19th December 2020
Shame, shame, shame
UNICEF support to feed hungry children, condemned as shameful by Rees-Mogg
The incompetency, corruption and lies which have characterised the Tories’ response to the pandemic so far looks set to continue into the New Year and beyond. The lack of backbone which has seen the Tories fail to take decisive action act at keys points over the past nine months, for fear of doing something unpopular with the right wing press, is showing itself in the government’s handling of arrangements over the Christmas period.
Rising infection rates and a new strain of the virus has finally forced the government to concede that London and the South East should now be under tighter Tier 3 restrictions, a decision which could have been taken weeks ago and saved many lives. However, the general rise in infection levels and deaths is apparently not enough for the government to revise the five day period of family contact over Christmas.
As ever, the government’s approach is blinkered, concentrating on this Christmas, rather than taking a grip and persuading people to focus on the measures necessary to make sure friends and family are still around to see Christmas in 2021. Short term populism trumps longer term thinking every time with the Tories.
What should be seen as the scandal of the government’s approach, but is generally reported deep on the inside pages of the press and rarely by the BBC, is underlined by two stories which have emerged over the past week.
On Thursday, Tory millionaire Jacob Rees-Mogg, made ripples by criticising the United Nations’ Children’s Fund, UNICEF, for providing assistance to children in the south London Borough of Southwark, over the Christmas holidays and February half-term. UNICEF is providing a modest £25,000 to support children in the Borough, which is struggling because its own scheme to provide free school meals to all primary school pupils is facing the axe due to funding cuts.
In the east London Borough of Newham the universal free school meals offer, which guarantees all 3-11 year olds a free dinner during term time, a benefit to 14,000 children, is under threat. Newham leaders cite £250m in budget cuts over the past decade, the decade of austerity which saw the public sector pay for the gambling debts of bankers in 2008, as the reason for the scheme to be under threat, as core statutory services have to be prioritised.
This picture will be reflected in Councils across the country as underprivileged areas struggle to meet the twin threats of the impact of austerity and the costs of the pandemic, which is hitting working class communities hardest.
Rees-Mogg does not show one iota of contrition for the appalling consequences of his party’s policies merely shrugging that,
“UNICEF should be ashamed of itself.”
Given that the only concessions to feeding children that have been made by the government are those extracted under pressure from footballer Marcus Rashford, the response of Rees-Mogg should come as no surprise.
Anna Kettley, UNICEF UK’s Director of Programmes said,
“In partnership with Sustain, the food and farming alliance, over £700,000 of UNICEF UK funds is being granted to community groups around the country to support their vital work helping children and families at risk of food insecurity during the coronavirus pandemic.”
This is the situation in the world’s fifth richest economy, where billionaires bask in unearned wealth while others sleep in cardboard boxes in the street. Where millionaire MPs see feeding children as a shameful act, while their policies continue to be responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their mishandling of the pandemic.
In other areas the government is content to haemorrhage money like it was going out of fashion to ensure that its mates get contracts without any tendering process, whether or not they are capable, competent or contributing to suppressing the COVID-19 virus.
It was reported on Friday that the largest recipient of pandemic deals handed out by the Department of Health is Essex based transport firm, Uniserve, which has scooped a cool £779m from government coffers in a series of deals to ship PPE to the UK. According to internal NHS price benchmarking Uniserve were benefitting from a significant price mark up, selling medical grade masks to the NHS at 86p a time when the average market price, even according to the Department of Health, was 51p per mask. Those figures add up significantly when millions of such masks are being ordered.
There is no record of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, or any other member of the government condemning such practices as “shameful.”
The emerging debacle over mass testing in schools and the delayed return to school for some pupils in the New Year further reinforces the truth that for the Tories the real issue is profit, not people. A post Christmas virus wave and the prospects of a further national lockdown in January, once again closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, appear to be increasingly likely.
With deaths already heading towards the 70,000 mark, according to official figures, it is not far fetched to see 100,000 deaths being admitted in the not too distant future.
Now that is truly something to be ashamed of.
Wealth tax – lost in smoke and mirrors
12th December 2020
The Wealth Tax Commission was established in April 2020 to explore whether a wealth tax for the UK would be desirable and deliverable, as a means of contributing towards paying for the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commission’s report, published this week, follows intensive research by a team of over fifty international experts on tax policy and practice. The three Commissioners are academics from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and the University of Warwick, and a leading barrister with long experience of advising High Net Worth Individuals.
In summary the Commission concluded that a one off wealth tax could be levied upon any UK resident with net worth over a certain level; include all sources of wealth such as property and pensions, not just income; and be payable over five years. The report does not recommend at what level the threshold for wealth should be set but in one model, setting the bar at £1 million, taxed at 1% per year for five years, the Commission estimates that £260 billion could be raised over the five year period.
Dr Arun Advani, Assistant Professor at the University of Warwick and Visiting Fellow at LSE’s International Inequalities Institute, said: “We’re often told that the only way to raise serious tax revenue is from income tax, national insurance contributions, or VAT. This simply isn’t the case, so it is a political choice where to get the money from, if and when there are tax rises.”
Dr Andy Summers, Associate Professor at LSE’s Department of Law and Associate Member of the International Inequalities Institute, said: “Our report provides the first serious look at proposals for a UK wealth tax in nearly half a century. A one-off wealth tax would work, raise significant revenue, and be fairer and more efficient than the alternatives.”
With the economic costs of the pandemic currently running at an estimated £280 billion, the implementation of such an approach would appear to be glaringly obvious, even to a capitalist economist. By way of contrast, raising £250 billion from income tax over 5 years would require a 9% increase to the basic rate, or all income tax rates to rise by over 6%. The report however was not commissioned by the Government and there is no indication that it is likely to influence government policy. On the contrary UK Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, is on record as stating in July 2020, “No, I do not believe that now is the time, or ever would be the time, for a wealth tax”.
Instead, Sunak has adopted an approach which has a public sector pay freeze as its centre piece, making teachers, firefighters, local government workers and the care sector pay for the pandemic. Sunak has so far refused to consolidate the extra £20 per week paid to those on Universal Credit beyond March 2021, to help address the impact of sudden and severe unemployment. Sunak has not seen his way to extend the furlough scheme, to help those businesses struggling to survive, beyond the end of the financial year, in spite of the optimism generated around the COVID-19 vaccine coming on stream.
It is interesting to note that, while the one off wealth tax idea in itself presents a challenge to Tory thinking, in the view of the authors of the report, an annual tax would be much more difficult to deliver effectively and would only be justified if the aim was specifically to reduce inequality by redistributing wealth. Shudder the thought that a UK government could have such an objective!
While the report presents the political establishment with an option, in terms of paying the financial costs of the pandemic, it is still an attempt by one element of the political establishment to find a fix. It is not in itself suggesting a fix for the endemic inequalities of capitalism or presenting any fundamental challenge to the system. There is no question raised as to why any society should have such a thing as ‘high net worth’ individuals in the first place, when others are unemployed or homeless.
These questions, the authors of the report would no doubt argue, were not within its remit. However, they are legitimate questions nonetheless, especially in the context of over 60,000 COVID-19 deaths according to official figures, the massive impact upon working class communities of job losses, and the insecurity which continues to haunt many in relation to future income and employment.
The Wealth Tax Commission report makes clear that the wealth is there and could be harvested for public good, even on a one off basis. It could be a source of income for the Exchequer on an annual basis if the political will prevailed. More importantly, the fact of such extreme wealth in society, only accumulated through financial chicanery or exploitation, should come under the spotlight and be challenged.
There are questions which the political establishment in the UK do not want to be asked. That is why even the report of the Wealth Tax Commission is generally buried in the financial pages, rather than being reported as banner tabloid headlines. Even such a relatively tame challenge cannot be given too much airtime, in case the obvious conclusions are drawn.
Capitalism is a moribund system surviving only through a complex deployment of smoke and mirrors, which keeps the real character of the system disguised. The current pandemic however continues to expose the flaws and contradictions in the system. People are increasingly looking for an alternative, an alternative which only socialism can provide.
Roll out in danger of stalling
6th December 2020
Vaccination is now the name of the Covid-19 game, with the race being on to roll out as much as possible, as quickly as possible, as safely as possible. From next week the most vulnerable, starting with those aged over 80, will be offered the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine across the country. The NHS are confident that,
“The vaccine has met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).”
Like much else about the pandemic, the fact that a vaccine has become available appears to have taken the government by surprise. On the assumption that a vaccine would emerge it would be reasonable to assume that some planning may have gone into the programme for rolling out the vaccination, bearing in mind the urgency attached to defeating the virus.
However, as at other key stages in the pandemic (early lockdown, efficient test and trace, coping with a second wave) the government appears to have been under prepared for the consequences and in this case the implementation of rollout.
The past week has seen NHS officials scrambling to find suitable locations in which to undertake the vaccination programme, with sports halls, community centres and the occasional draughty scout hut being dragooned into service to accommodate the first wave of vaccinations.
Selected hospitals across the country will begin roll out this week while Primary Care Networks scour their localities for locations which can deal with almost 1,000 people in a four day period from 15th December, in a Covid secure way, in order to get the first wave of community vaccinations underway this side of Christmas.
No doubt with the engagement of local authority teams appropriate venues will be found and the vaccination programme will be ready to go. Except that, there are already concerns about the number of trained staff available to undertake the vaccinations themselves. Once again, an issue which could have been anticipated, with some thought and consideration given to how additional staff could either have been recruited or trained in advance.
As things stand the NHS are concerned about being overwhelmed as the roll out coincides with the peak winter cold and flu period, as well as having to cope with conditions and operations for patients delayed from the first wave of the virus. If NHS staff are deployed to deliver vaccines they are not going to be available for other duties. Chris Hopson, Chief Executive of NHS Providers puts it succinctly,
“Clearly the perfect storm would be if we have the combination of a third surge at the end of January, triggered perhaps by the looser rules over Christmas, and a cold snap, and the massive backlog of treatment for people that was delayed from the first phase – and having to do the vaccination at the same time. That would be the nightmare scenario.”
Retired medical staff and existing medical students are already being mooted as candidates for vaccination delivery, as well as ambulance staff and even airline cabin crew.
Hamfisted organisation around the pandemic is only equalled by the inability of the government to come to a Brexit deal with the EU to keep goods and services moving into the New Year, when current regulations end on 31st December.
With only 800,000 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in the country so far, with another 5 million doses expected by the end of the year, mass vaccination will depend upon supplies reaching the UK post Brexit, with 35 million doses expected to follow from 1st January. Whether a deal is reached with the EU or not in the next few days extra checks on goods leaving and entering the UK and on those entering from the EU are expected from 1st January.
However unexpected the global pandemic may have been, no such plea of mitigation could be remotely plausible for departure from the EU, which has now been on the cards for four years.
Ironically, with Boris Johnson’s love of inappropriate military metaphor to describe the struggle to suppress Covid-19, it is the military who may be called upon to ensure sufficient quantities of the vaccine are available. The Ministry of Defence has military planes on standby should they be required to beat the lorry queues at Dover and bail out the government. Expect many press stories about the resilience and fighting spirit of ‘our boys’ should such a scenario come to pass.
The inept handling of the pandemic by the government, compounded by the confusion of measures over supporting the economy and delivering an effective public health message, have resulted in a lack of confidence in the general public over the effectiveness and safety of any vaccine. A recent poll for The Observer suggests that 35% of the public say they are unlikely to take the vaccine; 48% are worried about its safety; while 55% are worried about side effects.
This is not a good situation when mass take up is essential for effective immunity. The Tories demonstrate daily how things should not be done, with the Covid-19 death toll close to 60,000 on official figures. An effective opposition would be outlining a clear alternative programme for how things should be done. There is no sign of Labour under Kier Starmer being that opposition.
The mishandling of the pandemic in particular and its economic impact in general has seen another 30,000 jobs in the retail sector under threat in the past week alone, with Debenhams and the Arcadia group going under. Unemployment will surge in the New Year with no remedy in prospect.
Working class communities, hit hardest by the pandemic are also those being hit hardest by the economic backlash. A cosy consensus in the so-called national interest is not good enough. Labour needs to be on the side of the under privileged and oppressed. It needs to be seen to be fighting their corner. That means action both inside and outside Parliament, around a programme which can begin to address the needs of the many, not the few.
Iran – provocation and the prospect of war
28th November 2020
Assassination scene – the car of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh after the attack
The assassination yesterday of top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh is widely believed to have been the work of the Israeli secret service, Mossad. Having the means, motive and finding the opportunity is part of the Mossad modus operandi. The long standing hostility towards Iran of the Israeli regime, particularly the faction supporting Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been well documented and the danger of further military intervention by the Israelis long feared in the Middle East.
The timing of this particular act is clearly linked to the change in the administration in the United States. Israel has had no stronger supporter than President Donald Trump in recent years and it is feared that Joe Biden will take a more consensual line towards Iran than the openly provocative positions taken by Trump.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), widely known as the Iran nuclear deal, agreed between the Western powers, including the United States, and the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2015 was one of the first foreign policy casualties of the Donald Trump presidency. Since the United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA, in May 2018, a period of exacerbated uncertainty has existed in relations between the two countries and across the Middle East.
The United States has used the demonisation of the Islamic Republic as cover for changing the balance of forces in the Middle East, in particular the negotiation of agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to recognise and trade with Israel. At a stroke Trump has blown apart the fragile alliance of Arab states supporting the rights of Palestinians to self determination, in opposition to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
However, the Biden/Harris ticket, while remaining unwavering in US foreign policy terms in its support for Israel, is unlikely to be quite as hostile towards Iran. As Vice-President to Barack Obama, Biden was part of the administration which orchestrated the Iran nuclear deal and is unlikely to view it in terms as hostile as Donald Trump.
The ongoing struggle to control the COVID-19 coronavirus will be a major priority for a Biden administration. With the US still the world leader in the death count from the disease, Biden is unlikely to want to risk body bags returning from an unnecessary conflict in the Middle East. The regime in Iran may be many things but it would not be a pushover militarily.
The prospect of normalising relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel and with it the possibility of military action against Iran may not be far away. As well as the assassination of Fakhrizadeh the dangers are underlined by the recent mission of two US B52 bombers which recently conducted a surprise, round-trip to the Persian Gulf area allegedly “to deter aggression and reassure U.S. partners and allies”.
With just under two months left in office there remains the danger that Trump, either directly or through one of the US regional proxies, will take a foreign policy initiative in the Middle East that will damage the chances of a new administration being able to chart a less provocative course.
For the people of Iran the situation remains bleak. Widespread protests against economic mismanagement and corruption continue. The tightening of economic sanctions by the Trump administration has only served to make what was already a bad situation for the Iranian people even worse. The inability to trade major commodities, oil in particular, has plunged the economy into near hyper-inflation with the associated redundancies, job insecurity and impoverishment which inevitably follows.
The economic crisis inside Iran is also affecting the capacity of the regime to continue its extraterritorial military activities in the Middle East (especially in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon) and with it, the financial and moral influence to continue “exporting Islamic revolution”.
There are reports that the Russian government has raised the issue with the regime in Iran of removing its military forces and ceasing its operations in Syria. Since 2011, the regime has annually spent between $5bn and $11bn in Syria in pursuit of its strategic plans. Russia envisages a different future model for Syria to that of the theocratic regime in Iran.
The progress of the much debated 25-year strategic agreement between Iran and China is also likely to be affected by other regional influences with Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, recently proposing the formation of a forum in the Middle East to foster multilateral engagements with the “equal participation of all stakeholders.”
As ever in the Middle East there are many players with conflicting interests and the balance of forces can easily be tipped by the slightest action. The question has to be asked, in whose interest is the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh? It is certainly not in the interests of the Iranian people who are only likely to suffer further from economic hardship or, worse still, military intervention.
A destabilised Iran may well suit the agenda of the neo-con backers of Donald Trump and potentially reinforces Israel as the region’s strong man. How Iran reacts, and whether the hardliners in Tehran gain the upper hand, could well determine whether there is any prospect for peace in the short term or whether the people of the Middle East face a further round of conflict.
Warfare not welfare
21st November 2020
Tanks again – military bosses win out while frontline workers see freeze on pay
On Wednesday this week UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announced a massive £16.5bn increase in the military budget. Taken together with existing military spending commitments the announcement amounts to a staggering £21.5bn increase in the period to March 2025. In spite of the additional needs of the country to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, Johnson insisted that “the defence of the realm must come first.”
The headlines suggest that spend will include the creation of a National Cyber Force, basically a group of hackers to conduct cyber war; a Space Command, able to launch rockets from 2022, a nod to the Star Wars days of Thatcher and Reagan; and an agency dedicated to artificial intelligence. Some genuine intelligence would suggest that over £20bn could be more usefully spent on tackling the pandemic, supporting those who have lost jobs and livelihoods as a result and developing socially useful infrastructure investment to rebuild the economy.
In spite of Johnson’s recent announcement that he would steal Labour’s clothes and invest in a ‘green revolution’, the military establishment are cleaning their rifles and stamping their boots in glee. More so because the cash bonanza appears to be baked in, with Labour suggesting that the military spending increase represented “a welcome and long overdue upgrade to Britain’s defences after a decade of decline.”
While boosting the weapons budget Chancellor Rishi Sunak is at the same time proposing to cut the UK Overseas aid budget by £4bn, a reduction from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP. Overseas aid goes to those parts of the world that UK capital has successfully exploited in the past and are now left under resourced, economically restrained and generally impoverished. In short it is guilt money for past transgressions and an ongoing down payment for continuing influence in developing nations, described by former PMs Tony Blair and David Cameron as a key strategic part of the UK’s ‘soft power’ influence.
While the rationale behind the overseas aid budget is less than altruistic it remains symbolically significant that, faced with the choice of spending on the military or supporting programmes of social development, the Tories have leapt significantly in one direction while back pedalling on the other.
By Thursday the government had clearly lost the PR plot altogether when it was widely leaked that, in his mini-budget next week, Rishi Sunak would be announcing a freeze on public sector pay increases as a means of contributing to paying for the costs of the pandemic. Sunak attempted to sweeten the pill by suggesting that this would not affect NHS staff who have been in the frontline in fighting COVID-19, while blithely ignoring the fact that thousands of local government workers, teachers, police and firefighters, all of whom have made their contribution to the fight against COVID, would be swept up in the pay freeze.
