A COUNCILLOR has resigned from the Labour Party, questioning the party’s “moral direction” under Keir Starmer.
Musarrat Khan, who represents Dalton on Kirklees Council in Yorkshire, cited the “alarming” decision to allow hard-right MP Natalie Elphicke to join Labour as she announced her resignation from the party.
Khan further raised Starmer’s positioning on the crisis in Gaza, saying it contradicted “the moral and ethical standards expected of a potential prime minister”.
In a letter to the Labour leader, posted on social media, Khan said: “I am troubled by the lack of apology for your stance on the situation in Gaza, which contradicts the moral and ethical standards expected of a potential prime minister.
READ MORE: Labour councillors resign over party's 'right-wing rhetoric' and Gaza stance
“Additionally, your silence on pressing issues such as the NHS and public services is concerning.
“Your recent decision to welcome hard-right Tory MP Natalie Elphicke into the party is particularly alarming, given her history and views. This raises questions about the party's moral direction.
“Regrettably, I cannot support a Labour campaign in the upcoming General Election under these circumstances.”
Khan said she would continue to represent Dalton as an independent and urged her colleagues in the Labour group “to prioritise principles over party loyalty, especially as our party's values have diminished”.
Last month, twenty councillors in Lancashire resigned their Labour memberships in protest over the party’s leadership.
Starmer (above) has faced backlash from party members for aiming to exercise control over selection processes.
The Labour leader also courted anger after he told LBC that Israel had “the right” to withhold power and water from Gaza, measures widely considered against international law.
Earlier in May, the party conceded that it had lost support in Muslim communities during the English local elections over Starmer’s stance on Gaza.
Polling expert John Curtice said of the results: “On average, the party’s support is down by eight points since last year in wards where more than 10% of people identify as Muslim.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel