The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

History is littered with "shock" by-election results that ended up signifying little more than the electorate playing games before reverting to type in the next GE.

Amen to that. Wouldn't be a surprise if this reverts to Labour again at that point when they have a new leader.

[egg]

12 minutes ago, trousers said:

Isn't a phobia an irrational fear of something? What if someone's 'fear' of Islam is rational, what's the name for that? 

I think the term is poor, but if there's racism, anti-Semitism, etc, it must follow that there's an anti Muslim equivalent. What it's called is irrelevant, but it's a thing, and it exists. 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

Fairly simple - Starmer's national popularity is rock bottom, but Farage was riding high and looking to form the next government.

A few weeks ago Reform pencilled this in as an easy win - but they got battered by a plumber with some unworkable policies.

 

Plus, the sitting Governmrnt often gets a pasting in by-elections. It's tradition.

[trousers]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

How would those election observers who have made the allegations know, if the influence was exerted in the family home ? The claim is that people were being accompanied to the voting booth, which is illegal - and the officers at the polling station would be duty bound to stop it, and inform the Police officer stationed there.

I guess without first hand evidence, we'll never know... 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Me pointing out your views is not silliness, and if you find that uncomfortable, that's not my issue. 

There's a discussion going on, and I'll engage with you no further. 

Why do you have to be such a bellend all the time? Nothing you've said makes me uncomfortable I'm very open about my beliefs. You're well aware of my view on Islamophobia, I'm not sure why you had to bring it up put of the blue in this thread because I never mentioned it. There are plenty of reasonable and rational reasons to not be a fan of Islam. That's not a phobia. In my opinion Islamophobia is a nonsense word with as yet no official definition that is used by people with an agenda to try to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. This differs from anti Muslim hate crimes and violence which is abhorrent and should be condemned. 

The above has little to no relevance to this discussion.

Edited 11 hours ago by hypochondriac

[badgerx16]

The Green party unveil their new look

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Why do you have to be such a bellend all the time? You're well aware of my view so Islamophobia, I'm not sure why you had to bring it up put of the blue in this thread because I never mentioned it. There are plenty of reasonable and rational reasons to not be a fan of Islam. That's not a phobia. In my opinion Islamophobia is a nonsense word with as yet no official definition that is used by people with an agenda to try to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. This differs from anti Muslim hate crimes and violence which is abhorrent and should be condemned. 

The above has little to no relevance to this discussion.

You raised the sectarianism not me! The alleged sectarianism referenced Islamaphobia. Commenting on your previously expressed views on that issue is entirely appropriate. 

As I've said, I'll engage with you no more, but waste your time having the last word if that makes your morning. 

[Sheaf Saint]

18 minutes ago, trousers said:

Isn't a phobia an irrational fear of something?

 

No. It means an instinctive aversion to something, rather than a fear of it.

When something waterproof is described as hydrophobic, it doesn't mean it's scared of water. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

You raised the sectarianism not me! The alleged sectarianism referenced Islamaphobia. Commenting on your previously expressed views on that issue is entirely appropriate. 

As I've said, I'll engage with you no more, but waste your time having the last word if that makes your morning. 

Yes because there's examples of block voting, family voting and religious communities caring more about issues in other countries and religious issues than things relevant to the UK. You brought up Islamophobia again. Next time you want to mention it feel free to refer back to my above post in order to satisfy you with my answer.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

No. It means an instinctive aversion to something, rather than a fear of it.

When something waterproof is described as hydrophobic, it doesn't mean it's scared of water. 

Many people have an aversion to many aspects of Islam. It doesn't make them 'islamophobic'

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, trousers said:

I guess without first hand evidence, we'll never know... 

Is it any different to "My granddad voted Labour, my dad voted Labour, I was brought up Labour so I vote Labour, and I'm Labour 'til I die" ?

[Sir Ralph]

If you don’t know the story of Tower Hamlets this is worth a read for starters. Why would the voters in a borough re-elect somebody who was done for electoral fraud and the government had to go in to run the council? Nothing to do with block voting whatsoever. I really can’t believe people don’t think this happens - it’s shows extreme naivety https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61358043

In summary he has faced repeated controversy over electoral fraud and governance. In 2015, a High Court found him guilty of corrupt and illegal practices in the 2014 election—including vote-rigging and misuse of council grants—voided the result, and banned him from office for five years. Despite this, he was re-elected in 2022 in the same borough.

