Jonathan Greenblatt is the CEO and National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. An intractable virus of hate that has ebbed and flowed through the centuries, antisemitism has plagued Jews in virtually every country around the world. And in the aftermath of the horrific Oct. 7 attacks, it has found startling new staying power. For careful observers like me, the harassment, assaults and vandalism against Jewish communities over the past 15 months have provided a confounding coda to one of the deadliest attacks on Jews since the Holocaust. And today, we have new data, which provides a better understanding of the ideas and beliefs that may be providing grist for these disturbing trends. Marking the 10th anniversary of the Anti-Defamation League’s Global 100 Survey, which was first conducted in 2014, we set out to ask participants from 103 countries and territories around the globe the same questions once more. Resulting in the world’s most extensive survey on antisemitism ever conducted, we found that as of the end of 2024, about 46 percent of the world’s adult population held elevated levels of antisemitic beliefs. This means that in the last decade, the number of adults with elevated antisemitic attitudes has doubled to a staggering 2.2 billion people. Nearly one out of every two adults worldwide now endorse the majority of the 11 antisemitic tropes we presented them with — tropes such as “Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars,” or “Jews are more loyal to Israel than their home country.” And only 48 percent of those polled recognized the Holocaust’s historical accuracy — that number dropped to 39 percent among those aged 18 to 34, 27 percent of whom haven’t heard about the Holocaust at all. Simply put, this data reveals a stark failure to pass on the memory and lessons of the Holocaust to younger generations — the very future of our world. We’ve reached a critical tipping point, and it’s time to sound every alarm. We all saw the harassment of Jews on college campuses. We saw the appalling yet increasingly normalized display of Hamas and Hezbollah flags in cities like New York, Sydney and Toronto. Still, it was shocking to find that nearly one quarter of respondents worldwide expressed favorable opinions toward the Palestinian terror group Hamas. In regions like the Middle East and North Africa, 76 percent of respondents believed most of the survey’s 11 antisemitic tropes to be true. Troublingly, around half the respondents in Asia, Eastern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa held high levels of antisemitic attitudes as well. And while the Americas, Western Europe and Oceania had relatively lower levels of antisemitic attitudes, we found that around one in five adults still harbored these sentiments.   This data needs to be a wake-up call. Antisemitism isn’t an abstract issue — it’s a threat that manifests in violence, hatred and the erosion of social cohesion. We’ve seen this even in countries with the lowest levels of antisemitic attitudes, including in North America and Western Europe, in the many horrific antisemitic incidents perpetrated by a small, vocal and violent minority. The ugly incident that took place in the Netherlands just months ago, in the city where Anne Frank once hid from Nazis, is an all-too-real example of this phenomenon. Yet, amid these alarming findings, the survey also identified avenues for possible and urgent change. Encouragingly, 57 percent of respondents recognized that hate toward Jews is a serious problem in the world. But that’s just a start. Governments and leaders worldwide need to take a stand against antisemitism and all forms of hate. Words of condemnation are no longer enough. We need robust hate crime laws that punish bigoted conduct, while also providing tangible protections for vulnerable communities. For instance, legislative protections for Jews and targeted Holocaust education for young students can help mitigate the harmful effects of these rampant anti-Jewish attitudes. Additionally, in order to mitigate the ever-present threat of antisemitism and protect Jewish communities, governments, international organizations and NGOs should adopt and implement the Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism. Safety is a most basic right. We also musn’t forget that when it comes to understanding antisemitism in any country, antisemitic attitudes are just one piece of the puzzle. The full picture must take societal attitudes, as well as government actions, the state of public discourse, religious freedom and more into account. Only by looking at these different aspects together can we really grasp the environment that Jewish individuals are living in globally, and work toward creating a safer, more inclusive reality. The world is watching our response to this growing crisis. If we fail, the future will be one where hate and extremism are no longer pushed to the fringes but embraced by the mainstream. Let’s make this the last record of hate we ever have to break.

Jean-Marie Le Pen, the longtime face of the far right in France notorious for his hate speech and Holocaust denial convictions, has died, his family told French newswire AFP. He was 96 years old.

