate Kim Leadbeater, a well-being coach and personal trainer, was harassed in the street by a Muslim anti LGTBQ activist, demanding that she condemn LGBTQ education in schools. (Leadbeater is gay.) “The colour of blood is what you are,” he said. Now she has police protection. Labour sources say Galloway supporters are repeatedly driving past the campaign office; once they crowded in to harass them. Labour activists, including Muslims, were pelted with eggs and one was beaten. In white areas, fake Labour leaflets are circulated, saying, “Labour supports taking the knee”, and “The Labour Party believes that it is high time that white people acknowledged their privilege”. Labour itself published a leaflet showing Boris Johnson shaking hands with India’s Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the caption: “the risk of voting for anyone but Labour is clear”. Labour Friends of India asked for its withdrawal.
It is a co-incidence, or perhaps, worse, an omen, that this is the constituency whose Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered in 2016 by a white supremacist outside, of all places, a public library. Leadbeater is Cox’s sister. I wonder if it is another mistake from a Labour Party that embraced centralisation, a wound that took too long to show itself: the wrong candidate in the wrong place. Many Labour supporters feel unseen by the party they once embraced as family. Is it seemly to emphasise family ties, through a woman who only joined the party this year? What happened to Jo Cox is a tragedy, but her sister’s candidacy is still morbid nepotism, and it is unpopular with some voters. It takes politics further away from them, and into someone’s else’s personal narrative. “I can’t vote for someone who jumped on a bandwagon,” says one former Labour voter, “the sister of someone quite good.”
Batley is superficially sleepy. The once bustling market has declined; the police station has gone. Most commercial activity is sucked into a vast supermarket, with the now mandatory support for a foodbank in the window. (More than a third of children live in poverty in Yorkshire, and most of them are in working families.)
Alienation is obvious as you wander Batley and Spen. The young SDP candidate Ollie Purser tells me: “The biggest demographic I meet is people who aren’t going to vote and before I can even give them a leaflet the door is shut.” I follow him as he campaigns in Birstall, an estate of red-brick houses dominated by a sign that says NO BALL GAMES, and in an area where people, according to Purser, either say, “There’s nought for kids to do”, or they else they say: “There’s too much anti-social behaviour”. The main issues here are public services — the Liberal Democrat candidate Tom Gordon says constituents are using Dentaid, a charity that usually operates in developing countries — and whether to build a new Amazon distribution centre for more air pollution and ill-paid, exhausting jobs.
“You all talk shite,” says a man when he opens the door to Purser, though genially. “I have no interest in voting whatsoever.” “Anything to do with working-class culture gets chopped up,” mourns the next, though he takes a leaflet. “I never go out,” says the next, “I’m a Mum”. As we leave two children wave from the window. “I’ve never voted in my life,” says the next potential voter, who must be 70, and Purser patiently explains the principles of a polling station to her. Even when voters do enter a polling station, Purser says, “they are always holding their nose. That’s the problem. [People] biting their lip and putting their cross next to the name because they hate the other team more”. These people are, Purser says, “dislocated. Atomised. Individualised.” As if to illustrate this point, there are two local Facebook groups dedicated to the town: Batley Matters and Batley Really Matters. Even the advocacy groups have split.
In the middle, preening calmly amid the chaos, is George Galloway, the former Labour MP fighting an Oedipal battle with the party he once loved. Though he remains the same, he changes parties more often than he changes his hat: from Labour to Respect to the “economically radical and socially conservative” Workers’ Party.
Galloway hopes to take Labour votes from the Asian community that make up 20% of the electorate here. He believes they are vexed by what they perceive as Labour’s lack of support for Palestine and lack of action on Islamophobia. One woman says her five-year nephew saw a tabloid headline, and said: “Auntie, look, we are terrorists. It says there”. This has reached a tipping point for Galloway supporters, with Palestine as the flashpoint. Shops in Batley are papered with pro-Palestine messages, and it is not, for these voters, something remote. It is, at least partially, a proxy conflict. In Palestine’s suffering they see themselves: it is a paradigm of their perceived powerlessness. One woman explains the change in dynamic: “We’re not your servants anymore.” Another woman says, “Obviously Israel own everything. It is an untouchable country.” She, though, will vote Conservative. I doubt this view is as widespread as Galloway would like.