Fresh concerns emerged in 2024–2025, with government inspectors and later ministerial envoys sent in over financial mismanagement, senior appointments, weak oversight, and decision-making dominated by a close inner circle. He denies wrongdoing, calling the allegations politically or racially motivated.

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

If you don’t know the story of Tower Hamlets this is worth a read for starters. Why would the voters in a borough re-elect somebody who was done for electoral fraud and the government had to go in to run the council? Nothing to do with block voting whatsoever. I really can’t believe people don’t think this happens - it’s shows extreme naivety https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61358043

In summary he has faced repeated controversy over electoral fraud and governance. In 2015, a High Court found him guilty of corrupt and illegal practices in the 2014 election—including vote-rigging and misuse of council grants—voided the result, and banned him from office for five years. Despite this, he was re-elected in 2022 in the same borough.

Fresh concerns emerged in 2024–2025, with government inspectors and later ministerial envoys sent in over financial mismanagement, senior appointments, weak oversight, and decision-making dominated by a close inner circle. He denies wrongdoing, calling the allegations politically or racially motivated.

The point is do people think it is a good or bad thing that a community could have patriarchs that instruct large groups of people who to vote for. You can argue the degree that it happens but it's unarguable that it does happen and that it is likely to get worse and become more of a thing. 

[trousers]

25 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Is it any different to "My granddad voted Labour, my dad voted Labour, I was brought up Labour so I vote Labour, and I'm Labour 'til I die" ?

Depends if there's any coercion involved, I guess? 

My son supports Saints because I do, but I didn't force him to (well, if you discount the amount of Saints merch I bought him as a baby / toddler...!)

Isn't the accusations behind this "family voting" malarkey that some family members are intimidated to vote a certain way? I've no idea, but I thought that was the ascertain here.

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The point is do people think it is a good or bad thing that a community could have patriarchs that instruct large groups of people who to vote for. You can argue the degree that it happens but it's unarguable that it does happen and that it is likely to get worse and become more of a thing. 

It is getting worse in some areas, mainly more urban areas and it’s very dangerous. One theory is that some people could get elected through block voting by, put it this way, having policies which are less publicly available. If you have whole families being told to vote by certain leaders then that’s not democracy. Again if posters on here don’t think that happens in some areas it’s extremely naive. Whichever party you vote for people need to be aware of it as a possibility as most people don’t want it

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

It is getting worse in some areas, mainly more urban areas and it’s very dangerous. One theory is that some people can get elected through block voting by, put it this way, having policies which are less publicly available. If you have whole families being told to vote by certain leaders then that’s not democracy. Again if posters on here don’t think that happens in some areas it’s extremely naive. Whichever party you vote for people need to be aware of it as a possibility

TBF it is still technically democracy, I'd say it's a perversion of the electoral process and hasn't really been seen in this country before. I'm not sure what the answer is but it's potentially a big and growing problem. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

Depends if there's any coercion involved, I guess? 

My son supports Saints because I do, but I didn't force him to (well, if you discount the amount of Saints merch I bought him as a baby / toddler...!)

Isn't the accusations behind this "family voting" malarkey that some family members are intimidated to vote a certain way? I've no idea, but I thought that was the ascertain here.

Very difficult to prove. If it gets significantly worse it's only going to fuel the rise of parties like Reform. 

[trousers]

41 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

No. It means an instinctive aversion to something, rather than a fear of it.

 

40 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Many people have an aversion to many aspects of Islam. It doesn't make them 'islamophobic'

@Matthew Le God has an aversion to all religions, so does that make him islamaphobic (as well as christianophobic, hinduphobic, buddisaphobic, etc...)?

Edited 10 hours ago by trousers

[Sheaf Saint]

30 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Many people have an aversion to many aspects of Islam. It doesn't make them 'islamophobic'

While this is true - I have huge misgivings about all organised religions myself - you know full well that in the case of the word Islamophobia, it's not actually the religious framework of Islam that it refers to.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Sheaf Saint said:

While this is true - I have huge misgivings about all organised religions myself - you know full well that in the case of the word Islamophobia, it's not actually the religious framework of Islam that it refers to.