DUBLIN — Israel is closing its embassy in Dublin in protest against Ireland’s decisions to recognize Palestinian statehood and to accuse the Israelis of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, who confirmed the embassy closure in a statement Sunday, condemned Ireland for what he called its “extreme anti-Israel policies.” Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris — who recently said his country would arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he set foot in Ireland — called Israel’s move “deeply regrettable” and rejected its criticisms. Irish Foreign Minister Micheál Martin — who is widely expected to succeed Harris as prime minister once post-election negotiations on forming a new coalition government conclude — said Ireland would maintain its own embassy in Israel to ensure that diplomatic channels stay open. “The continuation of the war in Gaza and the loss of innocent lives is simply unacceptable and contravenes international law. It represents the collective punishment of the Palestinian people in Gaza,” Martin said. Israel’s move follows a steady downward spiral in relations with Ireland, which has a history of expressing sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Ireland was the last member of the European Union to open an embassy in Israel, in 1996, the same year that Israel opened its embassy in Dublin. Israel’s ambassador to Ireland, Dana Erlich, left the country in May after the Irish joined Norway and Spain in formally recognizing Palestine as a state. Last month, the Palestinian Authority’s mission in Dublin received full embassy status as Ireland appointed its first ambassador to Palestine. Tensions also have risen over Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon as part of its assault on Hezbollah, an operation that has threatened United Nations peacekeepers there, among them an Irish army battalion. The final straw for Israel appears to have been the Irish Cabinet’s decision last week to get more involved in South Africa’s year-old case accusing Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Following that Cabinet meeting, Martin said Ireland would ask the court “to broaden its interpretation of what constitutes the commission of genocide by a state. We are concerned that a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes genocide leads to a culture of impunity in which the protection of civilians is minimized.” In Israel, Sa’ar sparred on social media with the Israeli opposition leader, Yair Lapid, over the wisdom of the move to shut the Dublin embassy. “The decision to close the Israeli embassy in Ireland is a victory for anti-Semitism and anti-Israel organizations,” Lapid argued. “The way to deal with criticism is not to run away, but to stay and fight!”

LONDON — Will Benjamin Netanyahu be arrested if he sets foot in the U.K.? The British government can’t quite say. The International Criminal Court warrant for the Israeli PM’s apprehension has thrown a fresh headache at Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer — and is just the latest example of the tightrope he’s walking on the Middle East. When it came to office in a July landslide, Starmer’s government — which had faced pressure in the election from pro-Gaza independent candidates — swiftly dropped objections from his Tory predecessors to the ICC’s move. It banned some arms exports to Israel. And it restored funding to the UNRWA, the U.N. refugee agency heavily criticised by Israel in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas. Yet in his stance on those issues, some pro-Palestinian critics on the left of Labour say Starmer has only revealed the sharp limits of British influence over Israel. At the same time, pro-Israel figures in the Labour tribe are concerned at what looks like wavering from a key ally at a time of pain. “We’ve taken the wrong direction,” said Leslie Turnberg, a member of the House of Lords and the Labour Friends of Israel group. “I fear that the signals that have been given do not sound very helpful. I think they’re perverse.” ‘PROPER PROCESS’ In its response to the ICC’s warrant, issued Thursday and already dividing Western governments, Starmer’s administration tried to walk a fine line. The prime minister’s spokesperson said Thursday that the ICC is the “primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern,” and confirmed Britain would “comply with its legal obligations.” But there is, the spokesperson added, “no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy, and Hamas and Hezbollah, which are terrorist organizations.” No. 10 Downing Street has stressed that it would be down to a domestic court to approve the warrant and then up to police to arrest Netanyahu if Britain is to comply with its international treaty obligations. On Friday morning, Starmer’s top interior minister, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, refused to get into the details. Asked directly if the Israeli leader would be arrested if he set foot in Britain, the Home Secretary told Times Radio: “International criminal court investigations rarely become a matter for the British legal or law enforcement processes or for the British government.” She added: “If they ever do, there are proper processes that need to be followed and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment in advance on any of those as home secretary.” A Palestinian man carries the bodies of two young victims inside the Kamal Adwan hospital following an Israeli strike that hit an area near the medical establishment in Beit Layia in the northern Gaza Strip early on November 21, 2024. | AFP via Getty Images Starmer’s critics on the left already want him to go much further. Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader who was booted out of the party and now sits as an independent MP, said ministers must “immediately endorse” the ICC’s decision as a “bare minimum.” He fired off a letter to the government Friday asking whether Starmer is “on the side of Israeli impunity or international law?” CRITICAL FRIEND  It’s a familiar challenge to Starmer, who has tried to keep a party which has sharply divided views on the war in Gaza on side — and see off the electoral threat of independent, pro-Palestinian election candidates. In the background, Labour remains deeply sensitive to accusations of antisemitism that came to the fore during Corbyn’s time as leader. In its most notable Middle East move since Labour took office, 30 arms export licenses between the U.K. and Israel were suspended amid concerns such weapons could be used to break international humanitarian law in Gaza. Though the U.K. supplies comparatively few arms when put against the United States, the decision had instant diplomatic consequences. Netanyahu went public to claim Britain had sent a “horrible message to Hamas” and “undermined” Israel’s security. Some in the Labour tribe, who have longed for Britain to flex its muscles as a grinding war with a huge civilian toll continues in Gaza, were pleased with the change in tone from the top. “There has been a good shift in the right direction,” said one Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “They have been able to demonstrate that shift: that actually the Conservative government’s position and … Labour’s positions are not the same.”  In opposition, Starmer felt fury from his own side after slowly coming out in favor of an Israel-Gaza cease-fire. Just days after Oct. 7, Starmer enraged some Labour activists with an interview in which he said Israel “has the right” to withhold water and aid from Gaza. “The starting position of the party was in the wrong place,” the Labour MP quoted above said. “Giving this particular Israeli government a blank check was the wrong thing to do, and we’ve seen how that has been abused.”  ELECTORAL THREAT Labour’s stance on the war in Gaza also animated voters in July’s election. On an otherwise highly successful night, the party lost five seats to independent candidates who made support for the Palestinian people a bedrock of their campaign. Among the high-profile defeats of the night was Jonathan Ashworth, who was being lined up for a Cabinet job by Starmer. Incoming Health Secretary Wes Streeting, facing a pro-Gaza challenge, clung on by fewer than 1,000 votes. “There’s no doubt that there was a reaction,” said the Labour MP. “There are many people who did not like our position and it wasn’t just Muslims. I myself had that experience from non-Muslims telling me to get off their property.” Richard Johnson, a politics professor at Queen Mary University of London, said Labour is “aware that it has been perceived in opposition, at least, to be neglectful of the concerns of Muslim voters.” In opposition, Starmer felt fury from his own side after slowly coming out in favor of an Israel-Gaza cease-fire. | POOL photo by Benjamin Cremel/Getty Images “They have a desire to try and win back those seats and the countervailing influence of a pro-Israel position in the Labour Party is not nearly as strong as it once was,” he argued. Four of the five seats — Blackburn, Dewsbury and Batley, Birmingham Perry Barr and Leicester South — that now have pro-Gaza independent candidates are in the top 20 U.K. constituencies with the highest proportion of Muslims, according to the 2021 census. ICC IS ‘EXTREME’ For their part, the opposition Conservatives have been quick to frame Labour’s policy changes as a cowardly response to election losses. Boris Johnson, the former Conservative prime minister, accused Labour of “abandoning Israel.” On Thursday the Conservatives, who originally objected to the ICC’s move earlier this year, called on Labour to “condemn and challenge” a “deeply concerning and provocative” decision by the top court. In the Labour tribe itself, the new government’s changing tone on Israel has fuelled disagreement from supporters of the country. Turnberg, of Labour Friends of Israel, said the ICC’s position on Netanyahu is “extreme and quite outside the balance of reasonableness.” He said Labour’s “distasteful and unhelpful” policy shifts since the election could have been affected by the new caucus of pro-Gaza independent MPs, which includes Corbyn, and Labour’s hopes of neutralizing a further electoral threat. For others, Starmer has still not gone far enough — and there could be pain to come on the issue at local elections. More than 100 Muslim Labour councilors wrote to Starmer last month calling for a complete halt in arms sales to Israel. “Council elections will be used as regular referendums on the government,” Johnson, of Queen Mary University, predicts. Some observers point to the couched, legalistic language the U.K. government has used to justify its Israel shifts so far — pointing to process rather than directly criticising Israel. Christopher Phillips, an associate fellow at the Chatham House think tank, said this is unsurprising given Starmer and his Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s backgrounds as lawyers. “They have repeatedly said they are supporters of maintaining and upholding the standards of international law,” he said. But there’s a political convenience to it as well. “It allows them to take action that’s critical of Israel while simultaneously trying to limit the fallout and the diplomatic relationship with Israel,” Phillips said. Matt Honeycombe-Foster contributed to this report