There was never going to be any doubt that the Tories would look to pass on the burden of the costs of the pandemic to the population at large, in a further round of austerity that would make the George Osborne years look like a walk in the park. Protecting the economy for the Tories always means protecting the banks, corporations and the City of London at all costs, however abject their performance, while telling the rest of us that “we are all in it together” and must all row in the same direction, no doubt putting the defence of the realm first.
This is only the story so far. We have yet to have the final signoff on the £150bn spend on weapons of mass destruction, in the form of the replacement of the Trident nuclear submarine fleet, or to have a real assessment of the likely economic cost of the Tories mishandling of the Brexit negotiations, which will no doubt hit already hard pressed consumers harder still.
That the government is incompetent, even in its own terms of managing the capitalist system is self evident. What is becoming increasingly clear to many however is the fact that the system itself does not function in the interests of the working people of the country and needs to be overhauled.
It is the many, not the few, who need to be at the helm, deciding spending priorities and putting the country on the road to a socialist future. Anything less is merely taking us on a journey down the road well travelled and for most, that is a road to nowhere.
Pawns in a wider game
15th November 2020
Cronyism has always been part of the Tories’ stock in trade. The old school tie network from Eton to Oxford, and onwards to the government and Cabinet, is a well worn route for the upper classes with aspirations. The occasional upstart from the ranks of the lower middle classes are allowed through once in while but the Bullingdon Boys Club usually reasserts itself.
The pattern is mirrored in the upper echelons of the Civil Service, with the Oxbridge conveyor belt being the main supplier of Permanent Secretaries, designed to defend the status quo and all of the class privileges that come with it. Scratch the surface of the UK’s spook services, MI5 and MI6, and the same pattern will emerge. The Armed Forces ditto.
While industry and the business sector may allow for some degree of upward mobility, the system of knighthoods, lordships and sundry other honours are designed to make sure that those coming through the class glass ceiling and not going to be worrying too much about their roots.
Institutionally and constitutionally the Monarchy and the Church of England, as the State established church, are the cherry on the cake giving the veneer of longevity and legitimacy to the British ‘way of life’, stalwart safeguards against those who would denigrate British ‘values’.
The purpose of all of this backslapping camaraderie is to ensure that the capitalist system remains safe for capitalists and those who continue to benefit from the unequal distribution of resources, land and power.
The illusion of ‘democracy’ must be preserved however, which is why demagogues and petty tyrants will always identify themselves with the people, even when they are acting in ways which are diametrically opposed to the people’s interests.
Margaret Thatcher comparing running the economy to managing the household budget was one such ploy. Boris Johnson’s talk of ‘levelling up’, a concept he patently has no interest in achieving, is another such Tory sleight of hand. Failed TV personality and sometime millionaire, Donald Trump, built a successful pitch for the US Presidency around being an outsider and the voice of the ordinary disenfranchised US worker. Trump may have been found out but he leaves behind a toxic legacy which will not be cleaned up overnight through the election of Joe Biden.
The extent to which the working class can assert itself against such entrenched power and privilege depends to a large degree upon its strength in collective organisation and the ability of its leadership to expose the mendacity of those holding the reins of power.
In the UK that means a Labour Party with a programme for change which can mobilise mass support on the streets and in communities, which can begin to speak truth to power and which must be committed at every level to change in society in the interests of the working class. The stirrings of such an opportunity where there under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, certainly from 2015 to 2017, but were systematically extinguished by the enemies of change, both inside and outside of the Labour Party, resulting in the 2019 election defeat and the emergence of the supine Kier Starmer as Labour leader.
Having seen off the class enemy, for the time being at least, the ruling class can indulge in its own blood letting, having little opposition to deal with. Thus, less than one year after an election victory which delivered an 80 strong Parliamentary majority, the inner circle around UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has fallen apart in spectacular fashion, with Director of Communications, Lee Cain, and chief political adviser, Dominic Cummings being shown the door.
The departures of Cain and Cummings are indicators of fissures which have been central to the Tory Party for half a century. The faction which captured the high ground and ran a successful Brexit campaign is by no means representative of all Tory thinking. There remains a strong allegiance in the Tory Party to a view which sees the safest haven for British capital as being within the EU bloc, better to exploit cheap East European labour and for the City of London to retain its pre-eminence in European financial trading. There is broad agreement on this neo-liberal consensus in the Starmer led wing of the Labour Party.
The Brexit leaning faction captured the populist high ground with a population disaffected by the lack of any tangible benefit to being in the EU and a Labour Party at war with itself, unable to articulate a clear alternative vision. Johnson was a handy wise cracking poster boy, with little political conviction but enough ambition to front both the Leave campaign and the Tories election hopes. His usefulness however, may be wearing thin. As the deadline day for an EU trade deal looms, and the incompetence of the Johnson government has been exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the pro-EU anti-Johnson Tories are beginning to make their play.
In spite of his Parliamentary majority Johnson is not invulnerable. There are those within the political establishment who would deeply desire a rapprochement with the EU. The trade bloc may have its faults, even from a capitalist perspective, but is it better to sup with the devil you know than rely on the prospect of a trade deal with a volatile and divided United States
Stay awake, vigilant and mobilised
8th November 2020
The undignified scramble for power by representatives of a rich elite, squeezing as much finance as possible from their corporate backers while posing as tribunes of the people, has long been the defining characteristic of presidential politics in the United States. The 2020 presidential race fitted this template no less than many others but it also contained special features which heightened its significance and had people across the world hanging on the outcome.
The incumbent, Donald Trump, had gained ascendency in the Republican Party in 2016 backed by a right wing neo-con clique, determined to shift the political centre of gravity in the United States even further to the right. Trump’s phoney man of the people persona, his visibility as a TV personality from the US version of The Apprentice and the easy target the Democrats provided in fielding a dyed in the wool establishment figure such as Hillary Clinton, meant Trump was able to squeeze an electoral college victory, in spite of being 3 million votes behind Clinton in the popular vote.
To suggest that Trump failed to imbue the office with any gravitas would be an understatement. The constant and often bizarre communication by Twitter; the regular abusing of journalists who posed difficult questions; and his routine embracing of leaders of dubious character, from Kim Jong-un to Jair Bolsonaro, from Benjamin Netanyahu to Boris Johnson, combined to make Trump a constant target for the centre and Left.
The ‘Make America Great Again’ mantra of Trump’s 2016 campaign resonated with many Americans who saw the US as having lost status in the world and lost economic ground to an increasingly strong Chinese economy. Withdrawal from the Iran anti-nuclear deal, negotiated by Barack Obama in 2015, made it easy to rail against the Iranian regime and its failings. Withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) provided a scapegoat for failing to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, where almost a quarter of a million people have now died.
As ever, the tried and tested tactic of demagogues has always been to set up some easy targets then knock them down. This was a feature of the Trump presidency. Blame Iran for uncertainty in the Middle East; Mexico for illegal immigration into the US; China for unfair trade practices hitting US jobs; Cuba, for simply daring to exist in spite of the 60 year long illegal trade embargo, the terms of which Trump tightened further.
Against this background it is easy to see Trump as a divisive force in US politics and society. There can be little doubt that Trump polarised opinion in the country. Those divisions did not appear with the presidency of Donald Trump however. Certainly, Trump did nothing to address them and often, on questions of racism especially did much to exacerbate them, but he cannot be accused of creating them. Trump did not divide America; a divided America produced Trump.
Much has been made of the fact that in 2020 Joe Biden has received more votes than any other presidential candidate in US history. Less is being made of the fact that Donald Trump’s vote in 2020 is the second highest for any candidate in US presidential history. Those who support Trump remain a significant and vociferous bloc.
As a narcissist and a bad loser Trump will drag out the legal challenges to the electoral process as far as he can. It is widely expected that these will not gain traction. If so Trump will no doubt continue to shout from the sidelines once Biden’s presidency gets underway. He will be a vocal but marginal figure.
For those behind Trump however, the struggle to maintain US global hegemony and to turn back the clock in terms of social policy, will continue. The trade wars with China, the undermining of international organisations of co-operation, the interference in the Middle East which has undermined support for the Palestinian cause, the tightening of restrictions on Cuba, are all policy shifts which Joe Biden will not be in a position to reverse in a four year period.
More significantly still, the conservative 6-3 majority on the US Supreme Court, the key arbiter in crucial policy judgements such as abortion rights, is a legacy which will outlast several presidential terms. The United States is a society with deep racial divisions and inequalities. Even the much heralded presidency of Barack Obama did little to change that. The recent upsurge of the Black Lives Matter movement illustrates the distance left to travel.
The Communist Party USA puts the position succinctly,
“Even with the acceptance of the votes and certification of the election for Biden/Harris, the fight will not be over. Take Trump at his word. What will compel his administration to hand over power? Here the mixed election results, the narrowness of the contests, amplify the degree of the danger. We are confronting two mass movements, of unequal strength—one fascist-tinged and in power, the other democratic and ascending. This is no ordinary election, and the situation remains far from clear. It’s time to stay awake, vigilant, and mobilized.”
President-elect, Joe Biden, has promised “a new day for America” and there is no doubt that the removal of Trump is a significant and symbolic step forward. The reduction of politics to the personalities of the main protagonists however is always a danger. The shadowy forces behind Trump may have failed in their attempt to secure him a second term but their sights will already be set firmly on 2024 and extending the ‘gains’ they have made under Trump.
31st October 2020
Nationwide lockdown in England to tackle second wave
Who is that masked man? Boris Johnson announces national lockdown for England
England is now into a second national lockdown, for one month initially from Thursday 5th November, following an announcement this afternoon by Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. Schools and universities will remain open, non-essential shops and the hospitality sector will close. The National Education Union are calling for schools to be included in any lockdown, as infection rates are increasing significantly in secondary schools.
This situation has come about through a combination of factors but is predominantly due to the blatantly class biased handling of the pandemic by the Tory government. This has resulted in a loss of public trust in the government’s strategy, leading many to make their own decisions about how best to navigate a route through the crisis.
There has always been a lumpen hard core for whom, as far as they are concerned, the rules do not apply. This group can be as diverse as organisers of house parties on working class estates, dinner party hosts in the suburbs, to the Prime Minister’s chief political adviser. The real unravelling of trust came with Dominic Cummings’ ill fated trip to Barnard Castle, after which it was clear that there was one rule for some and one for others.
Confidence in the government was certainly not universal before the Cummings debacle but there was a greater degree of latitude given by most people, prepared to believe the line that the government was ‘following the science’ and that what was tough today would result in a brighter tomorrow.
The Tories initially fuelled the illusion of a quick fix by dangling a series of carrots at the daily government propaganda briefings into the summer. Discussion about air corridors made it sound as though holiday plans could actually be delivered. The ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ scheme fostered the idea that some degree of economic normality was around the corner, with gyms, shops and libraries also opening across the summer.
A vaccine before Christmas has been talked up time and again by the Tories and the right wing press, although the medical and scientific community are noticeably cooler about the prospect. The much vaunted Operation Moonshot, the Tories’ post summer big idea has gone quiet. Test and trace is widely regarded as a farrago, which has succeeded in doing little more than putting £12bn into the pockets of Tory supporters Serco, while doing little or nothing to save lives. In mid October Serco announced it expects bumper profits after securing an extension to its Test and Trace contract.
Funding Christmas panto in ten cities across England, from the National Lottery, was a further desperate attempt to garner some popularity as the government’s credibility with the general public guttered into the autumn. While schools opened and students returned to university in September it was clear that a second wave was well underway. The need to break chains of transmission, by introducing a national lockdown period, was the clear scientific advice being pressed upon the government in late September.
This advice was deemed too unpopular so was ignored. Any illusion that the government was following the science, was stripped away. The big players in the hospitality sector were clearly worried about their profits, the small individual businesses were not promised enough in the way of government support to give them a chance to survive. Meanwhile, many companies in the arts and cultural sectors remain in danger of going to the wall, while individual freelancers are having to take any job they can to make ends meet.
It is only two weeks into the three tier system, aimed at managing the pandemic at a local level, and that appears to be failing, with infection rates soaring and predictions that a second wave could see twice as many deaths as the first.
The government has always tried to sell the line that it is backing both public health needs and those of the economy. The reality remains however that private wealth has always edged ahead of public health in the government’s planning. The poor, the elderly and those from ethnic minorities in working class communities have never been the natural constituency of the Tories. The fact that the death count is highest amongst these communities is clearly a factor in the gamble the government is taking with the lives of ordinary people.
A national lockdown is here. The carrot this time is to ‘save Christmas’. Exactly what will be saved and for whom is almost too macabre to predict. A four week lockdown, followed by a frenzy of household mixing and a breakdown of social distancing, can only end up with one result come January.
It is probable that the Tories’ big business backers will not tolerate measures much more stringent than this over their honeypot period in December. Is it likely that the government will be believed by the public if they take a harder line anyway? Nevertheless, measures to manage Christmas need to be thought through and agreed well in advance, in order to allow plans for the holiday period to be made with some degree of confidence well in advance.
The irony is that, along with endangering so many lives by not taking a stronger public health line, the economy is on the brink of crashing anyway and threatening the livelihoods of millions.
Priorities need to change as a matter of urgency. Test and trace needs to be taken out of the hands of the money grabbing private sector and put into the hands of local Directors of Public Health. The companies such as Amazon, Google and Facebook, profiting from the pandemic, need to be made to pay their way. The opposition needs to build outside Parliament to make sure that Tory class interests are exposed.
The Labour opposition inside Parliament, uninspiring so far, needs to challenge the government more effectively. Kier Starmer has not shown himself capable of that to date. A question mark must hang over his future if Labour is to be a force for working class people once more.
24th October 2020
Never mind the cake, let’s take the bakery!
Fine dining – not for everyone during school holidays
The appeal by Manchester United footballer, Marcus Rashford, that those children on free school meals may have no bread during school holidays, has met with a resounding “let them eat cake” response by UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, backed by his thumping House of Commons majority. As with most aspects of the current crisis, Labour were once again late to the oppose the government’s strategy, but did put down a motion in the House of Commons on Wednesday, inspired by Rashford’s campaign, which was defeated by 322 votes to 261.
Over the school summer holiday period Rashford was able to force a concession from the government to provide meal vouchers of £15 per week for those families with children on free schools meals, in order to provide support for the lowest paid, most vulnerable and those most likely to be working in sectors where the pandemic would have the most impact.
The Commons vote has triggered a wave of opposition from Councils across England, there are schemes to support children during school holidays elsewhere in the UK, who are preparing to make local interventions if the government is not prepared to back down. They have been joined by cafes and businesses pledging to help, while Rashford’s petition to implement a national food strategy has gathered over 500,000 signatures. Official figures are showing that 1.4 million children in England are eligible for free school meals, with unofficial estimates suggesting that this may now be closer to 2 million.
That there is the prospect of any child going hungry in the world’s fifth richest nation, never mind 2 million, is a damning indictment of the priorities within a capitalist economy. Even Nick Forbes, Leader of Newcastle City Council and Leader of the Local Government Association Labour Group, but hardly a left wing firebrand, commented,
“Children should never be left to go hungry – the fact that this Conservative government can’t see that shows it has completely lost its moral compass. They have wasted millions on high-paid consultants and have given billions to Serco to run a test and trace system that doesn’t work, but they draw the line at using a tiny fraction of that to prevent children going hungry this half term. It is sickening.”
At the other end of the social spectrum things are, as ever, not so stark. An exemption included in the tier 2 rules allows freelancers to work over lunch, a caveat which has meant some high end London restaurants interpreting this to mean up to 30 can dine at a time, as long as “the topic is business.” These restaurants are relying on “exception 3” in the government’s regulations which states,
“Exception 3 is that the gathering is reasonably necessary – (a) for work purposes or for the provision of voluntary or charitable services.”
At the Sexy Fish restaurant in Mayfair diners could select king crab and caviar sushi at £42 a piece (or nearly 3 free school meal vouchers) and this was only one of a number of high end restaurants doing a roaring trade this week. It is unlikely that any of the ‘freelance’ diners were amongst the thousands of workers in the cultural sector struggling to survive the closure of arts and music venues across the country, many of whom have slipped through the net of government support.
Current estimates suggest that on average a self-employed worker in the arts or hospitality sector will get a mere £450 a month from the Treasury’s self employment income support scheme, just half the level during the first lockdown. Not much king crab and caviar sushi likely to be bought on those wages. It is estimated that 500,000 self employed people work in sectors of the economy which are either shut or struggling under the weight of COVID-19 restrictions. A record 250,000 self employed people have fallen out of work since the start of 2020.
The extent to which the government have mishandled the pandemic is disgraceful in every aspect. Increasingly, the eyes of many are being opened the to the calamitous choice made at the last election and the iniquities which are endemic to capitalism. A system which allows some to dine on caviar while others scrape together the money to feed the kids during school holidays will never ‘level up’, however much Boris Johnson chooses to repeat his most hollow mantra.
The real flaw in the system is in fact the system itself. No amount of tinkering will ultimately change the capitalist leopard’s spots. The realisation is growing that real change has to come. It is not the need to eat cake, or even grasp a bigger slice that is required, it is the need to take over the entire bakery and put production in the hands of those who will ensure the cake is fairly distributed, so no-one goes hungry during school holidays, or at any other time of the year.
17th October 2020
Different politics, different priorities
Cuba – reopening the door for tourism
Chaotic, uncoordinated, directionless – all terms which have at various times been used to describe the Tory government’s handling of the current COVID-19 pandemic. Ostensibly it is hard to deny such accusations, given the debacle which emerges following each set of policy announcements in relation to dealing with the crisis. Johnson’s government may well be inept but it is not entirely without purpose. The guiding principles of the handling of the pandemic to date have been to protect private wealth over public health and this continues to be the case.
How can this be, when the strategy of the government appears to threaten the livelihoods of many small businesses and entrepreneurs, previously just making enough to get by but now in danger of going under, as the furlough scheme ends and the government support on offer is barely enough to cover the bills, never mind pay the wages of staff?
In reality, not only is the government not in control of the virus, it is not in control of the basic laws of capitalism. One basic tendency of capital is that towards monopoly, the swallowing up of smaller competition by bigger providers, thus creating ever larger conglomerates which dominate particular fields of industry, retail or communications.