According to Labour it's "Muslimness or perceived Muslimness." I genuinely don't know what that means. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

 

@Matthew Le God has an aversion to all religions, so does that make him islamaphobic (as well as christianophobic, hinduphobic, buddisaphobic, etc...)?

If Islamophobia means a hatred of a person simply because they are a Muslim then that would be more understandable. That isn't what I have been led to believe from many people talking about the definition though. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

While this is true - I have huge misgivings about all organised religions myself - you know full well that in the case of the word Islamophobia, it's not actually the religious framework of Islam that it refers to.

Indeed. I don't agree with any organised religions. All are flawed, and divisive. It's staggering though that people refuse to accept that in a world where racism, anti Semitism, and the like, are recognised as a thing, that they refuse to acknowledge the existence of an anti muslim equivalent, and focus on the word attributed to. Odd. 

[trousers]

17 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

It is getting worse in some areas, mainly more urban areas and it’s very dangerous. One theory is that some people could get elected through block voting by, put it this way, having policies which are less publicly available. If you have whole families being told to vote by certain leaders then that’s not democracy. Again if posters on here don’t think that happens in some areas it’s extremely naive. Whichever party you vote for people need to be aware of it as a possibility as most people don’t want it

 

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

TBF it is still technically democracy, I'd say it's a perversion of the electoral process and hasn't really been seen in this country before. I'm not sure what the answer is but it's potentially a big and growing problem. 

If "undue influence" is being applied, not only is it a 'perversion of the electoral process' its outright illegal under the Elections Act 2022... 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/37/part/1/crossheading/undue-influence

 

I guess the issue here though is, how do you prove that someone has been "unduly influenced"...?

Edited 10 hours ago by trousers

[badgerx16]

If the Democracy Volunteers observers in the polling stations see what they think is 'family voting' taking place, why don"t they report it there and then ? After all, it is criminal activity, and most polling stations have a Police officer present as well as the electoral officials.

Edited 10 hours ago by badgerx16

[trousers]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If Islamophobia means a hatred of a person simply because they are a Muslim then that would be more understandable. That isn't what I have been led to believe from many people talking about the definition though. 

Simply disliking Islam appears to fit the dictionary definition, which I wouldn't have thought is the crime of the century...? 

 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by trousers

[trousers]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If the Demicracy Volunteers observers in the polling stations see what they think is 'family voting' taking place, why don"t they report it there and then ? After all, it is criminal activity, and most polling stations have a Police officer present as well as the electoral officials.

What if any acts of "undue influence" take place before they get to the polling station...?

Edited 10 hours ago by trousers

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Indeed. I don't agree with any organised religions. All are flawed, and divisive. It's staggering though that people refuse to accept that in a world where racism, anti Semitism, and the like, are recognised as a thing, that they refuse to acknowledge the existence of an anti muslim equivalent, and focus on the word attributed to. Odd. 

The issue is the misapplication of the word and how it is used in practice. Like I said, if you want to strictly define it to mean hatred of a Muslim because they are a Muslim then I'm not sure there would be too much disagreement. That isn't how it is defined though as @trousers has pointed out. It's used to shut down and prevent legitimate criticism of Islam and the objectionable actions of some Muslims. 

Edited 10 hours ago by hypochondriac

[egg]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If the Demicracy Volunteers observers in the polling stations see what they think is 'family voting' taking place, why don"t they report it there and then ? After all, it is criminal activity, and most polling stations have a Police officer present as well as the electoral officials.

People are talking as if families or communities being pushed into voting the same way is a new thing. Mining families would have told their own to vote labour, and that they'd be out of the door if they voted for Maggie. I've had someone tell me recently that I'm a nonce sympathiser and apparently want his daughter raped because I don't support reform or agree with flags on lamps - impressionable kids will be hearing that message in homes, pubs, building sites, wherever. 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, trousers said:

 

If "undue influence" is being applied, not only is it a 'perversion of the electoral process' its outright illegal under the Elections Act 2022... 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/37/part/1/crossheading/undue-influence

 

I guess the issue here though is, how do you prove that someone has been "unduly influenced"...?

You can't and it's why postal voting is so open to abuse. It should be polling stations only IMO unless there are exceptional circumstances and tightly controlled so that how you vote is secret. That wouldn't solve the problem but it would reduce it. Obviously Labour will never look to bring that in unless the Greens usurp them entirely and it coercion no longer benefits them.  