Outside Galloway’s campaign office I find a mass of photographs of Galloway on sticks, so they look like a bus station with only one destination: a Galloway victory. I meet him in Starbucks. He is all twinkling vanity; he reminds me of Boris Johnson. Like Johnson, he likes campaigning more than governing; like Johnson, victory over the enemy is not a moral but a psychological imperative. The chase is all. If policy alone was his aim, he would add his voice to the SDP perhaps — “we respect them”, he says — or the Yorkshire Party — campaigning for devolution through its candidate Corey Robinson — or even Labour itself, prostrate but still breathing.
He speaks in perfect paragraphs, emitting campaign literature laced with memoir. Galloway does not converse, not really. He orates, mirrors, boasts. Labour is now a party of “trans-maniacs” who deplore the British voters and the British flag. Labour has, he says, no leadership. They are, rather, “a series of people sitting in circles. I remember vividly Tony Blair’s wife shouting at me to stop shouting, when in fact all I was doing was speaking clearly in the way that one does when one is making a speech. I remember it vividly even though it was more than forty years ago”. I wonder if this, at least partially, is why he is here. He has a long memory.
He also remembers a woman outing herself as a lesbian at Conference decades ago. “Everyone clapped. I remember saying to the fellow next to me, ‘Why is everyone clapping? Should I announce what I like sexually? Would they clap?’ The personal,” he mourns, “became substituted for what united all of us — whoever we slept with”. And yet here he is, effectively trying to deliver a Conservative MP to Westminster, because of who he is, and I can’t think of anything more personal.
Is he concerned about this? “I draw no distinction between Keir Starmer and Boris Johnson,” he says, “in fact Boris Johnson is better at it than Kier Starmer would be”. He compares Johnson’s campaigning in the Fox’s biscuit factory to how Starmer would do it, if he had done it: “He would have would have walked around like a robot, a desiccated calculating machine, while Boris was practically breakdancing on the factory floor”. For Galloway, Starmer’s failures are ever expanding, like space. Where they do not exist — the biscuit factory, for instance, where he did not appear and so could not fail — he imagines them.
I offer the decline of child poverty under Blair as an example of an important difference between Labour and Tory policy. “I didn’t say there was no difference,” he says, “I said I make no distinction. The difference is this,” he explains, “the Tory wears on his sleeve what he is. Labour are wolves in sheep’s clothing and it’s our job to tear away that sheep’s clothing and reveal the wolf within”. He changes his mind: “it’s not really a wolf, it’s more a jackal. The jackal within has to be exposed”. The jackal feeds on the dead. I think he is projecting.
Eventually, after multiple emails and telephone calls and knocks on campaign office doors, I do meet a Labour activist, though by accident: a white man walking his Labrador in the park. He too speaks in perfect sentences, as if the relative silence on the street is creating rhetoric straining to be heard.
“The Tories,” he says, “are hoping to win by default, and they are hoping that Mr Galloway will help deliver that for them. He’s incapable of winning the election and if he wants to play a small part in electing a Tory candidate,” – his anger is obvious, though he speaks calmly — “for a party whose leader insults Muslim women, refuses to deal with Islamophobia in the Conservative Party and will do nothing to defend the causes including that of Palestine which Mr Galloway professes to hold dear then that’s up to him”.
That night there is a hustings in a community centre with only one candidate: George Galloway. His wife videos him for posterity. Kim Leadbeater pulled out, and Galloway seems both delighted and appalled. The Yorkshire Party candidate Corey Robinson says he accepted the invitation but was not given the address, and so wandered around Batley looking for it until he gave up and went to visit his family. That is not mentioned.
The interviewer thanks Galloway, whose rhetoric rises to this tiny crisis. “It is I who should thank you,” he says, “and commiserate with you for the great insult that the Labour Party has just delivered half an hour ago”.
