Labour leader Ed Miliband and London mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone on the campaign trail in London. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA
Ken Livingstone delivered a rare public display of contrition following a backlash over leaked remarks made in a private meeting which were interpreted as him saying that Jewish voters would not vote for him because they were rich.
Livingstone, the Labour candidate in the London mayoral election, originally denied he had made the comments at a meeting earlier this month and accused critics of "electioneering".
But following a storm of protest and a letter of concern to Labour leader Ed Miliband sent by those present at the meeting, Livingstone acknowledged the need for humility.
In an uncharacteristically conciliatory article penned for the Jewish Chronicle, he admitted he could now see how "the way the conversation unfolded meant this interpretation was placed upon it".
Livingstone wrote that politicians needed to have humility at such times: "I am no exception."
He added: "When such controversies unfold, it is easy to get dug in and appear to defend positions. I don't want to do this. Jewish voters are not one homogenous block."
He proffered an olive branch as he paid tribute to the way Jewish people have shaped London.
He expressed "regret" for failing to respond to the offer of one rabbi present at the meeting on 1 March of drawing a line under past controversies and discussing the future. He stressed that he valued the opinions and concerns of Jewish Londoners.
Livingstone's volte face came just a week after he denied the comments attributed to him but said he stood by everything he had said at the time.
He claimed that the allegations were "a bit of electioneering from people who aren't terribly keen to see a Labour mayor".
Miliband, the Labour leader, stood by his candidate as he joined him on the campaign trail last week, insisting that Livingstone "doesn't have a prejudiced bone in his body".
But the change of tack by Livingstone just a week later suggests pressure has been applied behind the scenes by the Labour leadership as well as by public criticism from former supporters.
The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland, who attended the meeting, wrote on Saturday that he was now among the one in three Labour supporters in London who, according to the latest YouGov poll "cannot bring themselves to vote for the party's candidate for mayor", despite his "appealing" policy pledges.
"I can no longer do what I and others did in 2008, putting to one side the statements, insults and gestures that had offended me, my fellow Jews and – one hopes – every Londoner who abhors prejudice," wrote Freedland.
Livingstone devoted his article to building bridges with those he had offended and said he agreed with those "including in my own party" who want to "break out of the 'drama' of 'Ken and the Jewish community'."
He addressed critics who argue that he is more interested in promoting the Muslim faith than he is Judaism, insisting that his policy as mayor would be to promote "interfaith and inter community dialogue".
Livingstone also listed a range of initiatives he promoted when in office, such as the publication of a Jewish London guide, the academic boycott of Israel and the marking of Holocaust Memorial Day.
"I could not cherish London and not value Jewish London. The contribution of Jews to London is immense – politically, economically, culturally, intellectually, philanthropically, artistically," he wrote.
"I may shoot my mouth off and I may not always appear to be listening, but I am. I am a socialist, a believer in rational thought and the rule of law.
"The Jewish people have laid the foundations of all of those things. Working with the Jewish community is essential to me and what I stand for.
"Moreover, contrary to any impression, I do explicitly see Jewish people as a people – not either a religion or an ethnicity but a people. The Tories take Jewish London for granted. I will not."
The meeting with pro-Labour members of the Jewish community which sparked the controversy was designed to explore ways in which he could reconnect with Jewish voters in advance of the 3 May election.
But a letter of concern sent to Miliband by some of those who attended claimed that Livingstone suggested that "votes for the left are inversely proportional to wealth levels, and suggested that as the Jewish community is rich we simply wouldn't vote for him".
The signatories warned: "Many of us who would otherwise normally vote Labour are finding it harder and harder to consider voting for Ken, despite agreeing with his policies for London.
"Boiled down, it's hard to interpret this in any other way than Ken basically having no sympathy for those that he perceives as bourgeois, which is why he isn't really attempting to appeal to, and perhaps why he is losing progressive as well as Jewish votes."
The letter also claimed that "at various points in the discussion Ken used the words Zionist, Jewish and Israeli, interchangeably, as if they meant the same, and did so in a pejorative manner".
The signatories added: "It's time to resolve the matter once and for all."
The Jewish Chronicle's Martin Bright wrote that the decision by the famously unyielding political veteran to "eat humble pie" was noted.
"No one person can take responsibility for making Ken Livingstone do the right thing and sign off an article that must have been one of the most painful to which he has ever put his name.
"Individual members of the London Jewish Forum and the Jewish Leadership Council and those who wrote the letter to Ed Miliband must all take some credit, as must the Labour leader himself."
He added: "Though the Jewish community will never take him to their heart, some may at least give him credit for admitting he was wrong."
No comments:
Post a Comment