The Dutch government survived crisis talks Friday night triggered by football violence and the resignation of a minister over alleged racist remarks by other Cabinet members. Though speculation swirled that the entire government would collapse, only Nora Achahbar — a state secretary in the finance ministry from the centrist New Social Contract (NSC) party — will resign from the Cabinet as of Friday night, according to multiple Dutch media reports. The fragile right-wing coalition will retain enough seats to remain in power — at least for now — after the cabinet teetered amid concern that other NSC ministers would follow Achahbar out the door, possibly jeopardizing the coalition’s numbers. Achahbar told her colleagues earlier Friday that she was quitting over alleged racist comments made by other ministers during a Cabinet meeting Monday to discuss violence in Amsterdam involving locals and Israeli football fans last week, according to Dutch broadcaster NOS. She has yet to release a public statement. The Netherlands’ government since July has been comprised of the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the populist Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB) and the NSC, following the PVV’s win at last November’s elections. Led by Prime Minister Dick Schoof, they have formed the most right-wing government in Dutch history. But the uneasy coalition was beset by infighting over how to respond to the violence in Amsterdam, with anti-immigrant PVV leader Geert Wilders — who is not part of the government — repeatedly venting his fury at the Cabinet and demanding harsh measures against migrants, reportedly Arabs and Muslims, who carried out violence against Israelis. During a day of chaos, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had torn down Palestinian flags in Amsterdam city center and chanted anti-Arab slogans. While PVV, VVD and BBB all backed a plan to strip the perpetrators of antisemitic violence of their Dutch citizenship, the more moderate NSC have declined to say whether it supported such a measure.

Around 5,000 people protested outside the Lithuanian parliament in Vilnius on Thursday to protest against the inclusion in the government coalition of a populist party whose leader is on trial for antisemitic statements. The election-winning Social Democratic Party (LSDP) announced last Friday it will form a coalition with Nemunas Dawn and the center-left For Lithuania parties. Nemunas Dawn party founder and head Remigijus Žemaitaitis originally resigned from the parliament in April following a court ruling that he violated the constitution by making antisemitic statements on social media. In a separate case still pending in court, he is accused of inciting hatred against Jewish people. Žemaitaitis denies any wrongdoing. The protests took place after the first session of the Lithuanian parliament, during which the new members of parliament were sworn in. When Žemaitaitis took his oath, liberals and conservatives left the hall. Meanwhile, the protesters outside called on the government to exclude Nemunas Dawn from the coalition. “We are gathering to show that there are people who believe that there must be red lines and decency criteria in politics. One of them is zero tolerance of anti-Semitism,” the organizers said in a statement. By forming a coalition with Nemunas Dawn, the Social Democrats backtracked on their electoral pledge not to do so. Lithuania’s President Gitanas Nausėda previously called the coalition “a mistake” and vowed he won’t appoint ministers proposed by Nemunas Dawn, which is within his purview as he approves the government. Gintautas Paluckas, who is expected to become prime minister, said that demonstrators are disputing election results, and that he doesn’t see any rational reason to protest against the coalition. Around 30 Lithuanian NGOs also signed a letter urging the Social Democrats to drop Nemunas Dawn from the coalition, saying the party would have a negative impact on human rights, democracy and national security. U.S., Polish and German officials also criticized the newly formed coalition. The new government is expected to be sworn into office in December.

Assailants attacked Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam on Thursday, with the Dutch prime minister vowing those responsible would be “tracked down and prosecuted.” Supporters of Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team were set upon as they departed Amsterdam’s Johan Cruyff Arena after a Europa League game against Dutch team Ajax. Israel’s foreign ministry said in a statement on social media that the fans were “ambushed” and “brutally attacked,” blaming violent “mobs.” Footage of the incident appears to show people being chased and kicked to the ground, with one video showing passers-by being hit by a car at high speed. Israeli media reported that some of the masked perpetrators shouted “Free Palestine” and that some of the victims’ passports were stolen. Ten people were hospitalized with injuries, according to the Times of Israel. Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said he “followed the news from Amsterdam with horror.” “Completely unacceptable antisemitic attacks on Israelis,” Schoof wrote in a statement on social media, adding he had assured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that those responsible would be “tracked down and prosecuted.” Dutch police said in a statement that there had been a protest against the Israeli team prior to the match and more than 50 people had been arrested. Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on social media that he “views the horrifying incident with utmost gravity” and called for “vigorous and swift action against the rioters.” “The harsh pictures of the assault on our citizens in Amsterdam will not be overlooked,” his office added. Israeli President Isaac Herzog called the violence an “antisemitic pogrom.” Israel was deploying two rescue planes to Amsterdam to evacuate Israeli citizens, the foreign ministry said.