He says Labour’s loss will cause an earthquake to destroy its leader. “Why do I care about that?” he asks himself. It’s a good question. The answer is, he says, that the country needs an opposition and, “Britain currently doesn’t have an opposition because the Opposition Leader is no leader at all. He’s so wooden that birds are trying to nest in him. He’s so robotic he might as well be speaking through a speak-your-weight machine. His words go nowhere, move nobody, persuade nobody.”
He continues in this vein for an hour while around him, in a vacuum made of cowardice, the major parties flail, and, in Labour’s case, sink to his tactics. This is a filthy by-election, and only one man is made happy by it. It will not be enough.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAnd will she be handing back the money she made the from globalist, neo-liberal Goldman Sachs etc? Will the Clinton Foundation be compensating the families of the tens of thousands of Americans who died from opioids at least partly due to NAFTA.
I thought not. The Clintons make Trump look like Mother Theresa. And having got rid of him they are copying his policies. By God these people are evil.
Sounds like a rip off of Trumps America First agenda to me. America has given their power and influence away to China in less than 30 years. I dont see it coming back any time soon.
Yes they seem to be lurching from one policy to the next, first cancelling the pipeline and creating a lot of unemployment , then stating they must put America first. I don’t know how Hilary Clinton fits into this new regime as I thought she had lost fairly conclusively in 2016? I suppose she is younger than Biden-perhaps there might be a Trump v Clinton 2024 run for President?
This sad yet evil woman so desperately wants to remain relevant.
With no mention of her own involvement in the China policy of the past 30 years Were you really expecting self-awareness from Herself? China represents a vision of the fantasy US that she and other leftist control freaks have always wanted.
The economic logic of re-shoring would seem to hurt the Democrat’s middle class voting base. However, I suspect they’ll mitigate its impacts, by turning a blind eye to illegal immigration and using government money to pump up asset prices, for the asset owning classes, who vote for them.
It will sow the seeds of a future crash but will win elections, so they don’t care.
The economic logic of re-shoring would seem to hurt the Democrat’s middle class voting base.
The Dems have no use for such a voting group, as those people tend to have jobs and are not dependent on govt handouts. They’re not victims, they don’t go around breaking things and screaming.
You have a strange notion of who votes for Democrat candidates. For example, over 81 million Americans voted for Biden — is it your claim that they are all victims that go around breaking things and screaming?
I’ll answer this. Yes, because those who are breaking things and screaming are acting in what is held by the Bidens of this world (and their supporters) to be a ‘noble cause’, that is, of erasing the individual and his ‘rights’ and replacing them with duties towards the ‘collective’.
And what would the appalling Hillary Clinton, who has never done a day’s useful work in her life, know about ‘the means of production’? Of course, given her involvement in Libya and other similar ventures she knows quite a lot about ‘the means of destruction’. Will these people ever go away?
H Clinton lacks the moral gyroscope without which it is not possible to become a woman worthy of respect, let alone President of the USA. The fact that she failed, twice to become President. says much for the democratic system. I would not pay attention to, let alone follow, one word from this woman.
I’d have thought a lack of moral gyroscope would make one almost over-qualified for high office.
She is like a flag in the wind. Where is the humility? She can say – we got it wrong . I made a mistake. I could listen to that. But this pure plagiarism of Trump policy.
I don’t even like Trump, I like her even less.
Hello, welcome to just that choice that most Americans made in that election.
“Maybe some unintended consequence of war down the road.”
Clinton makes it sound so trivial.
Given Clinton is likely heavily involved in giving orders to Biden and well connected in Globalist circles, this is very important. I thought it was just me, but as others have said this is practically Trumpian.
Beggars belief that the only recent Clinton reference on publically funded BBC News is her exortation to throw more good money and American children at Afghanistan in the name of Who Knows What. As a preference to saying “We Screwed Up”, perhaps.
(As an aside, I agree with Clinton’s concerns about “many thousands of Afghans” who had worked with the US and Nato during the conflict and short of her proposal for “a large visa programme should be set up to provide for any refugees” – please God she means just the USA – I’ve no solution).
Anyway, well done Unherd in picking this one up.
I very much hope that Biden pays no attention to HC, and that the Clintons are not allowed anywhere near the White House.
Is she basically saying Trump was right?