Edited 9 hours ago by hypochondriac

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The issue is the misapplication of the word and how it is applied. Like I said, if you want to strictly define it to mean hatred of a Muslim because they are a Muslim then I'm not sure there would be too much disagreement. That isn't how it is defined though as @trousers has pointed out. It's used to shut down and prevent legitimate criticism of Islam and the objectionable actions of some Muslims. 

Lets say, for arguments sake, that the dictionary definition is incorrect / out-dated, what word would be more appropriate to use than 'Islamaphobia' for people that simply dislike the Islam religion? Asking for a friend

Edited 10 hours ago by trousers

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, trousers said:

What if any acts of "undue influence" take place before they get to the polling station...?

But how could they have reported it taking place ?

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, trousers said:

Simply disliking Islam appears to fit the dictionary definition, which I wouldn't have thought is the crime of the century...? 

 

 

Supporters of the term like to pretend it means something it does not to try to make it sound like people who oppose the term are suggesting that violence or criminal acts committed against an individual because they are a Muslim are not a thing. That's clearly not the case.

[trousers]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

But how could they have reported it taking place ?

Fair question... I don't know... you'd have to ask the people that reported it, rather than some weirdo fence-sitter on Saintsweb...

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

People are talking as if families or communities being pushed into voting the same way is a new thing. Mining families would have told their own to vote labour, and that they'd be out of the door if they voted for Maggie. 

I got told I was a "traitor to your class" because I got promoted to a managerial position.

[Sheaf Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

The issue is the misapplication of the word and how it is applied. Like I said, if you want to strictly define it to mean hatred of a Muslim because they are a Muslim then I'm not sure there would be too much disagreement. That isn't how it is defined though as @trousers has pointed out. It's used to shut down and prevent legitimate criticism of Islam and the objectionable actions of some Muslims. 

But that's no different to how the Israeli government use accusations of antisemitism to shut down legitimate criticism of their treatment of Palestinians though.

There will always be bad faith actors who will use similar tactics. To focus criticism of it in the context of Islamophobia without acknowledging that is disingenuous.

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

The issue is the misapplication of the word and how it is used in practice. Like I said, if you want to strictly define it to mean hatred of a Muslim because they are a Muslim then I'm not sure there would be too much disagreement. That isn't how it is defined though as @trousers has pointed out. It's used to shut down and prevent legitimate criticism of Islam and the objectionable actions of some Muslims. 

Behave. The word is irrelevant, and you are over analysing it.

The point remains - and I'll raise it because you have - that the sectarianism you raised included a request that people vote against Islamaphobia. Sensible people understand what is meant by Islamaphobia, and the moral compass of anyone who refuse to acknowledge that anti muslim ism (for want of a better phrase ) is a thing, doesn't point in the right direction.

The title is absolutely irrelevant to most people, but the issue behind the titie does matter. If people are to be discouraged from voting along racial, cultural, or religious lines, any objection should be universal, not targeted as per the commentary on this thread. 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

Fair question... I don't know... you'd have to ask the people that reported it, rather than some weirdo fence-sitter on Saintsweb...

They are saying that they "observed" it.

[tdmickey3]

Amongst all of the furore, i found this, did they vote by mistake and think it was Lowe`s lot

• Sir Oink A-Lot (Monster Raving Loony) 159 (0.43%)

 

[trousers]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Supporters of the term like to pretend it means something it does not to try to make it sound like people who oppose the term are suggesting that violence or criminal acts committed against an individual because they are a Muslim are not a thing. That's clearly not the case.

Maybe the best way forward here would be to invent a word to describe "People that dislike / criticise certain aspects of Islam" (if such a word doesn't already exist) and reduce the defintion of 'Islamaphobia' down to simply "Prejudice / Hatred against Islamism".... that would clear things up a tad, wouldn't it?

 

Edited 9 hours ago by trousers

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Sheaf Saint said:

But that's no different to how the Israeli government use accusations of antisemitism to shut down legitimate criticism of their treatment of Palestinians though.

There will always be bad faith actors who will use similar tactics. To focus criticism of it in the context of Islamophobia without acknowledging that is disingenuous.