WASHINGTON — It may be riling up Donald Trump’s supporters, but don’t expect the love-in between U.S. Democrats and the U.K. Labour Party to let up anytime soon. Allies of the U.S. Republican presidential candidate are seizing on news that a delegation of 100 current and former Labour staffers plans to knock on doors for Democratic rival Kamala Harris ahead of the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential election. Former Trump aide Sebastian Gorka branded the help a “bloody outrage.” Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton said the move was “another reason” to back the Republicans. Pro-Trump tech billionaire Elon Musk even accused Labour of “illegal” election interference — a claim that looks shaky given federal election law explicitly permits foreign citizens to campaign in the U.S, provided they are unpaid. The trips are being undertaken by Harris-supporting Labour volunteers in a personal capacity, rather than at the formal behest of the U.K’s governing party. Those taking part are expected to foot the bill for themselves and do it on their own time. Yet the exchanges are the latest clear sign of close ties between center left strategists in America and their U.K. counterparts as the race for the White House hots up. Campaigners for the Center for New Liberalism, a Democrat-linked group, knocked doors for Labour leader and now-Prime Minister Keir Starmer during the U.K. general election last summer. The group focused its efforts on pro-housebuilding candidates in and around London. Meanwhile, some Labour figures have already been out to help the Democrats under their own steam. MP Ruth Cadbury took a trip to New Hampshire last month to help a friend who was campaigning for local Democrat candidates.  “We’re all left of center activists and when you travel abroad it’s good to show solidarity,” she said. “It showed the New Hampshire Democrats in a small way that people in the U.K. are thinking about their win as part of the bigger win for Harris and [vice presidential candidate Tim] Walz.” STARMER ALONE? The ties go far beyond door-knocking. Think tanks and campaign groups linked to Harris have long swapped campaign tips with their British counterparts, who unseated the Conservatives this past summer after a 14-year run in office. And some now see Starmer as a keeper of the center-left flame if Trump does win in November, amid a global swing to the populist right. “If Harris does lose and Trump wins in November, the U.K. really has to step up in the West, within liberal democracies, and be the beacon for a lot of really important ideas,” said Colin Mortimer, director of the Center for New Liberalism, a center left campaign group with international chapters across the globe.  “If Trump wins, we live in a new world. It’ll be Starmer alone, and God knows what will happen to the other Western democracies after that,” said Matt Bennett. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images “So we’re really looking to Starmer not only for inspiration during the campaign, but he’s going to have to step up and be a real strong leader if America can’t be.” Alongside the U.S, governments across Europe are facing threats from right-wing populists. “A Trump victory in November would galvanize ultra-nationalist parties across Europe, putting at risk Germany’s shaky governing coalition in next year’s election and possibly leaving Starmer as the last major center-left leader standing on the continent,” said Will Marshall, founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) in Washington. “The giant black hole spinning at the middle of this is Trump,” said Matt Bennett, executive vice president for the Third Way think tank. “If Trump wins, we live in a new world. It’ll be Starmer alone, and God knows what will happen to the other Western democracies after that.” CENTER LEFT HERO Starmer won a 411-seat landslide at the U.K. general election this summer, ending almost a decade and a half of Conservative rule in Britain. The Tories were left with 121 seats in the House of Commons, their worst ever defeat, after switching leaders four times in a decade. But center left movements in the U.S. argue the triumph wasn’t as simple as Starmer kicking the ball into an open goal. Labour still had to make sure it won Conservative voters to its cause in a few crucial ares, while being careful not to alienate other parts of the electorate. Keir Starmer won a 411-seat landslide at the U.K. general election this summer, ending almost a decade and a half of Conservative rule in Britain. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images PPI, Third Way and the Center for New Liberalism (a ground campaign offshoot of PPI) were among the center left groups that began rebuilding links with Labour soon after Starmer became leader in 2020, taking over from a far-left predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. Like-minded groups in the U.K. such as Labour Together, the Tony Blair Institute and the Institute for Public Policy Research were also involved in the conversations. In exchange sessions between campaigners ahead of the U.K. election, U.S. strategists urged Labour to focus on non-higher educated working class voters — a group Trump hoovered up when he won in 2016. The Washington campaigners said Labour must be cautious not to insult Conservative voters, and instead convince them Starmer could make tangible changes to their lives. The U.S. groups were pushing at an open door with team Starmer. The Labour boss had surrounded himself with people such as campaigns chief Morgan McSweeney and strategist Deborah Mattinson, who were determined to convert so-called “hero voters” — those with the potential to switch directly from the Conservatives to Labour — by mixing pragmatism with patriotism. “There’s a recognition that the publics in both countries want to see both politics and government actually deliver what they need in their lives,” explained Josh Freed, a senior vice president at Third Way. Claire Ainsley, a former policy chief to Starmer and now a U.K. director of another PPI offshoot in London, said: “The transatlantic dialogue between the U.S. Democrats and U.K. Labour is flourishing with a new generation of politicians, strategists and campaigners.” RIGHT BACK ATCHA Now the center left groups in Washington are hoping the Democrats follow the Starmer playbook and replicate his win. Labour officials including McSweeney and Mattinson attended the Democratic National Convention in August, where Mattinson and Ainsley addressed a session on lessons learned from the U.K. election. The D.C. groups have also been attending Labour’s annual conferences since Starmer took over. The Center for New Liberalism produced research showing how Starmer managed to win over hero voters, which it presented to Democrat campaign chiefs and is confident has been noted. The messages are often the same as those transmitted to Labour ahead of its own campaign. “The key lesson Democrats should draw from Keir Starmer’s success is to focus with surgical precision on voters without college degrees,” said Marshall, from the PPI. “Their economic and cultural frustrations are driving the working class revolt that produced Brexit and Trump and the rise of illiberal nationalism across the U.S. and Europe.” Jon Ashworth, chief executive of Labour Together and a former frontbencher under Starmer was also at the DNC in Chicago in August. | Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images Jon Ashworth, chief executive of Labour Together and a former frontbencher under Starmer — until he lost his seat to a pro-Palestinian candidate in the biggest shock of the election — was also at the DNC in Chicago in August. He urged the Harris campaign not to hide from issues voters care about that the left normally finds difficult to address, such as illegal immigration. Starmer went into the U.K. election promising to tackle people smuggling gangs. It was a riposte to Conservative claims he had no plan to tackle a problem that’s been a long-standing campaign cause on the right. “We wanted to go after the gangs, and, equally, they are saying they want to go after the gangs,” Ashworth said of the Harris administration. “I’m not remotely suggesting that’s because they heard us talk about it. But they have recognized, the same as we recognized, that you need to have a serious policy on dealing with illegal migration.” NOT BEING WEIRD The Third Way’s Bennett and Freed visited the U.K. in 2023 as Labour grappled with its sizable green subsidies plan, which was coming under heavy fire from the Tories. The pair urged team Starmer not to get bogged down in details, after Hillary Clinton, who had 300 policies in 2016 on topics ranging from Alzheimer’s to Zika, lost to Trump, who had seven broad positions. In the end, Labour watered its green plans down and its big offer to the electorate was five more vague “missions” — plus a central message of “change.” Labour also sought to neutralize talking points the right could weaponize. Ashworth warned his U.S. comrades to develop solid responses on transgender issues, after Labour colleagues faced repeated media questions about whether women can have penises.  “One of the things I was raising in Chicago was how that would become an issue if they weren’t careful,” Ashworth said. The pair urged team Starmer not to get bogged down in details, after Hillary Clinton, who had 300 policies in 2016 on topics ranging from Alzheimer’s to Zika, lost to Trump, who had seven broad positions. | Pool photo by James Glossop/AFP via Getty Images A crucial Labour objective ahead of the U.K. election was also to shed the far-left stigma of the Corbyn era, which saw the party sink to its worst result in modern history. Assessing the challenge Starmer faced in his battle with the Labour left, Democrat-aligned groups in Washington saw echoes of the fight with their own base. The center left wanted to temper uncompromising activist positions on inclusion and climate that they believed were repelling voters — while also tackling a festering antisemitism in their ranks. “The thing that both Starmer and Harris, to her enormous credit, have done, is run as not out of touch weirdos,” Bennett said. “If she wins, that’ll be the reason.”