Somebody earlier made a not unreasonable point that there is not much love being shown to Clinton in the comments.
My question to those that view her positively (and so follow her speeches more closely) is this – how do you square what she has said here, with your understanding of her position up to this point?
Then on to your point which is in what way does this materially differ (taking for granted that style and tone are very different) from what Trump has been saying since GE2016?
Free speech forever, sure, but there was no need to rebroadcast anything this appalling woman extruded. Bad judgement, Unherd.
Many days late and even more dollars short. Thanks, neoliberals!
Looks as though Hilary Clinton has few admirers on this site.
From their vehemence I’d be suspicious of how detached or neutral their viewpoint..
So people ignorant of all her years in the public eye should voice their viewpoint? This lady has a very public record to come to anyone’s conclusions about her.
Yes, it’s good not to presume what a person will say, but it is also good to listen to what they say, and what they have said, and to which audience.
Kick China out of the WTO, impose huge sanctions (like happened to South Africa with apartheid) that’s just for starters
One of the rew things I can go along with her on. See Nikki Haley – the first woman destined to be US President! – on PragerU extolling the same point. We minimised trade with Soviet Russia in order to frustrate their world domination attempt, with success. We now need to reverse our trade dependence on China for the same reasons.
In the 90’s Bill Clinton tried to bring them into the fold as did Bush and Obama. That failed. Problems could be big if Biden really does have interests in China. It is a relevant matter for investigation. The US security services need to get back to the day job.
Haley says, “Making America dependent on China for critical supplies didn’t happen by accident. It’s part of a strategic plan.” She then proceeds to insinuate that it’s entirely the fault of the Communist Party of China, when US companies were happy to stop producing these critical supplies, or to produce them in China, whenever they saw it as profitable. These Western companies are as much responsible for China’s edge over the West as the CPC, and they are equally as responsible for this strategic plan.
Not what she said in the vid. But her over riding point is that we need to treat the CCC like we treated the USSR. That means a total reversal of a great deal that has been accepted by all Western Democracies. It has massive implications across the board. And she is right.
If we’re talking about the same PragerU video, China – Friend or Foe, then “Making America dependent on China for critical supplies didn’t happen by accident. It’s part of a strategic plan” is exactly what she said, according to both the subtitles and my ears (01:42-01:50). She may be right about the need for Western disengagement, but her implication that China is solely responsible for this strategic plan is ridiculous. Western companies were not forced to cease production or move to China, and if the West continues to allow these companies free rein to pursue profits regardless of social costs, further problems can be expected.
Was that really Hillary saying that? Does she not know that our country was given to China by absolute power-seeking-regardless-of-cost-globalists? That would include David Rockefeller and every administration from Bush-Reagan until today with but one exception. That exception had his place taken, and I mean taken, by one who bragged about having the most fraudulent voting system in United States history at work for him. Orwell knew.
I would like to have my interview at the Pearly Gates just behind Hillary, just to eavesdrop on the codswallop she would spew. I would be waiting quite the while through her hearing. Ha. Then I would be sent down as well for my mirth and eye rolls, surely.
How naïve of Ronnie Ray-Gun and Tatcher to believe that the consequences of their moronic neoliberalism would be any different. Their governments never played fair in international trade, so expecting the Chinese to do it is downright pathetic.
It would be interesting to compare the economic cost of reestablishing western manufacturing systems to the obscene profits made by the “liberal industrialists” that were set free by Ronnie & Tatcher to sell the whole system overseas.
Even more amusing is the “cover” this ridiculous narrative that trade would liberalize China gave to the Americans who enriched themselves by offshoring industrial production at the expense of their fellow citizens in the working classes. Revolting.
When the facts change, the lady changes her mind. Which is entirely sensible. Well done, Hillary
Unfortunately she is always wrong.
Reshoring supply chains and taking back the means of production are a long way from challenging the economic model of “everything is a market” and things are only valuable if someone can make a profit from them.
Still, perhaps Ms Clinton is “on a journey” as they say. We must allow even those disliked by UnHerd to change.
Change begins by saying “I was wrong,” and you will never hear those three words coming from that evil person.
Unless she changes, perhaps?