It's not confined to a minority of bad faith actors though. The definition posted above defines it as a dislike of Islam. We know that there have been religious groups using it to try to get legitimate criticism silenced and we know that justice has been delayed or denied due to fear of being labelled Islamophobic. Attempting to bring in an official definition of the word IMO will do much more harm than good due to what I already posted. Violence or open discrimination against someone because they are a Muslim is already illegal and as far as I am aware is already prosecuted. 

[trousers]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

They are saying that they "observed" it.

Fair enough.... the obvious question to ask them then is: "What 'undue influence' did you observe?"... has anyone asked them yet? If so, what was the answer...?

 

Edited 9 hours ago by trousers

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

But that's no different to how the Israeli government use accusations of antisemitism to shut down legitimate criticism of their treatment of Palestinians though.

There will always be bad faith actors who will use similar tactics. To focus criticism of it in the context of Islamophobia without acknowledging that is disingenuous.

Quite. Hypo's allegiances are clear. In his world anti semitism is rife, but Islamaphobia isn't even a thing. Both exist, and anyone who only believes one or neither exists, or focuses on the terminology as reason to dismiss, needs to give their head a wobble. 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Behave. The word is irrelevant, and you are over analysing it.

The point remains - and I'll raise it because you have - that the sectarianism you raised included a request that people vote against Islamaphobia. Sensible people understand what is meant by Islamaphobia, and the moral compass of anyone who refuse to acknowledge that anti muslim ism (for want of a better phrase ) is a thing, doesn't point in the right direction.

The title is absolutely irrelevant to most people, but the issue behind the titie does matter. If people are to be discouraged from voting along racial, cultural, or religious lines, any objection should be universal, not targeted as per the commentary on this thread. 

Well there we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think the word is irrelevant at all and fear of being labelled with that word is one reason for why the rape gangs have persisted for as long as they have. People don't understand what is meant by it and that is the very root of the problem because it has been misapplied both unwittingly and wilfully by people with an agenda. My criticism of block voting is universal, it just so happens that this constituency contained a high number of Muslim voters and there are concerns that they were block voting along religious lines so it very much is relevant to this discussion. 

[Sheaf Saint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not confined to a minority of bad faith actors though. The definition posted above defines it as a dislike of Islam. We know that there have been religious groups using it to try to get legitimate criticism silenced and we know that justice has been delayed or denied due to fear of being labelled Islamophobic. Attempting to bring in an official definition of the word IMO will do much more harm than good due to what I already posted. Violence or open discrimination against someone because they are a Muslim is already illegal and as far as I am aware is already prosecuted. 

Every single word of this could also be applied to antisemitism.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Quite. Hypo's allegiances are clear. In his world anti semitism is rife, but Islamaphobia isn't even a thing. Both exist, and anyone who only believes one or neither exists, or focuses on the terminology as reason to dismiss, needs to give their head a wobble. 

I know you like to tell everyone on the forum what I believe but I'm quite capable of answering for myself. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Well there we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think the word is irrelevant at all and fear of being labelled with that word is one reason for why the rape gangs have persisted for as long as they have. People don't understand what is meant by it and that is the very root of the problem because it has been misapplied both unwittingly and wilfully by people with an agenda. My criticism of block voting is universal, it just so happens that this constituency contained a high number of Muslim voters and there are concerns that they were block voting along religious lines so it very much is relevant to this discussion. 

Do you believe there discrimination of Muslims based on them being Muslims? It's a yes or no answer kind of question. 

If yes, what name should be attributed to that? 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I know you like to tell everyone on the forum what I believe but I'm quite capable of answering for myself. 

They only have to read the Israel thread mate. 

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Do you believe there discrimination of Muslims based on them being Muslims? It's a yes or no answer kind of question. 

If yes, what name should be attributed to that? 

Of course that exists who would suggest otherwise? The issue is that bringing in any term needs to be very tightly defined so that it is not misapplied. There's a decent argument for not having a definition outlined here: 

Labour’s watered-down ‘Islamophobia’ definition will still undermine free speech 

 

 "It said anyone using the phrases “Muslim grooming gangs” and “Asian grooming gangs” was an “Islamophobe”."

"It includes “prejudicial stereotyping” as a form of anti-Muslim hatred, and that could inhibit a social worker or school teacher in a Muslim area from drawing attention to child sexual exploitation, not to mention female genital mutilation or forced marriages."

 

"The danger of any definition, however carefully drawn, is that it will make people think twice before referring to Muslims doing anything wrong, prioritising them above people of other faiths.

Indeed, that perception – that the Government is granting Islam a privileged status – may itself fuel anti-Muslim hatred. Recent polling by JL Partners found that only 20 per cent of the public is in favour of an official definition, with 31 per cent thinking it a wholly or somewhat “bad” thing."

 

"Defenders of this initiative point to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which was adopted by Theresa May’s government in 2016 and endorsed by all her Conservative successors. Why should Jews have an official, state-approved definition of anti-Semitism, but not Muslims of anti-Muslim hatred?

 

The obvious rejoinder is that Jews are more likely to be the victims of violent attacks. There’s also the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. If Muslims, then why not similar protections for Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists? Except they’re not necessary because stirring up religious hatred is already prohibited by the Public Order Act 1986 and discriminating against people on the basis of their religion or belief is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010.

To my mind, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is more defensible because it was produced by an alliance of 35 governments around the world committed to Holocaust education, Holocaust remembrance and Holocaust research, not a working group convened by a now disgraced Labour politician.

But if the object of the exercise is to reduce attacks on British Muslims, the experience of British Jews in the wake of October 7 2023 tells us that rolling out state-approved definitions of racial and religious hatred doesn’t work. In 2024, the Community Security Trust recorded 3,528 anti-Semitic incidents in the UK, the second-highest annual total on record, and 1,521 in the first half of 2025."

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Of course that exists who would suggest otherwise? The issue is that bringing in any term needs to be very tightly defined so that it is not misapplied. There's a decent argument for not having a definition outlined here: 

Labour’s watered-down ‘Islamophobia’ definition will still undermine free speech 

 

 "It said anyone using the phrases “Muslim grooming gangs” and “Asian grooming gangs” was an “Islamophobe”."

"It includes “prejudicial stereotyping” as a form of anti-Muslim hatred, and that could inhibit a social worker or school teacher in a Muslim area from drawing attention to child sexual exploitation, not to mention female genital mutilation or forced marriages."

 

"The danger of any definition, however carefully drawn, is that it will make people think twice before referring to Muslims doing anything wrong, prioritising them above people of other faiths.

Indeed, that perception – that the Government is granting Islam a privileged status – may itself fuel anti-Muslim hatred. Recent polling by JL Partners found that only 20 per cent of the public is in favour of an official definition, with 31 per cent thinking it a wholly or somewhat “bad” thing."

 

"Defenders of this initiative point to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which was adopted by Theresa May’s government in 2016 and endorsed by all her Conservative successors. Why should Jews have an official, state-approved definition of anti-Semitism, but not Muslims of anti-Muslim hatred?

 

The obvious rejoinder is that Jews are more likely to be the victims of violent attacks. There’s also the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. If Muslims, then why not similar protections for Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists? Except they’re not necessary because stirring up religious hatred is already prohibited by the Public Order Act 1986 and discriminating against people on the basis of their religion or belief is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010.

To my mind, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is more defensible because it was produced by an alliance of 35 governments around the world committed to Holocaust education, Holocaust remembrance and Holocaust research, not a working group convened by a now disgraced Labour politician.

But if the object of the exercise is to reduce attacks on British Muslims, the experience of British Jews in the wake of October 7 2023 tells us that rolling out state-approved definitions of racial and religious hatred doesn’t work. In 2024, the Community Security Trust recorded 3,528 anti-Semitic incidents in the UK, the second-highest annual total on record, and 1,521 in the first half of 2025."

I'm not going down a pointless rabbit hole of a conflation of the term and the interpretation of it. As Sheaf has said, your points can be attributed to anti Semitism - example, people who speak out against the conduct of the IDF/Israeli government are deemed anti Semitic, which is bollox.

It was obvious what the propaganda issued in this by election meant, and it does you no favours to dismiss it by focus on the word used, rather than addressing the issue behind it. 

[trousers]

Uncle Trousers has sorted it folks... with the help of my good friend Google AI, the new word to use is "Islamocriticism" or "Islamocritic"...

 

 

You're welcome

 

Edited 9 hours ago by trousers