Dealing with competition by takeover has long been a key feature of capitalism and is no different in the modern word of digital and virtual technologies. Facebook dealt with the threat from WhatsApp and Instagram by buying them up for example.
The demise of the high street shop may not be on quite such a scale but the opportunity is there for the bigger retailers to step into the void left by independent retailers, no longer able to make their way. This may take the form of more ‘local’ Tesco or Sainsbury’s outlets, or a high street Starbucks, but nonetheless increases the reach of the corporate pyramids.
Capitalism also functions according to basic laws governing the supply and demand of labour. In times of crisis, when jobs are going and labour is being shed, pay becomes a buyers market. In spite of minimum wage legislation and working time rights, employers have managed to get round much of this by the simple trick of not being employers. Nowadays many companies will contract ‘self employed’ individuals, paid on piece rates to deliver goods or produce product.
Apart from driving down the hourly rate of pay such an approach divests employers of the responsibility for national insurance or pension payments. In the short term this may sustain profits but crises of job insecurity, a low skills low wage economy and future pensions crisis are undoubtedly in store.
Large sections of the population effectively living hand to mouth, in areas of work where it is difficult to co-operate or unionise, will continue to increase as the pandemic progresses. This reserve army of labour, either unemployed or in unstable employment, will continue to be a resource for the suppression of wage rates and will continue to be a threat to those in low paid work, in danger of falling into the twilight world of semi-employment.
In any crisis there are also winners. There are no signs of Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook or Netflix going under. Nor are there any signs of any of the major profiteers from the pandemic coming under pressure to pay their share of taxes, to support those suffering at the sharp end. It is not in their interest to offer, nor in the interests of the Tories to ask.
The day to day practicalities of what it means to be in Tier 2 and what cannot be done in Tier 3 are in danger of consuming many, as the pandemic moves into the winter flu season and the trajectory of infections increase. To a certain extent that is inevitable as people attempt to make sense of a system almost designed to obfuscate and confuse.
However, many are also increasingly seeing that, beyond the present crisis there are questions to be answered about how society is organised and managed; how the means of production are distributed and controlled; why over 40,000 have died in the world’s fifth richest economy while the death toll in China, with a billion strong population, has not yet hit five figures; how a struggling developing economy like Cuba is re-opening its doors for tourism.
Different politics, a different view of the world, means different priorities. When the profits of the international corporations are not your number one concern it is possible to do things differently and genuinely do things in the interests of people, not private profit.
11th October 2020
Panto is back but can it save the show?
Panto – enough to save the cultural sector?
With anticipated new measures to further lockdown huge areas of England expected this week and much of Scotland already under significant lockdown, there has been a glimmer of good news. There may be some pantomime this Christmas. This would be more welcome if the government’s handling of the pandemic so far had not been such a performance. However, the joy with which the news of National Lottery funded pantomime in ten cities was greeted is symptomatic of a nation desperate for something to do, somewhere to go and some distraction from the grim realities of COVID-19.
Music venues are tentatively testing out the possibility of socially distanced performance to the same rapturous response. A modest, socially distanced, autumn music programme announced by the Sage Gateshead for example sold out within hours. Theatres and venues across the country are tentatively dipping their toes in the water of performance, on a limited scale. Most local authorities have opened up library services, albeit on a reduced basis, providing many local communities with a lifeline both to literature and the possibility of human contact beyond their immediate family. Local museums have similarly seen a gradual return of visitors, although most report that this is at little more than 30% of usual levels.
While the gradual return of some cultural life is to be welcomed the context of rising infection rates, growing hospitalisations, and the creeping up of the death rate does raise the question as to how sustainable any cultural revival will be.
The cultural sector more widely has been one of the hardest hit by the pandemic, with theatre and live music venues closed, the summer festival programme cancelled and cinemas operating on a restricted basis with little new film product.
The sector relies more that most on freelance workers, both in the creative and technical sides of the industry, while many organisations necessarily rely upon significant grant aid, sponsorship and, critically, ticket sales to survive; the so-called three legged stool of cultural funding.
The shift in emphasis over many years in the cultural sector has been away from state aid, as Arts Council budgets are regularly slashed, and has moved increasingly towards philanthropy and income generated through ticket sales. While this has resulted in some creative responses to funding and income generation in the cultural sector, with a sharpened approach to product differentiation and merchandising, these still rely upon significant footfall and spend at the venue. Only so much marketing is successful online if you have not seen the show!
As a business model in relatively good times, when there is enough disposable income in the economy, this has allowed the sector to survive, if not always to flourish. Community theatre, grass roots music venues and local authority support for seedcorn arts projects, have continued to struggle against the tsunami of austerity over the past ten years. The pipeline of new talent from working class and black and minority ethnic communities, trying to find a foothold in the cultural sector, has suffered accordingly. Local museums and libraries, often the lifeblood of engagement at a community level, have increasingly fallen victim to austerity as council budgets are squeezed.
The various packages so far offered by Chancellor Rishi Sunak have done little to help cultural workers at the sharp end survive. Self employed artists and local theatre companies, reliant on commissions from local government, the education sector and the private sector have found the well running dry. Many freelancers did not qualify for individual support while business loans were little compensation to arts organisations uncertain of their future prospects and their ability to meet repayments. Little in the current packages on offer from the government indicate a significant change.
Whatever largesse the private sector may have found for arts sponsorship is unlikely to be forthcoming for some time, as most retrench and restructure as a result of the pandemic. Ticket sales will be affected by whatever social distancing measures venues have to observe as well as some degree of audience reluctance, if infection levels are not brought under control.
There will no doubt be protection for the national institutions in the cultural sector. Will the government allow the British Museum, V&A, Royal Opera, the RSC, Tate Modern and other national cultural icons to disappear? It is unlikely.
However, while the pandemic has dramatically exposed the fragility of an NHS which has been under resourced for over a decade and has been overwhelmed by a surge in demand, it has also exposed the fault lines in the funding structures for the cultural sector. The £1.57m Cultural Recovery Fund administered through Arts Council England, currently dispersing this fund, may address some short term issues but even there demand has very much outstripped supply.
At some point sponsorship will return to the big names and, with greater confidence, so too will audiences. How much of the sector is left at a local level though may well depend upon the extent to which funding through local authorities can be increased to target cultural activity and support community arts and education. It will take more than a few high profile pantomime announcements to address these issues.
2nd October 2020
Trump – stand by to stand down
Protests continue to grow in the US as the election approaches
There are many ironies to the news this morning that Donald and Melania Trump have tested positive for COVID-19. There is the fact that Trump spent months in denial that the virus existed. He moved on to suggest that an injection of bleach may be a suitable cure. Trump has subsequently done all in his power to weaponise the pandemic, as part of his anti-China campaign and his attempt to maintain the global economic and military power balance in favour of the United States.
It is an irony that the greatest perpetrator of fake news, a term regularly used by Trump in order to deflect criticism from the liberal media, has fallen prey to many being prepared to believe that his positive diagnosis is just the latest in a long line of pre-election stunts to bolster his faltering campaign for re-election.
Whatever the reality, for the military industrial complex and the alt-right social conservatives in the US, Trump may be reaching the point of being expendable. In four years Trump has effectively eradicated any hint of liberal social policy, limited though it was, that Barack Obama was able to introduce in his two terms in office.
The ‘Make America Great Again’ mantra was always a tilt at the perceived failings under Obama, even though foreign aggression and wars of intervention were a feature of Obama’s watch. The persistent condemnation of the New York Times and what passes for liberal media in the United States has helped undermine what little trust many Americans had in their government and given succour to the bully boys of white supremacy, from the Ku Klux Klan to the Proud Boys.
For the conservative alt-right a key achievement of the Trump presidency is undoubtedly the shift in power balance on the US Supreme Court. With the likely appointment of dedicated Catholic and anti-abortionist, Amy Coney Barrett, Trump will have succeeded in shifting the balance of the court 6-3 in favour of conservative judges.
Access to abortion in the US relies upon a landmark 1973 ruling, Roe vs Wade, which legalised abortion nationwide. It has long been a target of the alt-right in the US to have the ruling overturned and the shifting power balance in the Supreme Court is seen as a key means to achieving the reversal.
The shift reflects the pattern of white supremacist organisations being allowed to gain ground as a result of the upsurge in the Black Lives Matter movement, following a string of deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers in the US.
Trump has actively encouraged this trend. During Tuesday’s presidential debate with Democratic nominee Joe Biden, Trump was asked if he was willing to denounce “white supremacists and militia groups” and tell them to stand down amid violence that has marred anti-racism protests in some US cities.
Trump requested a specific name, and Biden mentioned the Proud Boys, an organisation that describes itself as a club of “Western chauvinists”.
“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,” Trump said. The comment drew widespread criticism and was viewed by many to be a sign of encouragement for the group. Trump has subsequently back pedalled, claiming that his comments were misinterpreted, but given his history of inflammatory comments on the subject of racism the ‘climb down’ appears to be little more than a PR exercise.
The terms of political debate in the US have shifted so far in the past four years that Trump can routinely characterise Joe Biden as a socialist. In reality Biden, like Obama before him and every US President of modern times, is a representative of the super rich elite which are central to US politics. An American presidency is never won without being bankrolled by the vested interests which are at the heart of the US finance and military industrial complex.
The Obama presidency, with its emphasis upon increased healthcare for the poor and a limited thawing of relations with Cuba, was about as liberal as the US bankers and corporations were prepared to allow. Even that was too much for the neo-cons, who have channelled their agenda through Trump, turning his phoney ‘man of the people’ rhetoric to advantage while deepening poverty, increasing unemployment and killing thousands during the course of the pandemic.
To that extent, whether Trump stays or goes, will not change the shape of US politics in the short term. His departure would be welcome and undoubtedly a symbolic victory. However, it must go alongside a growth of the mass opposition to how the United States is run and the constant election of governments representative of the elite, by the elite, for the elite. The voices of the people must be heard, the struggle must continue. At best the election on 3rd November, if it results in Trump’s defeat, will be one small step.
23rd September 2020
More endless carping
Less than a week after local authorities in the North East of England requested local restrictions, which were subsequently approved by the Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, the rest of England is now facing similar restrictions in the face of an exponential rise in the COVID-19 virus.
Having spent the summer encouraging everyone to ‘eat out to help out’; go to the pub; go to the beach; return to town centre shopping; get back to work where they can; and take overseas holidays along so called air corridors, the government strategy of prioritising private wealth over public health is once again exposed.
The second wave of COVID-19, which is now officially acknowledged, was predicted by everyone except the government. The exhortation to ‘control the virus’ was always doomed to failure. The virus cannot be controlled. It’s spread can be suppressed, through effective test, trace and isolate or its impact neutralised through the development of an effective vaccine.
While the vaccine option is not yet within reach, more effective test and trace has been demonstrated in various parts of the world, including China, Cuba, Vietnam and New Zealand. It is little surprise that ideological bigotry will prevent the UK government taking any lessons from the first three of those countries but even the example of New Zealand, or for that matter South Korea or Germany, seems to be a step beyond the government’s capability.
As ever, the Johnson government has been too quick to listen to the interests of the breweries and alcohol manufacturers, euphemistically branded as the hospitality sector, rather than those of its own public health professionals. The former saw the summer as an opportunity to cash in on fine weather, the easing of lockdown restrictions and the general desire of many sections of the population to get out of the house.
Public health professionals saw the summer as an opportunity to put in place an effective test and trace system, engage with local environmental health teams to gather intelligence, and prepare for the inevitable rise in COVID-19 cases over the autumn and winter period. Not surprisingly, this did not happen on a wide enough scale.
It is widely held that the test and trace operation headed up by failed mobile phone company Chief Executive, Dido Harding, is a debacle. Stories of people having to drive hundreds of miles for tests, only to find that sites are at capacity, are legion. It is no use Tory millionaire Jacob Rees-Mogg suggesting that people should stop ‘endless carping’ about the failures of the test and trace system. Unlike Rees-Mogg, most of those relying on tests are having to travel for miles, take time off work and then, if they need to isolate, potentially losing income they can ill afford.
There is the rub. Apart from any systemic failures with test and trace there are the personal calculations families are making about whether or not they can afford to isolate. Poverty is lurking and unemployment is just around the corner for many already on the breadline. These are the realities for millions of working class families. They have every right to ‘carp’ at a system which is failing to give them protection and is set to see thousands more die over the winter.
The government has once again implemented a series of measures which are too half hearted to have an impact. Closing pubs and restaurants at 10pm is not enough, unless it is followed up with strict and well resourced enforcement action against businesses which continue to abuse the rules. Failing that, closure altogether. Visiting between households is no longer permitted in Scotland or the North East of England. This needs to be a national position if chains of transmission are to be broken.
All of which needs to be implemented with a properly resourced and managed test and trace operation in place. It is no good Johnson proclaiming that we are a ‘freedom loving people’ therefore it makes it difficult to enforce the rules. That is simply baloney. Keep the rules clear, simple, enforceable and applicable to all, even Prime Ministerial advisers, and they may begin to have an impact.
In the meantime, if the government are calculating that the current situation is to be with us for up to six months, a review of the furlough and other compensation schemes for businesses and individuals is essential. Those hit hardest by the virus are those least likely to have the cushion of savings, multiple income streams or inherited wealth. A further tranche of short term support is vital.
In the longer term it is not just systemic failures of test and trace but those of capitalism which need to be addressed. For most people getting through their day to day lives and trying to keep up with the stream of obfuscation from the government is as much as they can manage. However, people are increasingly seeing the realities of a system in crisis and once again, who is being made to pay. Jacob Rees-Mogg and his ilk may not like the ‘carping’ but it is only going to get louder and, with the right leadership, more organised.
12th September 2020
Shooting for the moon
COVID-19 – is the message hitting home?
Just when it seemed that the bungling incompetence of the Boris Johnson led UK government could not find new depths to explore, this week we were proved wrong. As the infection rate for COVID-19 soars, doubling every seven days, ahead of a likely upturn in deaths in hospitals, communities and care homes, the UK Prime Minister announced Operation Moonshot.
In a Downing Street propaganda stunt, dressed up as a press briefing on Wednesday, Johnson announced new measures to tackle the pandemic, the most immediate being the so-called ‘rule of six’, whereby from Monday, 14th September in England gatherings, indoors or outdoors, will be illegal if they involve more than six people. There are some exclusions relating to outdoor sporting events, the overall numbers allowed in restaurants and organised public gatherings, such as weddings and funerals, but the core principle for the public is, no more than six.
In addition, eventually catching up with Scotland, test and trace arrangements will be mandatory in England from the 18th September. This is aimed at the widespread flouting of the voluntary test and trace arrangements, which have effectively been a case of take no test and leave no trace, as people pack out bars and cafes with little heed to social distancing thus generating an exponential spread of the virus.
None of this should be any cause for concern however. Why? Because the government which brought us herd immunity; inadequate test and trace at the start of the pandemic; the scramble for sufficient and appropriate PPE for health workers; the failure to lock down soon enough; the easing of lockdown restrictions too soon; and the exam result and return to schools debacle; that very same government has now promised Operation Moonshot.
Moonshot will allegedly accelerate testing from the current 200,000 a day to 10 million a day by 2021 at the cost of a mere £100 billion. The plan is for at least two to four million tests by December before full roll out in 2021. Moonshot will allow those testing negative to go to mass events such as football matches without spreading the virus. The government scientific advisory body Sage does acknowledge however that this will require “superb organisation and logistics with rapid, highly sensitive tests”, not qualities on display so far during the present crisis.
Sage also point out, though the government do not seem keen to publicise the fact, that mass testing “can only lead to decreased transmission if individuals with a positive test rapidly undertake effective isolation.” Evidence to date suggests that this may be a big ask.
Still, why be sceptical? As ever with this government we will be cradled safely in the arms of the private sector. Deloitte, a major partner in the government’s current hugely successful test and trace programme, in which you can drive hundreds of miles to a test site, will be there! Better still, at least sixteen other companies and university partners will be along to play. Big pharma gets a look in with GSK, Smith and Nephew, as well as Astra Zeneca. Sainsbury’s and Boots are in the mix from the retail sector, all of this with the aim of “buying their large scale capabilities to build a large scale testing organisation.” Private sector snouts in the public finance trough.
Johnson is said to have compared the programme to the Manhatttan Project, the US drive to develop an atomic bomb, in a typical moment of bombastic self aggrandisement. It is revealing that a project to save lives should in any way bear comparison to one to develop weapons of mass destruction.
While the basis of Moonshot is the development of tests which do not need to be processed in a laboratory but, like a pregnancy test, can give a result in minutes there is as yet no reliable science to suggest this is achievable in the timescale outlined by the government. In fact, Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, said on Thursday,
“There are prototypes which look as though they have some effect, but they’ve got to be tested properly. We would be completely wrong to assume this is a slam dunk that can definitely happen.”
A word in the Prime Minister’s ear perhaps?
The private sector continues to profit from the pandemic with sales of possible vaccines generating billions in revenue. The UK alone has ordered 340m million doses of possible vaccine from six manufacturers. The EU is alleged to have done a deal worth £2.2bn with one company. The US programme, Operation Warp Speed, already has orders with six companies for 800m doses with options on another 1.6bn. Currently 321 vaccines are being developed globally, of which 32 are at the clinical trials stage.
While the Western economies do their best to corner the possible vaccine market there are some mitigations for poorer countries. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has set up the Covax programme, established to allow countries to share in the benefits of vaccine development, once working vaccines emerge. There is also the ongoing vaccine development work in China and Cuba, where economies not driven by the interests of private sector profit will take a more supportive approach to the needs of developing nations.
Meanwhile in the UK, as the infection level climbs, the population are tied to a failed government, which has failed in its response to the pandemic so far, shooting for the moon. It would be funny if so many lives did not depend upon it.
Johnson has proved beyond doubt that he is a clown, but no-one is laughing.
6th September 2020
Seismic change required
Boris Johnson – past his sell by date even for the Tories?
Boris Johnson has carved out the unlikeliest of political careers based on bluster, bigotry and blagging his way out of a tight spot, like the class clown at a public school. As the class clown, Johnson has been able to get by on a whim and a smirk, poking fun, getting the odd laugh and finding a way to scrape through when any tests come up.
Only in the English class system, with a private education, a privileged university and the right connections, could such a combination of attributes land you the top job in 10, Downing Street.
There was always the minor matter of becoming leader of the Tory Party and winning an election but Johnson has had the remarkable knack of being in the right place at the right time and the eye of opportunists throughout the ages of being able to adjust his politics to suit the moment.
The right wing press and the BBC, now under fire for having too many left wing comedians, have been complicit in his rise. A four year long assault on the politics of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, and the robotic performance of the Tories under Theresa May, helped many Tory MPs and party members buy into the illusion that Johnson was fit for leadership.
To suggest that the joke is wearing thin is to put it mildly. Over 40,000 deaths from COVID-19 by the official count, inept handling of everything to do with the pandemic from late lockdown to lack of PPE, inadequate test and trace arrangements and confusion over the exams and return to school process, have left even Tory MPs wondering at Johnson’s incompetence.
The chattering classes are already talking up Chancellor Rishi Sunak as a successor, as Johnson is regularly out manoeuvred by Kier Starmer at Prime Minister’s Questions. Resorting to accusing Starmer of being an IRA supporter this week, because he had served in Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet, even caused some blushes on the Tory benches. Press outrage seems to have been confined to the accusation against Starmer rather than the slur against Corbyn.
Johnson was always a compromise for the British ruling class, a populist figure who could temporarily unite the Tories and be a focal point for opposition to Labour under Corbyn. Having served his purpose UK ruling circles face a quandary. Do they stick with Johnson through to the next General Election, by which time his character fault lines and political charlatanism will have been completely exposed, or do they change horses early to allow another leader to establish themselves?
The question is widely discussed in the columns of political commentary at the moment but for much of the nation the outcome will be academic. Whoever leads the Tory Party will preside over another round of austerity in order to pay for the costs of the pandemic. Rishi Sunak will soon be presenting a budget which will take the first steps down that road. Unemployment over the 3 million mark already looks likely by Christmas, as the furlough scheme comes to an end.
As it stands, a Labour Government under Kier Starmer is unlikely to change that trajectory. The desire to live up to some right wing media, Bank of England and City of London definition of economic competence will freeze out any radical thinking from a Labour manifesto, effectively taking us back to a choice over who can manage capitalist austerity most competently. Competence being defined as the least threatening path for existing ruling class interests.
That can all change. Pressure from within the Labour Party and mass extra parliamentary action to resist an austerity programme which makes the poor pay, more than they do already, for the pandemic is possible and is certainly desirable.
As the party conference season looms the first formal signs of how the Tories and Labour are looking to set out their stalls will become evident. Popular pressure must build to make those who can afford to, pay their share. Redefining economic competence, as running an economy by, for and in the interests of the working class must also be a battle cry going forward.
Mealy mouthed words about ‘heroic’ health workers will no longer cut it. For any change to be meaningful it needs to be seismic. Labour need to grasp that reality.
29th August 2020
Black Lives Matter, not just black votes
Protesters in Washington, 28th August 2020
No one thinks Joe Biden is a radical. He certainly does not. His address to the Democratic Convention last week was all Mr Middle America. Mr Don’t Rock the Boat. Mr Mainstream American Dream. Nowhere did he suggest, or even hint, that he was Mr Radical. He got the Democratic nomination precisely because of his lack of radical credentials. In short, he was not Bernie Sanders.
The Republicans for their part are doing their best to portray Biden as a radical. A vote for Biden, they claim, is a vote to open the floodgates to a socialist America, an America of conflict, an America in which opportunity is trashed and the State steps in to make every decision for you.
Any reasonable person will of course see this as arrant nonsense but that is not the audience to whom the Trump team are playing. Trump is playing to an audience he expects to believe when he says,
“I say very modestly that I have done more for the African-American community than any president since Abraham Lincoln.”
To be fair, that is not a very high bar, given the record of successive US Presidents on the race question but it is still a bold claim, especially in the context of recent events and the growing momentum behind the Black Lives Matter protests.
Trump is also bold enough to claim that he took “swift action” to control COVID-19, in spite of the US death toll now being at 181,000 with more than 1,000 people dying every day. However, in a world where your target vote gets its news diet from Fox News and Breitbart any relationship with reality is at best tangential.
The campaign to mobilise against racism and for reform of policing in the United States continued yesterday with the Get Your Knee Off Our Necks March, timed to coincide with the 57th anniversary of the March for Jobs and Freedom in 1963, which culminated with Martin Luther King’s famous, ‘I have a dream…’ speech.
Organised through the National Action Network under the slogan ‘No justice, no peace’ the march mobilised a powerful lobby of speakers from the families of those who have most recently been victims of racist policing methods in the US. Many moving declarations and expressions of solidarity followed but little in the way of political analysis or any explanation that systematic racism is endemic to capitalism in the US, as it is elsewhere in the world.
The suffocation of George Floyd on 25th May brought the Black Lives Matter movement front and centre into America’s homes. However, black people are dying quite unnecessarily in the United States in other ways.
Life expectancy is far shorter and infant mortality far greater for U.S. blacks, for example, than for white people. The COVID-19 pandemic is having a disproportionate impact upon the black community as more people from ethnic minority backgrounds play key roles in frontline health and care services.
W.T Whitney, writing recently in the US People’s World observed that,
“Racism serves as an adjunct to classed-based oppression. Causing pain, racism works for maintaining social-class boundaries. The combination of the two has resulted in Black people being relegated to a generally precarious role within U.S. society and remaining vulnerable to lethal violence.”
This is the reality which the Black Lives Matter movement ultimately has to come to terms with if it is to make progress and really make an impact upon the shape of society in the United States.
In the short term the exhortation is to get the black community to register and then to vote on 3rd November to get Donald Trump out. The Trump camp are already preparing their response. Wheeling out conservative blacks who applaud the United States as the land of opportunity, while condemning violence in black communities, thus portraying victims as perpetrators, is one tactic. Portraying a Joe Biden presidency as the gateway for an unleashing of all the evils of the world is another.
Getting Trump out would undoubtedly be a step forward. Whether Biden can make any great strides in terms of tackling racism and inequality in the United States, even if he really has the inclination, will depend upon the momentum the Black Lives Matter movement can continue to build.
The extent of change that Black Lives Matter can affect will in turn be dependant upon the extent to which that movement becomes class conscious, recognising the need for the unity of the black and white working class if progress is to be made.
The Democrats will embrace Black Lives Matter to the extent that it serves their purpose, to get rid of Trump. History shows however that it is not so much black lives as black votes that matter in US elections. It will certainly take a movement more radical than anything Joe Biden is likely to acknowledge to move on from that position.
18th August 2020
Privilege is the priority
Students opposing the A level results debacle
The failings of the Boris Johnson government become more evident daily, as one debacle follows another and control remains just out of reach at every turn. The handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a calamity at every level for the working class, ethnic minorities and the elderly in care homes. The death toll includes very few from the leafy suburbs and gated properties of the rich, while thousands who started out in poor health and poverty have paid the ultimate price.
There is little, if any, indication that the government cares about this. The welfare of the poor has never been high on the agenda of any Tory government, even the most benign, and Johnson and his cronies will not be winning any accolades in that regard. While not quite at the level of the systematic destruction of working class communities in the Thatcher years, Johnson is clearly more closely aligned with that brand of Conservatism than any so called One Nation approach.
Talk of ‘levelling up’ is purely that, talk to keep the newly elected Tories in Northern seats onside, in the hope that a few crumbs from the Westminster table will fall their way and they might scrape through into a second term in Parliament. There is not, and never will be, any levelling up with the Tories for the simple reason that their whole raison d’etre is to ensure that the playing field is not level, that their class interests are defended and their privileges are protected.
None of this will every appear in any manifesto. Just as their racist immigration policies, antipathy to local government and craven adherence to weapons of mass destruction over social investment and hospitals, will never appear in black and white in those terms. Credit where it is due, the Tories have always been smarter than that. Their core strategy of keeping enough of the people fooled, enough of the time, with a helping hand from a compliant BBC and right wing press has generally paid off.
Home ownership, share ownership, a stake in the country’s wealth, private health schemes, more private cars than ever, get rich, win the lottery; all holding out the hope to people of jam tomorrow. A flurry of Royal Family sagas and more war anniversaries and commemorations than anyone thought possible in recent years have also reinforced a national narrative that plays into the narrow jingoism of the Tory nationalists.
When did VJ Day ever merit two minutes silence? Certainly, no discussions have featured the US war crimes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as part of the ending of the Second World War narrative, over the past weekend.
The government is now embroiled in a debacle over A level exam results, with what can only be seen as a class based algorithm handing out lower grades in underprivileged areas, while reinforcing top grades for the private school sector. It is being presented as a problem with regulator Ofqual but is part of a wider picture of reinforcing the privilege of those who ‘expect’ university places, rather than those who deserve them on merit.
In a further move to reinforce its support base part of the function of Public Health England will be hived off to be merged with the NHS Test and Trace organisation, to be led by Tory peer Baroness Harding. Test and trace is currently being run by private sector sharks Serco and Sitel, yet another example of profit from public health being put ahead of public health itself. How much the private sector has made from government contracts throughout the pandemic will be a revealing calculation.
There is no levelling up, there is no people’s government, there is pocket lining and reinforcement of privilege. The Tory leopard cannot and will not change its spots. A less compliant Labour leadership would be landing blow after blow, exposing the scandal of the government’s handling of the entire pandemic, calling for investment in public health rather than shoring up opportunities for more private wealth. The Opposition needs to find some bite to its strategy to oppose.
14th August 2020
Strike action spreads rapidly across Iran
Iranian workers, part of the current strike wave
An unprecedented wave of strike action is underway in the gas and oil fields of Iran, as workers down tools over the late payment of wages, insecure employment contracts, poverty wages and intolerable working conditions. Temperatures in Iran’s refineries can reach up to 50 degrees Celsius, a danger to health and almost impossible to work in.
An estimated 10,000 workers have been involved in wildcat strike action which has hit major refineries and industrial projects in Iran’s South Pars gas fields. The strike has remained solid for over a week. Localised protests have been common in recent years, as employers have squeezed pay and conditions in order to maximise profits, but the co-ordination of action, affecting a number of refineries and many contractors, is a new dimension.
By Saturday, 1st August, of the 10,000 workers on strike, 5,000 had abandoned the gas fields entirely and returned home. Other remained in their dormitories, waiting for employers to give in to their demands.
Those on strike cover a range of trades including builders, electricians, welders and pipefitters, who work for employment agencies and gang masters on a variety of industrial projects in the world’s largest natural gas field. They work a shift cycle of 20 days on, ten days off, and are housed in dormitories close to the workplace while on shift.
The action has seen hundreds of workers protesting outside the offices of the contractors, declaring their intention to refuse to work for an entire 20-day shift cycle.
IndustriALL Global Union’s Iranian affiliate, the Union of Mechanics and Metalworkers of Iran (UMMI), has to operate under restrictive conditions in which independent trade unions in Iran are not officially recognised by the regime. In spite of this UMMI is optimistic that, given the scale of the action, workers may have a chance to win concessions and possibly gain representation at major industrial sites.
The development of the South Pars fields is Iran’s flagship hydrocarbons project. The economy depends on the project for foreign exchange as it experiences hyperinflation. The significance of the fields is underlined by the fact that it is the state-run oil and gas company that has jurisdiction over all projects in South Pars.
Lost revenue therefore has a direct impact upon the beleaguered Iranian exchequer. While this may augur well for a negotiated solution the Iranian regime is not noted for conceding to workers demands and a long struggle may yet be ahead. Organisers are already wary of retaliation by the security forces, a common tactic in Iran, as the strike spreads. There are already reports of arrests and surveillance against key activists.
French energy giant Total signed a deal to develop the fields in 2017, but pulled out due to US sanctions. The fields are being developed in partnership with other multinational energy companies, but Iran has struggled to raise the necessary financial commitment. Contractors are under pressure to complete work on projects which are behind schedule, and often face liquidity problems due to delayed payments on government contracts due to banking sanctions.
International support will continue to be a crucial factor in sustaining the immediate action but also raising the profile of the struggle for wider trade union recognition in Iran.
Sources inside Iran have stressed the significance of the actions as this is the first time in the history of Iran’s labour strikes that contract workers in the country’s oil, gas and petrochemical industries have managed to organise strikes on such a scale.
Contract workers, make up about 70 percent of the total workforce in the sector, but are generally unable to organise such large-scale protests due to their dispersal across a range of companies and contractors.
The fears of the regime that the action could spread from economic to political demands were intensified recently when 14 independent organisations, from different social classes and spheres, issued a statement in support of oil, gas and petrochemical workers’ strike movement. “A general strike is the only way” is the final sentence of this statement.
Trade union, human rights and solidarity organisations have been quick to respond to the action by the Iranian workers and show expressions of support and solidarity. In the UK, the Committee for the Defence of the Iranian People’s Rights (CODIR), has been at the forefront of leading calls for solidarity with the Iranian workers action and soliciting expressions of support from labour and trade union movement organisations.
More details at www.codir.net
9th August 2020
Time to tax the wealthy
Chancellor Rishi Sunak – is a wealth taxing budget likely?
The UK economy is tanking, there is no two ways about it. Redundancies in the past week alone include Hays Travel, DW Sports, Pizza Express, Currys PC World and WH Smith. Many others have only been hanging on due to the coronavirus furlough scheme which is now being phased out as employers have to contribute to pension and national insurance costs. By October, wage subsidies in any shape or form will be over, leaving businesses to make their own way without government support.
The virus is not a crisis of the government’s making but the response to it, being too slow to lockdown, too slow to provide adequate testing and too slow to deliver personal protective equipment, is certainly at the door of the government.
The package of measures introduced by the government to mitigate the crisis is likely to cost upwards of £300bn in additional borrowing in this financial year. Even so, an estimated 25% was wiped off national output in March and April alone. The prospect of 4 million unemployed by the end of the year is not an unrealistic one.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak is preparing for an Autumn Budget in October when it is widely expected that measures to set out who ‘pays’ for the cost of the pandemic will be articulated. The traditional Tory approach in these circumstances has been to punish the poor. The outcome of the 2008 banking crisis was ten years of austerity, in which job prospects, wage levels and local services were suppressed in order to pay off the banker’s gambling debts.
The fact of thousands being furloughed and millions potentially facing the prospect of job loss is a clear indication of who is already paying for the crisis. Redundancies may be on the rise everywhere else but the 15 best paid executives in the technology sector alone have a combined income of more than $83bn.
Older, highly educated and highly paid workers, many working from home through the crisis, have been able to save money. Bank of England data suggests that household deposits in bank accounts have increased by almost £70bn since the onset of the pandemic.
At the other end of the spectrum it is inevitably a different story. In poorer households, especially where there have been job losses, savings are a dream. It is estimated that up to £6bn will be owed in unpaid Council Tax, utility and credit cards bills.
The cost to local authorities, always the area to assist the poorest in our communities, runs into the millions for each local authority, with choices to either cut jobs, services or both inevitably looming. Rent arrears from Council house tenants are mounting, while homelessness is likely to increase once again as temporary support measures are withdrawn.
The obscenity of capitalism’s disparities is further compounded by the most recent figures for UK wealth, measured by financial and property wealth, which stands at a record £14.6 trillion on latest official figures. The top 10% richest people control almost half of this wealth; the poorest 30% control as little as 2% of all wealth.
The case for systemic change, which brings control over wealth and power into the hands of those who genuinely create or support that wealth creation, could not be clearer. While asking workers to make the leap from resisting the pandemic to supporting the case for social revolution may be a step too far for some, there will be many for whom the iniquities of the system have become all too real in recent months and will be open to such conversations.
Sadly, this is not a path down which the current Labour Party leadership is likely to go. Kier Starmer’s most recent priority has been to pay off Labour HQ staff, who worked systematically to undermine the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Opinion polls still put the Tories in a strong position, in spite of the mishandling of the pandemic and mismanagement of the economy. So far Starmer’s strategy, even with its limited objective of getting Labour back into office, is not working.
The very least that should be expected from Labour in the current circumstances is the demand for a wealth tax, hitting at least the top 1% richest people in Britain, to help alleviate the impact of the crisis upon the poorest communities. These are not uncommon in other capitalist economies including, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland.
Spain imposes taxes on assets above €700,000 while France raises €2bn a year from wealth taxes paid by the 150,000 richest households.
A recent YouGov poll found 61% of the public supported a tax on those with assets in excess of £750,000, excluding pensions and the value of their residential property, with only 14% against such a tax. City University’s tax reform advocate Richard Murphy has argued a wealth tax could raise as much £174bn, which could go towards paying down record levels of borrowing.
As measures to address the impact of the crisis go, even a wealth tax would be a limited one. However, it would genuinely raise finance and symbolically it would shift the emphasis of who pays to those who can afford to, those who have been least affected by the pandemic and those who do not earn or deserve the wealth in which they revel.
At the very least, Labour need to take up the cause and make it clear that they are on the side of the many, not the few.
2nd August 2020
Trump threatens dmocracy with militarized police
By Juan Lopez
(from People’s World July 27 2020)
Federal officers in Portland, July 25, 2020.
By sending federal militarized units in fascist-like fashion into major cities to attack peaceful Black Lives Matter demonstrators, President Donald Trump is assaulting democracy and setting a dangerous precedent less than 100 days before the November elections.
Clearly, it is a desperate move to shore up his far-right base and divert public attention away from his criminal mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic crisis, both of which are costing him politically. Poll numbers, for now, show him badly trailing his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
The response by public officials, civic leaders, and civil rights groups in these Democratic-controlled cities and states has been swift and forceful, with pledges to take legal and legislative action to stop the unwelcomed and undemocratic intrusion into local jurisdictions.
In letters fired off to the administration and congressional leaders on July 20, the mayors of 15 cities charged: “Unilaterally deploying these paramilitary-type forces into our cities is wholly inconsistent with our system of democracy and our most basic values.”
Citing federal forces’ actions in Portland in recent weeks, the mayors told Attorney General William Barr and Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf that “use of significant force against protesters on a nightly basis,” including snatching protesters off the streets and putting them in unmarked vehicles, and wounding one demonstrator in the head, “are tactics we expect from authoritarian regimes.”
The mayors called on the Trump administration instead to focus on battling the pandemic and providing relief to workers, businesses, and cities, which they characterized as totally inadequate.
“But,” they said, “The irresponsible actions of your agencies threaten community safety and progress on policing in our communities.”
In a second letter to leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, the mayors said Trump’s unilateral deployment of paramilitary forces into cities was tyrannical and called on congressional leaders to “immediately investigate the President and his administration’s actions.”
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner went so far as to threaten that “anyone, including federal law enforcement, who unlawfully assaults and kidnaps people will face criminal charges from my office.”
In the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats swept to victory in a number of formerly Republican-controlled congressional districts, senate races, and down-ballot contests. Several new progressives were ushered into office.
Currently, the electoral map is looking even more promising for Democrats, as the poll figures show Trump and Republican Senate and congressional candidates trailing or barely hanging on in a number of formerly Republican strongholds.
Last week, the Cook Political Report said six of the U.S. Senate seats currently held by Republicans are in the “toss-up” category while one leans Democratic. Only two Senate seats held by Democrats appear vulnerable.
There are still months to go before the election, and opponents to Trump can’t let their guard down, but these numbers, if they hold, open the possibility that the nation’s Senate majority would flip from Republican to Democratic hands. At the same time, Democrats retaining their majority in the House of Representatives at this point appears assured.
While I am not in the habit of quoting right-wing Republicans, it is worth noting the alarm with which key Republicans view their electoral chances at this time.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, is in the battle of his political career—so much so that he broke with Trump on nearly every major issue related to the coronavirus, including stressing the importance of wearing a mask.
Former House Speaker Republican Paul Ryan, speaking at an event hosted by Solamera, a company with close ties to Republican Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, said that Trump was losing key voting blocks, namely among suburban voters, across the Midwest and in Arizona, a Republican-leaning state “presently trending against us,” the New York Times reported.
Ryan pointed out that “Biden is winning over Trump in this category of voters 70 to 30, and if that sticks, he cannot win Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.”
In a sign of how enduring the Black Lives Matter movement has been, Republicans in Congress are also joining with Democrats in a direct challenge to the president as they back legislation that would force removal of Confederate names from Army bases. On July 23, the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate passed defense policy legislation containing that provision by an 86-14 majority. The House has also passed legislation with a similar provision by a veto-proof majority.
Targeting cities with large communities of color in his dispatch of quasi-military forces shows the patent racist nature of Trump’s intentions. Furthermore, he is trying to suppress the role of a Black-led movement that is challenging systemic racism and demanding democratic reforms that are bound to benefit society as a whole.
What’s more, the movement has awakened communities, concentrated in the suburbs and smaller cities, which in the past have tended Republican but are now moving into the Democratic camp just as the nation is headed towards one of the most, if not the most, consequential election in history.
It is important to note here that the transformation of politics in the suburbs and smaller cities is a reflection of the antipathy with which an ever increasing section of the population has come to view the political actions of Trump, his far-right cabal, and Republican political figures. But, also noteworthy, is the changing composition of the populace in these areas, which has become more multiracial and liberal as the cost of housing and living has forced many out of the central cities.
Now, as we move toward the November elections, the challenge is to organize and mobilize voters and potential voters everywhere, but especially in electoral swing regions and states.
Find out more about the situation in the United States at https://peoplesworld.org/article_category/news/
26th July 2020
Over “in time for Christmas”
Boris Johnson – still “guided by the science”?
The scramble to find a COVID-19 vaccine is now the major priority of Big Pharma in the West, with the potential long term profits being as much a lure as that of addressing the public health issues concerned. The much vaunted Oxford vaccine, developed at Oxford University with Swedish company AstraZeneca, of which the government has allegedly bought 100 million doses, is relatively untried and untested. It has certainly not undergone the rigorous testing regime required before drugs usually reach the market. There is also no evidence yet that any immunity generated will last and if so, for how long.
So far the tests in Oxford have involved 1,077 people and have been described as “extremely promising initial results” but much more work is to be done, testing at higher doses with a greater sample population in Brazil and South Africa, where COVID-19 outbreaks remain high.
As Max Nisen, writing in the online journal Bloomberg has pointed out however,
“Immune responses measured in the lab don’t always correlate to real-world protection, a risk that’s especially acute for rapidly developed vaccines against a novel virus.”
Professor Sarah Gilbert, of the University of Oxford, said: “There is still much work to be done before we can confirm if our vaccine will help manage the COVID-19 pandemic, but these early results hold promise.”
The reported pace of the vaccine development however has the advantage of fitting in with Boris Johnson’s political narrative that it will all be over by Christmas. As someone who prides himself on his historical knowledge you would expect him to be cautious about reaching for such claims. The right wing press, including Johnson’s house journal the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Express are all backing Johnson’s “Plan for the worst, hope for the best” strategy outlined last week.
At the Downing Street press conference to announce new measures, Johnson outlined plans for local authorities to have new powers to close specific premises, shut outdoor spaces and cancel events. In addition, regulations set out in draft in parliament this week will allow central government to intervene in local areas by issuing “stay-at-home” orders, limit the numbers at gatherings beyond national rules and restrict transport.
Johnson went on to say that,
“It is my strong and sincere hope that we will be able to review the outstanding restrictions and allow a more significant return to normality from November, at the earliest, possibly in time for Christmas.”
Johnson has also outlined plans to allow people to return to work from 1st August, with the permission of their employer. This goes against the previous advice to work from home unless absolutely impossible not to and passes responsibility from the state to enforce a clear position addressing public safety, to employers concerned about their profit margins. The history of the private sector delivering in the service of the public, as the NHS and local government have found to their cost over the years, is not good.
In spite of Johnson’s ongoing claim to be “guided by the science”, the new advice flies in the face of the view of the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, who told the science and technology committee,
“I think my view on this, and I think this is a view shared by Sage, is that we’re still at a time when distancing measures are important. And, of the various distancing measures, working from home for many companies remains a perfectly good option because it’s easy to do.”
As ever, Johnson’s bluster and desire to promote the optimistic soundbite, outweighs the real concerns for public health and safety which should be driving the government’s approach. There is little dispute that, in the early days of the pandemic, the UK made massive errors of judgment. These include sending people with coronavirus into care homes, not locking down early enough, and not having any real kind of test and trace capability whatsoever.
Those errors undoubtedly cost thousands of lives. There is every danger that too rapid an easing of lockdown measures could cost thousands more lives. Government strategy continues to be driven by private wealth ahead of public health. Johnson may still be good for the occasional soundbite for a sycophantic press but a reckoning is yet to come. The public may not go as easy on the Tories as their mates in the media.
19th July 2020
Xi Jinping – spearheading China’s economic development
The anti-Chinese rhetoric of the United States, effectively the declaration of a second Cold War by President Donald Trump, has taken grip in the UK this week with the decision to cut investment from Chinese firm Huawei in the UK’s 5G network.
A report by the European Commission published in March last year indicated that across the European Union, of which the UK was then a member, Chinese investment totalled 9.5%, up from 2.5% in 2007. This compared to investment from US and Canadian companies, which stood at 29.5% down from 42% in 2007.
The amount of Chinese foreign direct investment in the EU was rising rapidly, peaking at €37.2bn in 2016. However, it has since fallen away following a slowdown in Chinese investment globally. Nevertheless, China now owns, or has a stake in, four airports, six maritime ports and 13 professional soccer teams in Europe. It estimated there has been 45% more investment activity in 30 European countries from China than from the US, since 2008.
Across Europe the major focus of Chinese investment is in the UK, Germany, Italy and France. In addition, the new Silk Road programme, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to invest in major infrastructure programmes to increase trade between China and Europe, has twenty European countries on board, including Italy and Russia.
The reason cited for the Huawei ban in the UK is security. Making the UK 5G network so dependent upon Chinese technology, it is argued, poses a risk as the company is allegedly controlled by the Chinese state.
However, the UK has been keen to encourage Chinese investment in other areas, including the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Somerset, and in a wide range of businesses in the manufacturing and financial sectors, totalling over $20 billion in 2017.
The real story in terms of foreign direct investment into the UK is that the United States by far and away tops the list, with over 23% of foreign direct investment in the UK in 2017 coming from the US. The UK government is keen to keep the US on board, especially to negotiate a post Brexit trade deal, so compliance US foreign policy remains a priority for the Tories.
The situation is further complicated by the situation in Hong Kong. The reluctant return of Hong Kong to the Chinese in 1997 has long been a sore point in British ruling circles who see the city as a financial haven and a bridgehead into China, both economically and politically. Hong Kong was seized by the British in the mid nineteenth century and Britain was subsequently granted a 99 year lease on the colony in 1898 by a weakened and corrupt Chinese state.
The turnover of the island back to China in 1997 came with an agreement to preserve Hong Kong’s capitalist system, the One Country, Two Systems agreement, an attempt by a struggling imperialism to keep a foothold in China and use Hong Kong as a focal point of opposition to the Chinese state. Recent democracy protests, aimed at securing the secession of Hong Kong from China appear to have been part of this long term strategy.
Not surprisingly the reaction of China has been robust, with the passing of new national security legislation, while the US response has been to ramp up the odds as Donald Trump heads towards a November presidential election. Latest reports suggest not only an increase in sanctions on Chinese goods by the US but travel restrictions on Chinese Community Party members. The mindset of the US administration was outlined by US Attorney General, William Barr, recently who accused China of conducting,
“…economic blitzkrieg – an aggressive, orchestrated, whole of government, and indeed, whole of society campaign to seize the commanding hights of the global economy and to surpass the US as the world’s preeminent superpower.”
This is the real threat as far as the United States is concerned. The hegemony of the dollar as the international default currency; the loss of political and economic influence in South East Asia, Africa and Latin America, as developing countries find the terms of trade with China to be less exploitative than those with the West; the loss of influence and investment opportunities in Europe as Chinese technology makes inroads into areas previously dominated by US technology giants.
Concerns about human rights and democracy may look good for the headlines and make Donald Trump feel and, to some, appear righteous ahead of the election in November. The real deal for the US however, with the UK hanging on its coattails is, as ever, about the cash. Expect the anti-Chinese rhetoric to continue in the coming months but expect deals to be done behind the scenes all the same.
Like it or not, the West cannot ignore China as an emerging superpower. Plotting to undermine China will no doubt continue but in the short term the West will have to learn to live with the reality of China’s place in the world.
13th July 2020
Levelling up looks hollow
Boots and John Lewis – over 5,000 jobs to go
The seemingly inexorable march towards a second spike in the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK continues apace, with shops, pubs, cafes, restaurants, cinemas, libraries, leisure centres all opening to some degree and, to a huge extent, relying upon the public to operate within and observe the rules of social distancing.
The promise of UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, to ‘put the brakes on’ if people do not behave sensibly is lost beneath the deluge of welcomes from services desperate to get customers back across the doors and to see income start flowing again.
At the same time, in the space of three months, decisions have been made in boardrooms across the country to cut back the workforce, operate at reduced or minimal levels and hold back on investment until there is a significant sign of upturn in demand. Major High Street names, John Lewis and Boots, are the latest in a long line of companies taking the opportunity to reduce costs by making workers redundant.
The elderly, the poor, black and ethnic minority communities are being hardest hit by the pandemic in terms of the impact upon health. They are also the most likely to be hit due to their lack of wealth, working in low paid jobs, on zero hours contracts and being disproportionately reliant on struggling public services and the NHS.
It is reported in The Observer this weekend that the government have already drawn up a list of the top twenty Councils in England where the worst levels of coronavirus are located and deemed to need “enhanced support”. Top of the list are Bradford, Sheffield and Kirklees with the prospect of local lockdowns, similar to that imposed in Leicester recently, being on the cards.
However, these rankings are based on testing which took place between the 21st June and 4th July, before the fuller easing of lockdown took effect. The next two weeks will be critical in terms of assessing what impact the relaxation measures will have on the transmission of the virus. The COVID Symptom Study, undertaken by King’s College London, indicates that, based upon data up to the 4th July, rates of new COVID cases in the UK have stopped declining, with over 23,000 suspected cases in total.
It is clearly the case that what little disposable income workers have is being drained by the pandemic, as job loss or insecurity means less spending power and certainly less outlay on major items, while people wait to see how their futures are going to work out. Even the increasing shift to online purchasing, one of the reasons cited by John Lewis Chief Executive, Sharon White, for reducing store numbers, relies on people having money in the bank to pay.
The pandemic has exposed some of the contradictions inherent in capitalism, underlining that it is moribund as an economic system capable of providing for the needs of the people.
At times of crisis the workforce will always be the first to bear the brunt. Company executives will receive their bonuses, shareholders will receive dividend payments, the banks will call in their loans. However, without money in the pockets or the bank balances of the workforce consumption, therefore demand, is flat.
Production for greed, not need, demands a level of capacity on the part of the consumer to actually consume. Low pay, no pay, or the uncertainty of furlough, is not going to encourage the consumer boom the Tories are hoping will pull them through the crisis.
There has been much talk of the coronavirus pandemic exposing another pandemic, that of endemic racism, following the killing of George Floyd and the increased profile of the Black Lives Matter movement. That is undoubtedly the case. It is also true however that the pandemic is exposing the depths of the disease at the heart of society, the disease of obscene levels of private wealth, which creates billionaires on the one hand and condemns others to sleep on the street.
The government’s measures to address the pandemic may bring short term economic relief for a few but it remains to be seen at what price, in terms of further lives lost. Even that relief is likely to be short lived as job losses blamed on the pandemic become consolidated, local authorities struggle to deal with the consequences of mass unemployment, homelessness and poverty and the NHS is overwhelmed by the deterioration in physical and mental health in the population.
The Johnson mantra of ‘levelling up’ is looking increasingly hollow.
The power of working class people taking to the streets, combined with resistance such as the Black Lives Matter movement, in opposition to the cutbacks, job losses and austerity which is inevitably coming, will be vital if a powerful force for change is to be developed, a force which challenges the very raison d’etre of capital itself, putting the real solution, socialism, firmly on the agenda.
4th July 2020
Unlocked…but for how long?
Boris Johnson – another day, another blag
Unlocked, unleashed and out on the lash. If the government was still holding its daily coronavirus propaganda briefings this could be the new slogan, as the shackles come off bars, cafes and restaurants from today. UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, could shuffle up to a lectern emblazoned with the slogan, flanked by nervous scientists, Patrick Valance and Chris Whitty, hoping for at least a place in the House of Lords out of this but knowing they are more likely to take the rap in any future public inquiry, almost certainly designed to incinerate their reputations.
The government has faced a lot of criticism for its dithering, delay and general tardiness in implementing the necessary measures to stem the tide of deaths arising from the pandemic, now inching towards 45,000 on official figures and counting.
In one respect though the government has been perfectly consistent. That is in its overarching policy objective of putting private wealth ahead of public health. Governments over the past forty years have progressively shifted the UK economy away from production and towards consumption.
The UK is over reliant upon the financial services in the City of London, being a corporate tax haven and international money laundering operation. It is over reliant on capital hungry but socially useless investment in weapons of mass destruction. It is over reliant on the low paid service sector and tourism economy to bring in foreign spending.
Donning a hard hat and dashing off to Dudley in the West Midlands, in order to proclaim a ‘new deal’ in infrastructure investment, Boris Johnson once again this week used a compliant media to spin his message that Britain will ‘build back better’ and that, in spite of still having the highest death rate in Europe, he could proclaim a form of victory in defeating the virus.
The BBC continues to go along with this nonsense, even though the Tories will rip up the Charter and abolish the licence fee anyway. Like Johnson’s delusions of taking up the mantra of Churchill and Roosevelt, the BBC appears to be deluded enough to think that its state broadcaster status gives it a form of immunity from prosecution.
Life in the real world is, as ever, a little different to that in the Downing Street rose garden or in the cloistered corridors of Broadcasting House. People continue to struggle with what may be life and death decisions about whether they can go to the supermarket, visit family or venture to a beach.
Listening to UK Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, this weekend, he is clearly trying to convey the impression that it is the patriotic duty of the nation to indulge in these activities. Corporate profits need to be protected after all, even at a social distance, and that will not happen if people simply choose to stay at home and stay safe when they now have so many more opportunities to spend their money.
Of course, the proverbial pound in the pocket has diminished somewhat for much of the population. Those on furlough face increasing uncertainty, as the scheme changes and employers have to contribute more. Many others have already had to join the swelling dole queues with redundancies across a range of sectors, from airlines to retail, being announced daily.
As with many aspects of capitalism, the government’s strategy is about gambling. Just as the bankers gambled incorrectly that the sub prime housing market would not collapse prior to the 2008 crash, a roll of the dice we are still paying for, so Johnson and his cronies are hoping that a second wave of the virus will not kill off any hope of economic recovery. Johnson is gambling that those who still have money to spend will do so in sufficient numbers to be enable him to talk up the economy and justify his policy choices.
Unfortunately for Johnson, he may be able to blag some of the people some of the time but he will not blag the virus, ever. The government has presided over far more deaths than necessary already. It seems set to preside over many more because of pressure from the banks, the corporate sector and the hospitality industry to unlock too many sectors of the economy too soon.
Public buildings are going to be lit blue and another round of applause is planned this weekend to mark the 72nd anniversary of the NHS, which the Tories opposed setting up in 1948 and have clobbered with austerity cuts over the past decade. It will look good on TV, no doubt.
However, doctors, nurses, other health care professionals and workers in the care sector generally, both in care homes and local government, will need more than a token round of applause to get them through. There is undoubtedly more work to be done.
The media, the Parliamentary opposition and, most importantly, the people out on the streets need to be galvanised to expose the ineptitude of this government and put forward an alternative which puts public health first; argues the case for properly structured planned public investment, not phoney rhetoric; exposes the lunacy of buying Trident nuclear weapons, when hospitals are underfunded and people are dying; and gives local Councils the powers to build houses for the homeless and modernise ailing public housing stock.
Most importantly, none of this should be couched in the language of reviving capitalism. Capitalism would be one coronavirus fatality no-one would mourn. It needs to be argued as the first steps on the journey towards socialism, a journey which puts the people first and, ultimately, takes obscene levels of private wealth entirely out of the equation.
27th June 2020
Real Zero tolerance
Better Days? Starmer and Long Bailey pre sacking
It was only ever going to be a question of time before Kier Starmer found a pretext to remove Rebecca Long Bailey from the Shadow Cabinet. While Long Bailey’s leadership campaign lacked spark, she nevertheless found herself in the somewhat unlikely role of standard bearer for the Left and, as a member of the Shadow Cabinet, at least provided some link with the progressive policies Labour developed under Jeremy Corbyn.
The excuse for Long Bailey’s sacking gives significant cause for concern and is an indicator of the likely direction of both domestic and international policy under Kier Starmer. Long Bailey re-tweeted an article from The Independent, an interview with the actor, Maxine Peake, in which Peake makes clear her view on a range of political issues, including a trenchant defence of Jeremy Corbyn and the policies developed under his leadership.
That is not why Long Bailey was sacked, apparently. In the interview Peake also asserts that,
“The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.”
The article goes on to add the caveat that the Israeli police deny this stating that, “there is no tactic or protocol that calls to put pressure on the neck or airway.”
In some circles this may be regarded as journalistic ‘balance’.
Long Bailey’s initial re-tweet simply carried the endorsement,
“Maxine Peake is an absolute diamond”
and she has subsequently clarified her position by stating,
“I retweeted Maxine Peake’s article because of her significant achievements and because the thrust of her argument is to stay in the Labour Party. It wasn’t intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article.”
Starmer’s justification for Long Bailey’s sacking is given as retweeting an article which contains an “antisemitic conspiracy theory”.
Marie van der Zyl, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the self styled leading voice of Jewish opinion but actually the voice of Jewish conservatism, welcomed Starmer’s sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey, stating,
“Keir Starmer has made a very good start, we said, on tackling anti-Semitism in the party. We had a meeting with him only last Friday and we have made it clear that we judge what he does, what his actions are. And in this case, he’s absolutely acted decisively and has taken very swift action and it’s very reassuring to the Jewish community.”
The article, in fact an interview with Peake, does not contain an anti-Semitic reference, quote or trope. It is clearly critical of the Israeli Secret Services and makes a specific allegation relating to the exchange of tactics and methods between the Israelis and the United States, whom no one is denying are very close allies.
Whether Peake’s observation is accurate or not, it is clearly a political point, not a racist one. She has, in any event, apologised for making an “assumption” in relation to the links between the US and Israel but this still does not make her statement anti-Semitic. The policies and practices of any state are surely open to comment or criticism. The anti-Semitism witchhunt within the Labour Party is designed precisely to stifle any criticism of the policies of the Israeli government, which has been illegally occupying Palestinian land since 1967, and to justify not acting decisively enough to enforce Israeli compliance with United Nations resolutions.
At present the Israeli state is engaged in plans to annexe more of the West Bank in order to further squeeze out the scope for Palestinians to create and develop an independent state. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has suggested that the annexation will write another “glorious chapter in the history of Zionism.”
The Israeli move stems from US Donald Trump’s so-called peace plan, which would see 30% of the West Bank come under Israeli sovereignty, giving recognition to all of the illegally established settlements on Palestinian land and Israeli control of the strategically vital Jordan Valley, even before the Palestinians get to the negotiating table.
The Israelis are already engaged in the biggest boom in infrastructure projects in the West Bank for twenty years, laying the basis for a significant growth in settler numbers.
Kier Starmer has made much noise about zero tolerance of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, a position he inherited from his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. However, unlike Corbyn, Starmer has not been so decisive in making clear his opposition to the flaunting of UN resolutions by the Israelis or the trampling of the rights of Palestinians.
The prospect of Starmer going back to the pre-Corbyn days of Labour simply kowtowing to the establishment agenda, rather than taking a principled stand for the rights of the disadvantaged and disenfranchised, is a very real danger.
Jonathan Freedland, writing in The Guardian, under the byline, “At last, Labour is getting serious about antisemitism” applauds Starmer’s response and goes on to suggest that the Conservatives will be worried because,
“…after five years believing themselves essentially unopposed, and therefore able to get away with anything, now recognise they are up against someone serious about power.”
As is so often the case, Freedland spectacularly misses the point. Corbyn was serious about power, Starmer is only serious about being in office. The two are not the same. Real zero tolerance means zero tolerance of inequality, privilege, prejudice, systematic exploitation and oppression, whether it is in the UK, US, Israel or elsewhere in the world.
Starmer needs to get his priorities in order. Sacking Rebecca Long Bailey is a victory for intolerance, not a stand for zero tolerance in any way, shape or form.
20th June 2020
Protesters make their view of Churchill known
There are many arguments for and against the withdrawal from public view of symbols of imperialism, racism and slavery across the UK. The most pressing and obvious is that these statues memorialise men who made vast fortunes from the ‘ownership’ and enslavement of others and should not, in accordance with our current realisation and values, be on display.
Another view suggests that we should leave the statues in situ but revise the interpretation associated with them, so that people can understand why they may have been regarded as ‘great men’ in their day but should be viewed differently now.
A third option suggests gathering such statues and symbols into a national museum of slavery, as a means of educating the public about these individuals and the role of Britain in initiating and sustaining the international slave trade.
The statues however are the tip of a substantial iceberg and the issues beneath the surface are beginning to show. Oriel College, Oxford this week backed the campaign to remove the statue of white supremacist, Cecil Rhodes, from outside the college. The Rhodes Must Fall campaign have welcomed the move, with some caution as the college have been down this road before and not removed the statue, but recognise that it is a step in the right direction.
Simukai Chigudu, an associate professor of African politics at the University of Oxford and a founding member of the campaign said,
“This statement bears some resemblance to the first statement they issued in 2016, but it includes the crucial, additional detail that the governing body itself has voted for the statue to be removed. I think that’s a substantial shift.”
This contrasted with the opinion of Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, who called the campaign “short sighted” adding that we should “remember and learn” from the past rather than “edit” it.
Donelan will no doubt be aware that her view chimes neatly with that of her boss, Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who wrote in The Telegraph earlier in the week that,
“If we start purging the record and removing the images of all but those whose attitudes conform to our own, we are engaged in a great lie, a distortion of our history”.
This is of course classic dissembling from Johnson, setting up a view that no-one is suggesting, then knocking it down in defence of his own opinion. No one is suggesting that the record is purged but it is vital that the record is set straight. That is not distorting history, it is correcting the current distortions, which glorify those who benefited from exploitation and slavery while ignoring the voices of the victims.
Not even Johnson however is concerned about the condemning of slave traders and acknowledging the injustice and brutality of the trade they were engaged in, even he would sign up for that. His defence of Winston Churchill however is more telling, with Johnson fulminating that it was “absurd and deplorable” that Churchill’s statue should have been defaced and that,
“He was a hero, and I expect I am not alone in saying that I will resist with every breath in my body any attempt to remove that statue from Parliament Square, and the sooner his protective shielding comes off the better,” he said.
Churchill’s heroics are based upon his World War 2 record, where he was one of three leaders, along with Roosevelt and Stalin, who were allied against the Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan in the fight to defeat fascism. While Britain played its role in the defeat of Nazism there is little doubt that the lion’s share of the struggle to liberate Europe was borne by the Soviet Union.
Churchill’s record as a politician in the early twentieth century was a died in the wool anti-working class imperialist. Churchill’s role as Liberal Home Secretary in 1910, in sending troops to break a strike of miners in Tonypandy in South Wales, is hotly contested but he was never a supporter of trade union rights. His role in relation to women’s suffrage during this period is also ambivalent at best.
There is no doubt that Churchill’s opposition Conservative Party did not support the setting up of the NHS following WW2, resisted the key nationalisation of coal , rail and steel as part of the post war reconstruction effort and was instrumental in escalating the coup d’etat planning against the democratic government of Iran in 1953, while continuing UK support for the US intervention in Korea.
Churchill is just one symbol, the one that Johnson chooses to defend. What Johnson really fears is that, once the surface is scratched, the whole edifice of the British state begins to unravel. Is there any aspect, from the Royal Family to the Church of England to the House of Lords which is not built upon exploitation, expropriation and oppression?
How about a history which reflects the history of class struggle, the major engine of progress which has seen the franchise extended, trade unions established and working class representation in Parliament? How about a history of the struggle for the emancipation of women, the fight for equal rights and against sex discrimination? How about a history of the black and ethnic minority experience of life in the UK from slavery to the Irish starvation, from Windrush to Black Lives Matter?
Some histories are still deemed to be more important than others, precisely because they are the history of the class in power, and the statues and symbols they choose to erect are memorials to that power. Some of that history is causing them embarrassment now because it is being challenged but they would not be questioning it otherwise.
Without that challenge there will not be change. If that means a few more statues end up on riverbeds then so be it. Hopefully it marks the beginning of a more significant re-evaluation of history, a correcting of distortions which reinforce class power and, ultimately, a challenge to the system itself. Only then will history be on the right track.
Shackle the dogs of war
12th June 2020
Black lives continue to matter, young people continue to protest
Capitalism has had free reign over the world economy, with the exception of China and notable smaller scale economies such as Vietnam and Cuba, for the best part of thirty years. The defeat of the Soviet Union; the fall of the Berlin Wall; German ‘unification’; the swift dismemberment of Yugoslavia; and the annexation of the former socialist countries into the European Union, were all meant to herald a brave new world.
As ever, capitalism is the consummate conjuring trickster, now you see it, now you don’t. Better jobs, better pay. Better housing, lower rents. Better healthcare, healthier lives. Greater freedom, less oppression. All of which has been promised then veiled with the usual capitalist sleight of hand.
The billionaire Russians laundering their ill gotten gains through the London property market are no doubt very happy with the arrangements. German industrialists, with an untapped source of cheap labour on their doorstep in Eastern Europe have had little cause for complaint.
The reality however is that the whole system is creaking like never before.
The latest Economic Outlook from the capitalist club, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), makes grim reading, describing the world economy as being “on a tightrope.” The OECD predict that the recession following the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will be the worst for 100 years, with the UK being hit the hardest. The OECD predict a 6% shrinkage in the global economy with unemployment nearly doubling from 5.4% to 9.2% in OECD nations.
After the 2008/9 bankers gambling debt crisis global economic activity fell by only 0.1% and even that was used as an excuse to herald a decade of austerity, as the poor were punished across the Western world for the banker’s failings.
Worse still, the OECD 6% prediction is the best case scenario. Should the world be hit by a second wave of COVID-19, as many predict, a staggering 7.6% contraction is anticipated. The UK is expected to see GDP fall by 11.5%, compared to 11.4% in France, 11.3% in Italy and 11.1% in Spain. A massive hit across Europe, however you measure it.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the current economic and social crises faced by the West is that the system is not fit for purpose. It is not just the COVID-19 crisis which highlights this reality. The migrant crisis continues to be an ongoing issue which the European Union fails to face up to. Unemployment was rife across the EU even before COVID-19. It can only get worse. The killing of George Floyd in the United States has generated international activism under the Black Lives Matter banner and highlighted the economic apartheid which is endemic to the US state.
Many politicians are attempting to turn Floyd’s killing into an issue about police reform. That is only one piece in a much bigger jigsaw however. The persistent racism in policing in the US is a symptom of deeply engrained prejudice at every level of society in the US. It is not the cause of that prejudice, it is a reflection of it. To varying degrees the same deeply held prejudices are reflected across the Western world and the issues are systemic to capitalist economies. Inequality, exploitation and prejudice are endemic.
Billionaires are on the increase across the Western world, while more people are forced to sleep on the street. The promised land of milk and honey is just not delivering. This is the outcome of thirty years of the attack dogs of capitalism being off the leash. The reality of what that means is hitting home to a new generation, as more and more young people take to the streets, recognising that their hopes and dreams cannot be realised under the current system, understanding that tinkering around the edges will not bring lasting change.
Arguments for social justice, economic change, racial equality and, ultimately, socialism are more relevant than ever now. We must encourage the tearing down of symbols of slavery and oppression. We must shackle the dogs of war who want to spend billions on nuclear weapons technology. We must challenge the imperialist history taught to our children. We must root out institutional racism, sexism and defence of class interests at all levels of society. There is nothing to lose, there is a world to win.
The profit dash continues
6th June 2020
Boris Johnson – increasingly out of touch
It is hard to believe, with the UK death rate from COVID-19 the second highest in the world, topping the 40,000 mark according to official figures, that Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, can declare himself “very proud” of the government’s record on reducing the spread of the virus.
No one but a dyed in the wool Tory MP, financial backer or voter can believe such nonsense when the government approach to the pandemic has been calamitous from the start. The World Health Organisation declared a global pandemic on 11th March. The very next day, 12th March, the UK government stopped the limited test and trace programme it had in place, then proceeded to wait until 23rd March before introducing any significant lock down measures.
This was in spite of having the advantage of seeing what was happening in China, South Korea and Italy, giving the government time to respond and put measures in place quickly. Part of the abject failure of the Tories’ response to the crisis is purely ideological. Local government officers in public health and environmental health teams have well established test and trace practices which could have been activated at a local level quickly and efficiently.
The government however chose to go with a centralised approach, looking to by pass local government, and hand out contracts to its private sector pals. Millions have been spent on private sector contracts without any assessment of value or capability in order to be seen to be acting quickly. The UK death rate is the grim reality of the outcome of that approach.
The current test and trace system, which the government is now heralding as being central to its strategy, is a case in point. Private sector company Serco is one of several firms employed to recruit a network of 25,000 tracers as part of the government scheme. The programme is already way behind time and is not expected to be at “world class level” until September or October.
It is critical that test results are turned around in 24 hours if contacts are to be traced in order to isolate the virus. The government continues to equivocate on the percentage of tests returned in that timescale, though it claims 92% are back within 48 hours. Even if that is the case, all the evidence suggests that it is simply not fast enough.
Serco Chief Executive, Rupert Soames, seems less concerned about the death rate than the prospect of future profits from NHS contracts. In an e mail to staff this week Soames said,
“If it succeeds…it will go a long way in cementing the position of private sector companies in the public sector supply chain. Some of the naysayers recognise this, which is why they will take every opportunity to undermine us.”
As an opportunity to undermine, Soames’ e mail is something of a gift! The purpose of test and trace is to save lives, not to boost the bank balance of the Serco shareholders.
In an attempt to bring attention to the human loss in the pandemic 27 eminent health professionals, in a letter to The Guardian this weekend, question the validity of the government’s approach, stating,
“If, as seems probable, there is a second wave this winter, many more will die unless we find quick, practical solutions to some of the structural problems that have made implementing an effective response so difficult. These include the fragmentation, in England, of the NHS, public health and social care; the failure of those in Westminster to engage with local government and devolved nations; the channels by which scientific evidence feeds into policy; and an inability to plan for necessary goods and services, and procure them.”
As an indictment of the government’s approach this could hardly be more comprehensive. Yet Boris Johnson is “very proud” and Rupert Soames has his eye on the company balance sheet.
Quite why this is not proclaimed as a national scandal from every news bulletin and newspaper headline is a scandal in itself. However, the Tory press cannot bring themselves to face the reality of the government’s incompetence, while the BBC continues to play a role which can only be described as supine when it comes to journalistic credibility.
On the day the official death toll passed the 40,000 people, on the official count, the BBC reflected nothing by way of outrage but instead leavened its reporting with an emphasis on the falling rate of infections in the community.
The government has lost further credibility with the health sector, should that be possible, by unilaterally announcing that from 15th June, hospital visitors and outpatients must wear face coverings and staff must use surgical masks. A major operational challenge for NHS Trusts around the country about which they were not consulted.
The dash to shore up company profits rather than save lives will take another step on 15th June with non-essential shops being allowed to open, as long as COVID secure measures are in place. Following the easing of restrictions on outdoor activity, which saw many rush to the beaches in May, and the option to open schools from 1st June, there is a growing sense that the government is going too far, too soon.
The science around the pandemic is still too uncertain to proceed with anything but extreme caution. The evidence already is that there are disproportionate impacts upon black and ethnic minority and disadvantaged communities. Poorer housing conditions, fewer life opportunities and, as a consequence, a greater incidence of underlying health conditions, all play a part in the disproportionate impact of the virus.
It’s a fair bet not many Serco shareholders will fall into this bracket. We can only hope that Boris Johnson’s ‘pride’ is of the variety which precedes a fall.
30th May 2020
“I Can’t Breathe….”
…these were the last words of George Floyd, killed in Minneapolis while not resisting arrest, the latest in a long line of African Americans murdered by the US police state. The protests that have followed the murder of Floyd have exposed once again the deep divisions in the so-called “land of the free”, where apartheid may no longer be enshrined in law but is very much the reality of the day to day lives of the black population.
Protests mount against apartheid policing in the United States
Floyd was handcuffed on the ground for 11 minutes with a police officer pressing his knee into his neck, while three other officers stood by. An ambulance was finally called when Floyd lost consciousness but he died later in hospital. The public prosecutor has charged one officer, Derek Chauvin, with murder in the third degree. That is killing without intent. The other officers have so far not been charged.
There is a point after which, pressing your knee into the neck of a man who is protesting that he cannot breathe, especially when he is handcuffed on the ground, becomes intent. The fact that video of the action went viral left the officers involved with nowhere to hide but behind the time honoured fortress of white privilege. The killing has resulted in protests across the city, with a predictably robust police response.
Ilhan Omar, congressional representative for Minnesota’s 5th District, which includes Minneapolis, tweeted:
“Shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at unarmed protesters when there are children present should never be tolerated. Ever. What is happening tonight in our city is shameful. Police need to exercise restraint, and our community needs space to heal.”
The protests in Minneapolis are a reflection of the outrage relating to the death of George Floyd but are now spreading to cities throughout the United States. The murder resonates throughout the black community. Do black lives matter? Not very much as far as the United States is concerned.
Apart from the lived experience of the Black community and nationwide initiatives such as Black Lives Matter, studies have shown that across the country, Black people face intense bias in the criminal justice system. Minneapolis city data shows that Black residents are more likely than others to be stopped and searched by police as well as to be the targets of police use of force.
Floyd’s death is similar to that of another Black man who died as a result of police misconduct, Eric Garner. Garner was killed when a New York City police officer, Daniel Pantaleo, put him in an illegal chokehold that resulted in his death. The officer was never brought up on charges.
Inevitably President Trump has weighed into the controversy with a helpful tweet, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” It is not surprising that civil rights activists have seen such an intervention as provocation. In an election year though Trump’s only agenda is to play to his base and he knows that the African-American vote is never going to swing his way.
Trump’s response is in stark contrast to his attitude to armed nationalist white militias groups who have been protesting against COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in recent weeks. In effect Trump has conceded to the business lobby to open up large sections of the economy whether it is safe for workers to return to work or not. Threats to withdraw unemployment benefit are being used to force workers back to the workplace, whatever the consequences for their safety.
Mainstream US media is inevitably focussing upon the damage and allegations of looting which have followed the protests since Floyd’s murder. Whatever the truth of these reports, the reality remains that the world’s richest state and self styled defender of democracy, treats a huge section of its population as second class citizens based purely on the colour of their skin.
That is the real scandal, that is the real injustice which needs to be addressed.
Backing down and blustering
23rd May 2020
Empty benches – no backing for Boris?
For all of his fake ‘man of the people’ persona, when it comes to the crunch public schoolboy Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has no clue as to the popular mood. Insisting on the necessity of a healthcare surcharge for foreign NHS workers at the start of the week, set to increase from £400 to £634 in October, he had climbed down by the end of the week. Downing Street was forced to issue a statement saying,
“The prime minister has asked the Home Office and the Department for Health and Social Care to remove NHS and care workers from the surcharge as soon as possible.”
Momentum had been building during the week, with Johnson initially defending the money brought into the health service by the surcharge, which has totalled £917m over the past four years. With even leading Tories quoted as describing the charge as “mean spirited” and “immoral and monstrous”, damage limitation became the order of the day from the Johnson camp, claiming the Prime Minister had listened and “shown true leadership”.
The episode is symptomatic of the government’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis and the inability of Johnson himself to provide any credible lead. The shine of Johnson’s election victory has faded rapidly and is best illustrated by the fact that Labour leader, Kier Starmer, is getting relatively sympathetic treatment from sections of the media.
The Daily Mail remains something of an exception in relation to Starmer, trying to whip up indignation over him owning a donkey sanctuary, but the story has done more to undermine the already shredded credibility of the Mail than it has Starmer.
Elsewhere, in the relatively tame House of Commons exchanges that now pass for Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer has been described as incisive and forensic in his questioning of Johnson, who has blustered in his usual fashion but without the fan club chorus he usually enjoys. This has led de facto fan club chairman, Jacob Rees-Mogg, to suggest that MPs should be back in the Commons, in order to mask the windbag’s blustering. There is an irony that someone as socially distant as Rees-Mogg should be advocating the exact opposite.
While much is made of his legal career the truth is that Starmer’s questioning is no more incisive or forensic than that of Jeremy Corbyn, in fact in terms of political cutting edge it is decidedly less so.
What Starmer does have over Corbyn is establishment acceptability. His honeymoon handling by much of the media is the first indication that the ruling circles regard capitalism as potentially being safe in Starmer’s hands. This was never the view taken of Corbyn, who was always regarded as suspect at best and certainly likely to rock the boat, should he get anywhere near the keys to 10, Downing Street.
Johnson was always a stopgap candidate for the Conservatives, his election to the leadership based upon his populist rhetoric, media persona and the lack of a credible alternative. In spite of his massive Parliamentary majority Johnson could yet be the fall guy for the inept handling of the pandemic. A recession is already underway and an austerity programme is certain to follow, as the people will once more be asked to carry the cost of the crisis.
A jaded country, 15 years into austerity, could be persuaded to welcome Kier Starmer with open arms. Inheriting an economy in a state of collapse a one term Labour administration could be permissible to UK capitalism while the Tories re grouped.
Crystal ball gazing is a dangerous practice in politics, there are so many imponderables. Yet there is an alternative to the above scenario. There is a world in which the inadequacies of capitalism to clothe, feed, employ and keep its people healthy are exposed. A scenario in which the fact of care homes being run for profit rather than people’s needs is regarded as a scandal. A scenario in which education is an equal right not a privilege according to your income.
It would be a scenario in which billions are no longer spent on weapons of mass destruction but the needs of the health service, transport infrastructure and green economy were prioritised. Such a programme will not be advanced by a party of media darlings, it will need to be fought for inch by inch as the rich dig in to defend their privileges.
Labour can claim a small victory in seeing Boris Johnson make a u-turn this week. It is a first step but they need to set their sights higher. At some point they may also need to question whether Kier Starmer is the man to carry forward a programme for real change, rather than one which may just see Labour re-elected to office, on terms not of their choosing.
Mixing the message
12th May 2020
Press mocking of the Stay Alert message was widespread
Having steered the UK to the top of the European COVID-19 fatality league, the Tories have now chosen to drop the ‘Stay at Home’ message in order to exhort us all to ‘Stay Alert’. This is only in England. In Scotland, where First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon read about the change with her morning cornflakes, the message remains ‘Stay at Home’. In Wales the Labour administration had said it was not changing the message even before Boris Johnson’s ‘address to the nation’ was broadcast. The position is the same in Northern Ireland.
It is hard to credit that the Tories do not even have the capability of uniting a country as small as the so called United Kingdom around a single message. It is even more remarkable that in his address Johnson claimed to have consulted with the devolved administrations before embarking on the new approach. Quite apart from the fact that he obviously forgot to mention it to Nicola Sturgeon, he clearly did not get agreement for the new approach.
Johnson is bowing to pressure from the business community to ‘get the economy moving’ while continuing to use the fig leaf of being ‘led by the science’ as cover. The science is, as ever, conflicted on many points, not least because not enough is yet known about the behaviour of COVID-19 to make reliable predictions. What is does appear to be clear on though is that releasing lockdown too soon will result in a more rapid spread of the virus and lead to more deaths.
It also appears, from the evidence of South Korea and Germany, that rigorous systems for testing and contact tracing need to be in place, if there is to be any chance of controlling the spread of the virus. There is no evidence that this is the case in the UK, in spite of the dash to 100,000 tests a day in April, a level which the government fails to meet on a daily basis.
The message to workers to go back to work, but not use public transport, walking or a bike is recommended, is also in advance of clear guidance on how workplaces can be made safe and clear guidance on enforcement where employers are tempted to cut corners.
Allowing people to go outside and exercise more frequently is a welcome nod to physical and mental health issues. However, the freedom to drive to a place of exercise opens up the possibility of a rush to beaches and beauty spots in good weather and the possibility of infection being spread as a result. The timescale outlined by Johnson allows for non-essential retail being open from 1st June, sport being allowed behind closed doors and a return of some primary education. Some hospitality and leisure outlets may open from 4th July, with the caveat that this depends upon the virus not getting out of control.
The approach adopted in the UK outside of England does not align with the timescale outlined by Johnson, opening the prospect of an uneven easing of lockdown measures and, as a consequence an uneven approach to tackling the spread of the virus.
The Tories are following up Johnson’s statement with a flurry of ‘guidance’ in order to cover the gaps. The hope is that the economy can become active, while at the same time bringing down the rate of infection and cutting the rate of deaths. As with the government’s whole approach to the COVID-19 crisis, it is a gamble. As ever it is a gamble with the lives of the elderly, the poor and the most vulnerable.
One of the government’s so called five tests is to avoid a spike in the infection rate which will overwhelm the NHS. That means avoiding a spike in the winter months when the usual bouts of flu and norovirus infections, do their annual rounds. A spike in August or September would avoid this particular eventuality. It may be where the UK is heading. With over 32,000 deaths so far, it is hard to see how the UK will not be on course for 50,000 before the crisis is over.
Making History – 75 years on
8th May 2020
Soviet troops liberate Berlin
The commemorations of the 75th anniversary of the conclusion of the Second World War are taking place in the face of the international COVID-19 pandemic, which requires co-operation between nations in order to achieve victory.
The defeat of Nazism required just such levels of co-operation but took many years, many betrayals and many political twists before it came about.
The First World War had concluded with the defeat of German imperialism and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, with the spoils being divided largely between the British Empire, the French and the emerging United States. However, an unintended consequence of a war to divide the spoils amongst imperialist powers was the 1917 revolution in Russia, from which emerged the establishment of the Soviet Union and the presence of a force on the international political stage committed to peace.
The Wars of Intervention by the armies of fourteen nations launched in 1918, aimed at defeating the Bolshevik revolution, failed and by the 1920’s the world had to recognise that a new world order had been established.
It was an order that Britain, France and the United States were not comfortable with, as it constrained their opportunities for expansion, and it was an order which they were determined to subvert at the earliest opportunity.
The need to rapidly industrialise and bring a peasant nation, so long oppressed by the Tsars, into the 20th century was the key objective of Soviet domestic policy. Foreign policy was guided by the maxim of non-interference in the affairs of other states and recognition of the need for peaceful co-existence between states.
Such an approach to international affairs was unknown in the world, the previous periods in history having been dominated by the conquest and suppression of indigenous people, while stripping their lands of resources and enriching the conquering nation. The British Empire was an example par excellence of this approach. An Empire upon which the sun never set and the blood never dried.
The end of the First World War did not settle the inter-imperialist rivalries which had brought it about. If anything, it served to exacerbate them. The sun was beginning to set upon the British Empire with the growing demands for independence in its colonies and the growing power of the United States as a global force.
Japanese imperialism had designs in South East Asia, not least on China, and was beginning to challenge US influence in the region. German imperialism, straight-jacketed by the Versailles Treaty, was beginning to find a route out through the rise of fascism and the populist demagogue, Adolf Hitler. Italy had its own version in the form of Benito Mussolini.
While the British and US ruling establishments could not bring themselves to openly associate with the policies of the far right they certainly saw an opportunity. The amount of effort which went into appeasing Hitler in particular, was for the express purpose of seeing the Nazi armies face Eastwards and attack the Soviet Union on its Western flank.
As a potential back up, much effort also went into persuading the Japanese to look to the Eastern flank of the Soviet Union and take its designs on China right through to the Soviet Far East.
In Spain in 1936 Britain and the United States looked the other way, adopting a policy of non-intervention, while the fascist troops of Germany and Italy took the side of Franco, in what is widely regarded as the Spanish Civil War but was truly a war of fascist aggression. Some aid from the Soviet Union did get through to the Spanish Republic, much was stopped by land at the border with France and by sea.
A free hand in Spain and victory for the puppet Franco in 1939, secured Hitler’s rearguard in Southern Europe. The selling out of Austria and Czechoslovakia by the Western powers, forced to surrender to Hitler without firing a shot, virtually gave Germany the green light to advance further. Poland was in Hitler’s sights.
Throughout the 1930’s the Soviet Union had been pursuing a foreign policy of seeking to head off Nazi aggression and to form a European anti-fascist alliance with Britain and France. The Soviet Union and France had signed a non-aggression pact in 1932; the Soviet Union was pressing for this to be one of mutual assistance in the event of an attack on either nation by an outside aggressor.
Moreover, the Soviet desire was for such a pact to include a range of countries threatened with Nazi aggression, including Poland, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania and Finland. Given the alliance of France and Britain as it stood, an attack on any of the nations by Nazi Germany would have brought all into conflict.
Such an alliance, through a combination of political manoeuvrings and a desire to appease Germany amongst some in French ruling circles, did not come about. It was opposed by both Britain and the United States, of whom US historian, Foster Rhea Dulles, said that the US, “hoped that if war broke out in Europe, it might somehow be channelled into a crusade against Communism and accomplish the purposes which Allied intervention had failed to achieve in 1918.”
Hitler’s hatred of Communism was no less vehement than that of the United States or Britain and there can be no doubt of his desire to access the vast land and resources of the Soviet Union. However, the policy of appeasement by the Western European powers was giving Hitler free rein to build his army, navy and air force as well as gain territory.
The Western powers being determined that Hitler attack the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union finding itself without any allies against such aggression, was left with only one option, a non-aggression treaty with Germany. Moreover, Nazi generals feared war with the Soviet Union more than war with the West. They recognised that an alliance of Western powers with the Soviet Union could thwart their plans, with the chief of the General Staff of Germany’s Land Forces, Halder, stating,
“It’s hard to swallow a pact between the British and the Russians…on the other hand, it’s the only thing that will stop Hitler now.”
Hitler himself declared that, without an alliance of the Western powers with the Soviet Union,
“I can smash Poland without any danger of a conflict with the West.”
The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact effectively gave the Soviet Union more time to build its forces for the inevitable attack, it was not a question of if the Nazis would invade, only a question of when.
Western diplomacy through its combination of appeasing Hitler and failing to build an alliance with the Soviet Union, in the hope that Hitler would turn his attention East, had failed abjectly. Millions were to pay the price.
France capitulated to German forces in a matter of months and British forces were forced into a humiliating retreat from Dunkirk. By June 1941 Hitler did invade the Soviet Union. Estimates vary but at least 20 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in World War 2.
The defeat of the Nazi forces at Stalingrad, fought out over many months from July 1942 – February 1943, turned the tide in the Second World War. What was by now an alliance of Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union, against the fascist forces of Germany, Italy and Japan, was gaining the upper hand. There was still a long way to go and it was not until the 8th May 1945 that the Red Army reached Berlin and the liberation of Europe could truly begin.
Revisionist historians in the West inevitably play down the role of the Soviet Union in defeating Nazism. It never fitted the anti-Soviet Cold War narrative and does not sit with the ongoing Western anti-Russian sentiment today.
Amid all of the nationalism, xenophobia and jingoism that surrounds such anniversaries in the UK today, it is as well to remember that there is an alternative narrative to the one played out on the BBC and in the national press.
It is one that recognises that it is only unity between people’s across the world that can result in the defeat of a common enemy. It is one that recognises that only a policy aimed at peace between nations is a truly internationalist position. It is one that recognises the superiority of socialism over capitalism as a solution to the needs of the people of the world. On the 75th anniversary of Victory in Europe these are very much lessons for today.
On the downward slope
2nd May 2020
Boris Johnson – back with the usual bluster
“Boris bounces back to get UK moving” proclaimed the austerity loving apologists at the Daily Mail earlier this week, neatly sidestepping the national scandal of the government’s miserable mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis. With the third highest death rate in the world, a testing rate manipulated to reach the government’s 100,000 test a day target by the end of April and contact tracing still a shambles, the government has little of which to be proud.
Not that this would be in evidence from the daily Downing Street press briefings, the supine ‘analysis’ provided by a parade of commentators on the BBC, or the predominantly right wing newspaper press, with the notable exception of the avowedly left wing Morning Star and the occasional critique in the liberal leaning The Guardian.
In his first Downing St briefing on Thursday, since returning to work following his own bout of COVID-19, UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, suggested that the worst of the virus was over, proclaiming,
“I can confirm today for the first time that we are past the peak of this disease. We are past the peak and we are on the downward slope.”
Seemingly oblivious to the death toll in the UK compared to elsewhere in the world, apart from the United States and Italy, Johnson went on to blithely state that,
“We’re learning lessons everyday but I do think that broadly speaking, we did the right thing at the right time.”
All of which begs the questions as to what a national catastrophe would look like if close to 30,000 deaths, on the official count, in just three months does not qualify.
In response to ongoing pressure from the business sector, keen to resume economic activity whatever the cost to the lives of its workforce, Johnson promised this week to deliver a “comprehensive plan” pledging to cover “how we can continue to suppress the disease and at the same time restart the economy.”
The business sector increasingly have their own ideas about restarting the economy, with British Airways considering 12,000 job losses and Ryanair looking at a 3,000 job cut. That is just for starters. No doubt many other businesses will take the chance to cut back jobs, pay and conditions using the virus crisis as cover. It will be interesting to see how many of the same companies cut executive pay or shareholder dividends once the economy is back up and running.
Johnson also had the temerity to say that he did not like the term ‘austerity’ to describe the brutal cuts imposed upon public services, as part of the policy programme he has supported throughout ten years of Tory government. If this is not Johnson’s attempt to pave the way for even more austerity, dressed up in nicer terminology no doubt, to pay for the present crisis it is hard to see what else it is.
While the fanbase may well have welcomed Johnson’s return his usual bluster failed, once again, to inspire confidence. As The Guardian sketch writer, John Crace, summarised succinctly the day after Johnson’s appearance,
“Boris talked big about the economy bouncing back, avoiding the second peak and enforcing the wearing of face masks. But deep down he knows he’s met his match. Up till now, he’s never found a situation he couldn’t bluster his way out of. Now he’s up against a power greater than himself. In a contest between coronavirus and bullshit, coronavirus wins every time.”
Meanwhile, in the United States the bullshit detector went into overdrive this week. Following his pronouncement that a blast of bleach might be the answer to cleanse a way out of COVID-19, the Donald Trump fake news machine has reached even dizzier heights.
Even though US intelligence agencies have reached the conclusion that it “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified”, Trump claims to have seen evidence to the contrary, suggesting that the virus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
Quite who is briefing the US President behind the back of his own intelligence services is an interesting question. The Wuhan lab ‘theory’ has been circulating on right wing conspiracy theory websites in the United States for the past couple of months and is progressively making its way into mainstream news media headlines in the US and the UK, with little critique or comment. A masterclass in fake news perpetuation and media manipulation.
Anti-Chinese rhetoric in a US election year should come as no surprise. Even more so when China’s economic power is increasingly seen as a threat to US interests in South East Asia. The US Navy has recently stepped up its presence in the South China Sea. While the world is focussed on fighting COVID-19 it is not beyond the US, especially under the current administration, to be building towards conflict of the more traditional but equally devastating kind. In which case, the whole world may be on the downward slope, to coin a phrase.
Statement on the occasion of May Day 2020
May Day in Cuba – this year workers will be asked to stay safe, stay at home
There can be no doubt that May Day 2020 will be unlike any other in living memory. The entire world is locked in a struggle with the coronavirus, Covid-19, and social distancing will prevent the mass gatherings we would normally associate with this day of celebration and commemoration.
While May Day is so often a gathering to celebrate it will, this year, be much more focussed upon commemorating the many thousands of ordinary people across the world who have fallen victim to this deadly virus.
Men, women and children, across the globe have been lost to their friends, families and loved ones through no fault of their own. In many instances the cause lies firmly elsewhere.
It lies with governments like that in Brazil, who failed to take the threat of the virus seriously enough.
It lies with politicians like those in the UK, who underinvested in their primary care and public health systems, cutting corners for profit and failing to address the growing health needs of working people.
It lies with dictatorial regimes, like that in Saudi Arabia, where the grasp on democracy and accountability to the people cannot even be described as slim. Where a ruling elite are dedicated to lining their own pockets from their oil wealth, rather than share the benefits with their people.
Covid-19 can attack both rich and poor, it does not discriminate in that respect. However, there can be no doubt that the poor are hit the hardest and due to inadequate diet, poverty living conditions and poor health care, die in greater numbers.
May Day 2020 must be the occasion to remember all those who have fallen victim to Covid-19 but it must also be the opportunity to redouble our efforts not to allow such disasters to continue to wreak havoc across the planet.
Campaigns worldwide for peace, democracy and human rights are central to the campaign against Covid-19 because they are central to the struggle for equality and against injustice.
While the body count in the United States from Covid-19 continues to mount, the US President can still find time to tighten sanctions against Cuba and attack the exemplary work carried out by Cuban health professionals across the world to combat the current pandemic.
In spite of the clear and evident need for international co-operation to defeat the virus the United States insists on maintaining sanctions against Venezuela and Iran too, thus weakening the capability of those states to recover.
Wars of intervention continue to rage, to the detriment of the people’s of many countries in the world. Western presence in both Syria and Iraq continues to be an obstacle to a democratic solution, based upon the will of the people of those nations, and their ability to assert their right to self determination.
Self determination is also an issue in the struggle for justice for the Palestinian people. Their land continues to be occupied, in contravention of United Nations resolutions, by Israeli forces. Daily life continues to be uncertain due to the Israeli land, air and sea blockade imposed upon Gaza, which restricts access to basic goods and health care provision.
The continued and bloody intervention of the Saudi led coalition in Yemen, effectively being used as a testing ground for high tech Western arms, is a further reminder of the consequences of foreign intervention in internal affairs.
Refugee crises across the globe follow as a result of occupation and injustice. The Rohingya Muslim communities, driven into Bangladesh by the authorities in Myanmar are one example, the growing refugee crisis on the southern borders of the European Union is another.
The poverty, injustice and uncertainty in the daily lives of working people across the world is exacerbated by war and occupation. It is exacerbated by the climate crisis and increasing environmental degradation. It is exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. There is no social distancing in a refugee camp.
This May Day will be one on which we must stay home in order to save lives, where we must socially distance in order to prevent surge upon our health care services, where we must curtail our visits to friends and families to prevent the spread of this disease.
As we do so, we must take time to consider those displaced and homeless across the globe who will have no home to stay in; we must remember those who do not benefit from a well organised professional health service to come to their aid; we must spare a thought for those whose families have been dispersed, due to the uncertainty of war and foreign intervention.
They need our practical support and our solidarity more than ever. We must take this opportunity to redouble our efforts to provide that support and turn 2020 from a year of international tragedy to one of international solidarity and international action to defeat injustice.
In addressing the current crisis and afterwards, in the rebuilding of a post CoVID-19 world, international cooperation and solidarity are essential. This has been emphasised by the Secretary General of the United Nations. He is calling for a global ceasefire, a lifting of all economic sanctions and the sharing of knowledge and resources if there is to be any hope of lasting recovery.
26th April 2020
Labour Leader, Kier Starmer – choices to be made
It is a well known characteristic of the leopard that it cannot change its spots. The chameleon however is a creature of quite a different type, able to change it skin colour in order to blend in with its background. Red, green or blue, the chameleon adapts in order not to stand out, becoming indistinguishable from any context it happens to find itself.
In his campaign to become Leader of the Labour Party, Kier Starmer was conscious of the popularity with the Labour membership of the policies developed under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Nationalisation of railways, the mail service and water have not been ruled out under Starmer for example. Part of his ten point plan is to repeal the Tory Trade Union Act, which restricts the rights of workers. He has been quoted as saying he will defend his party’s values including opposing “the moral injustice of poverty, inequality, homelessness”.
If Starmer is to be true to these promises then he will need a team around him which is capable of delivering and one which believes in this vision as the way forward for Labour. So far, the signs are not good. Starmer has been quick to remove Rebecca Long Bailey, Dianne Abbott and Jon Trickett from the National Executive Committee. They are replaced by key Starmer supporters Jim McMahon, Jo Stevens and Jonathan Reynolds, who do not inspire confidence in sustaining progressive policies.
Starmer has found space for Long Bailey in the Shadow Cabinet, as Shadow Education Secretary, but she is very much in a minority of even remotely left wing voices in Labour’s top team.
Starmer is faced with two immediate issues he needs to address in order to determine Labour’s way forward under his leadership.
Firstly, there is the question of the leaked report into Labour officials effectively sabotaging Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and in particular the 2017 election campaign. There can be little doubt that those engaged in such activity should be excluded from Labour’s ranks and that their actions should be universally condemned. Starmer has said that the investigation he has initiated with Deputy Leader, Angela Rayner, will report by July. Action arising from that report will be awaited with interest.
Secondly, there is the stance of Labour on the issue of COVID-19 and how to handle the current pandemic. In general, Starmer has taken the ‘national unity’ approach, offering ‘constructive criticism’ of the government while at the same time broadly supporting its efforts to get the pandemic under control.
The consensus of the political and media establishment is that it would be wrong to ‘play politics’ at such a crucial time. Yet, as ever, politics it is. Every decision taken by the government is a political one, however much it claims to be led by the science. The Chief Medical Officer can express his opinion but it is the government which must decide what to do.
Not to ‘play politics’ is merely to cover up the scandal of the government’s mishandling of the pandemic and fail to expose the fact that thousands of deaths could have been avoided with quicker, more decisive action.
A confidential Cabinet Office briefing from 2019, leaked to The Guardian recently, is clear on the need to stockpile PPE, establish protocols for contact tracing and draw up plans to manage a surge in excess deaths. This report appears to have been sidestepped. In addition, the government’s initial herd immunity strategy, flying in the face of World Health Organisation (WHO) advice, proved disastrous and was quickly reversed when it was clear that deaths were escalating.
While lockdown measures appear to be flattening the curve of the pandemic the PPE situation for frontline NHS staff and carers remains a scandal, while plans to expand testing and reintroduce contact tracing look cumbersome at best.
In the face of the mounting body count leading Tories appear more concerned about finding ways of lifting the lockdown and allowing businesses to function. In the longer term this will be necessary but the country has the wealth to support business through this, if the government is prepared to take the necessary measures to squeeze the taxes of the rich, repatriate unearned income from offshore tax havens and commit to public investment post crisis to keep the economy moving.
The first priority must be to save lives. Labour should be making this clear while making it equally clear that investment in the NHS, public health, social care and local government infrastructure will be vital to preparations for any future pandemic. It will also mean better lives for working class families in the meantime.
If that is playing politics, Kier Starmer needs to get into the game, pick his side and make it clear which colour shirt he is wearing. Unlike the chameleon, this is no time to be changing colour midway through the match.
Iran – regime negligent in the face of COVID-19
19th April 2020
Shoppers in Iran last week – smart distancing?
The Committee for the Defence of the Iranian People’s Rights (CODIR) has accused the Iranian regime of gross irresponsibility and negligence in its approach to the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran. While there were widespread indications that the virus had reached Iran in January, the regime refused to acknowledge its presence or take any measures to prevent its spread.
CODIR cites as evidence of the Iranian regime’s negligence the fact that the regime wanted mass participation in the celebrations marking the 41st anniversary of the 1979 Revolution on 11th February, as well as encouraging a high turnout for the parliamentary elections, that took place on the 20th February.
The regime’s policy towards the COVID-19 pandemic has proven costly. The regime only announced the first two coronavirus deaths on the afternoon of polling day when the election was already well underway. By then the virus had taken hold throughout the country.
As of 17th April, according to the regime’s official figures, there were 80,868 cases of the virus resulting in 5,031 deaths. However, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has expressed doubts about these figures, given the size of the population in Iran (85 million) and the lateness with which any controls were introduced.
The recent announcement by the regime that Iranians should return to work will only exacerbate this situation and is likely to result in a more rapid spread of the pandemic. In response to criticism of the policy, President Rouhani has stated that he would rather see 2 million die than 30 million hungry out on the streets.
Rouhani has urged people to use private cars after there were crowded buses on the first day of the relaxed rules last weekend, while the metro has called for “smart distancing”, although what this means in practice is not clear.
Iran’s medical system organisation expressed concern, saying smart distancing “was being introduced without considering the scientific and executive justifications for the project, or the threat that the past efforts of all people, officials and medical staff will be wasted”.
Surveys cited by the government showed that a third of people are experiencing financial problems. Ali Rabiei, Rouhani’s spokesman, has said that the Covid-19 crisis has affected 3.3 million official employees through dismissal, suspension or reduction of wages, with a further 4 million self-employed also feeling its impact.
While the country’s under resourced and over stretched health sector struggles to deal with the pandemic, the sanctions imposed upon the regime by the United States have not only stayed in place but have been expanded.
The US is refusing to spare Iranian people from the negative impact of the sanctions, which affect the availability and provision of food and medicine while destroying the economic fabric of the country. The United Nations and leading European powers including Britain, France and Germany have officially called on the US to remove the sanctions in order for a humanitarian relief effort to take place to help the beleaguered country’s people.
The US however continues to block a $5bn emergency loan application to the IMF by Iran to help tackle the COVID-19 crisis.
Against this background the fate of political prisoners is also cause for particular concern. Prisoners are kept in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions and are subject to routine mistreatment. Since early-February there have been continual calls for the release of political prisoners or for them to at least be granted temporary leave.
Just before the Iranian New Year on 20th March, the regime grudgingly assented to the release of thousands of prisoners. However, those political prisoners with a sentence of longer than 5 years were excluded from the release.
The regime is refusing to support the call for the provision of a safe environment for emergency work to be carried out and is not providing guarantees for workplaces that decide to stop production owing to the pandemic. This means that workers are coerced into going to their workplaces, despite the dangers, rather than being left jobless, destitute and hungry.
The combination of the ineptitude of the Iranian regime and the vengeful action of the US, in intensifying sanctions, is putting the lives of many ordinary Iranians at risk. Both must be opposed; both must be stopped.
Spies in the camp
15th April 2020
Kier Starmer – will he call out those who undermined Corbyn?
There has never been any doubt that political factions within the Labour Party consistently worked to undermine the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. The abortive Owen Smith leadership bid of 2016 for example, with Lisa Nandy as campaign co- chair. The Chuka Umunna led split to create the short lived political embarrassment of Change UK. The regular pronouncements of former Deputy Leader, Tom Watson, culminating in the creation of internal faction Future Britain, in express opposition to the official policies of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.
Current leader, Kier Starmer, was to the forefront in calling for a second referendum on Brexit, in stark contrast to the agreed conference policy of honouring the referendum outcome, a position which had blown a hole in Theresa May’s majority in 2017 and brought Corbyn within a whisker of Number 10.
The Labour right though, wanting neither Corbyn as Prime Minister nor departure from the EU, deliberately failed to unite around and build upon the 2017 manifesto but consistently worked to undermine it. A nest of spies in the camp. The Tories, the BBC and the right wing media had no problem with following this line.
A leaked internal report, circulated at the weekend, shows just how deep the antipathy to Corbyn went, especially amongst those employed by the Labour Party to support Corbyn’s work as Leader of the Opposition. The 860 page report, seen by Sky News initially but subsequently circulated more widely, finds “abundant evidence of a hyper-factional atmosphere prevailing in Party HQ”, going on to suggest that this “affected the expeditious and resolute handling of disciplinary complaints.”
This is significant as the major area of complaint focussed upon are those of antisemitism within the Labour Party. Corbyn was consistently vilified by the press and his own Parliamentary party for failing to act swiftly enough in dealing with alleged antisemitism. The leaked report indicates that, far from Corbyn being slow to act, the Party machinery deliberately sabotaged attempts to deal with the issue in order for it to be an ongoing source of embarrassment for Corbyn.
In the 10,000 emails and thousands of WhatsApp messages cited in the report it is claimed that senior former staff,
“…openly worked against the aims and objectives of the leadership of the Party, and in the 2017 general election some key staff even appeared to work against the Party’s core objective of winning elections.”
This is ironic as current Labour Leader, Kier Starmer, is in post precisely because of his perceived ‘electability’. The fact is that many within Labour’s ranks were simply not up to the challenge of the direction which the Party’s policies under Corbyn, as endorsed by the membership, had taken. They longed to get back to a cosy middle ground, free of any real challenge to the system or any real conflict.
The biggest fright for the right wing faction within Labour, along with the political and media establishment, was that Labour’s policies under Corbyn were actually resonating with a public sick of Tory austerity and the impact upon their standard of living. The ramping up of the antisemitism smear campaign; the blind alley of the so called People’s Vote call for a second referendum; and the personal vilification of Corbyn over the 2017 – 2019 period, were designed to bring about the election result which occurred last December, paving the way for Labour to be back in ‘safe hands’.
The Labour Movement has always had to contend with those who do not see radical change as an option for fear that it will cause conflict and disruption. Yet radical change cannot happen without conflict or disruption. Those who hold the levers of power run the system precisely to benefit their own class interests and are not going to give up control lightly. They will mock, vilify and sabotage anything which they see as a challenge.
Labour’s programme under Jeremy Corbyn was hardly revolutionary but it was radical enough and potentially popular enough for the political establishment to be worried. There is some irony in the fact that under the current COVID-19 crisis conditions, the increased state control and public spending, which Corbyn was so vilified for supporting, have become a necessity.
The real test though will come post lockdown when decisions have to be made as to who foots the bill. Following the 2008 banking crisis the very NHS, local government and care sectors workers, whom even Tory ministers applaud on a Thursday night, bailed out the bankers by paying through enforced austerity measures.
Will the banks, corporations and City of London pay this time round for all of the effort the underfunded, underpaid and under resourced public sector has put into saving lives and stopping the spread of the virus? Will Kier Starmer and Angela Rayner be leading the line in demanding that they do so? We shall see.
US pandemic response – profits before people
12th April 2020
Donald Trump – seeking re-election at any cost
The withdrawal of Senator Bernie Sanders from the race for the Democratic nomination to contest the US election in November is a blow to the chances of any major progressive input into the campaign. Sanders has said he will let his name stay on the ballot paper in states which have yet to declare, in order to keep some pressure upon Joe Biden to acknowledge some progressive policies, but the nomination itself now looks to be Biden’s for the taking.
As a contest Trump vs. Biden looks set to only go one way, with Biden’s appeal to the Democratic base being little more than the calculation that he is less likely to frighten off the establishment and by implication moderate voters, than self styled democratic socialist, Sanders.
Given that US political nominations are largely down to bankrolling the way to a nomination, there has been talk of Biden being gazumped by New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, for example, whose straight talking approach to the COVID-19 crisis has been compared favourably in some quarters to the bumbling mendacity of President Trump.
The mounting body count and mass graves being prepared in New York state may take some of the shine off Cuomo’s prospects, although to date he has not declared any intention of standing. It is clear though that the most the Democrats are hoping for is a stop Trump candidate and at present Biden is the best they can agree upon.
However, the galloping COVID-19 crisis may yet dent Trump’s prospects in November, with the US now heading to the top of the world league for deaths related to the virus, and unemployment rising rapidly. Last week alone saw 6.6m Americans lose their jobs.
The early inaction of the Trump administration has come under scrutiny this week with evidence that Trump was warned of the impact of the virus in January but did not act quickly enough, instead making statements downplaying the virus and comparing it to the common flu. Trump was backed in his assertions by his allies at Fox News who rushed to his defence, accusing the media of “scaring people unnecessarily” and trying to “bludgeon Trump with this new hoax.”
In seeking to apportion blame for the impact of the virus, upon US lives and the economy, Trump this week hit out at the World Health Organisation (WHO), accusing WHO of having “called it wrong” and being “China-centric”.
Trump went on to vow that he would put “a very powerful hold” on his government’s funding of the WHO, before backtracking and insisting that a freeze was only under consideration.
The facts remain that the WHO declared COVID-19 a public health emergency on 30th January, nearly a month before Trump tweeted: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA”, and proclaimed: “One day – it’s like a miracle – it will disappear.” He eventually declared a national emergency on 13th March.
While clearly mishandling action to halt the spread of the virus at home, Trump still finds time to direct fire at those attempting to tackle the pandemic internationally. However, US efforts to characterise Cuban medical teams as “agents of communist indoctrination” has taken a blow, as Cuban doctors have flown off on new missions to battle COVID-19 in at least 14 countries, including Italy and the tiny principality of Andorra on the Spanish-French border.
In the city of Crema in the Lombardy region of northern Italy, 52 Cuban doctors and nurses set up a field hospital with 32 beds equipped with oxygen and three ICU beds.
“This is a strongly symbolic moment because the Crema hospital has been going through an extremely complicated situation from the start,” Lombardy’s top social welfare official, Giulio Gallera, said, “The number of patients who have filled and continue to fill the emergency room and departments has truly put the medical personnel to a hard test.”
The Trump administration has sought to cut off income to Havana as part of a long-term tightening of sanctions and continues to discourage countries from contracting Cuban medical workers.
Cuba currently has about 37,000 medical workers in 67 countries, most in longstanding missions. Some doctors have been sent as part of free aid missions, but many countries pay the government directly for their services. In some other cases, international health bodies have paid.
Pressure in the United States from the Wall Street business lobby could yet see social distancing restrictions lifted far sooner than the WHO would deem safe. While the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) is opposing such a move the bankers appear to be backed by the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the US.
Recent CDC guidance on 9th April, states that essential “critical infrastructure workers” could go back on the job as long as they were pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic, even if they had been exposed to a virus victim within the prior 48 hours. The push to get everyone back to work, regardless of the danger, was stressed by Trump again recently, when he put forward the notion that the country should be ready for this by the end of the month.
Profits before people is unlikely to turn up anywhere as a campaign election slogan but that is precisely what Trump’s policies in relation to the pandemic amount to. That is how things stand in the world’s richest and most powerful nation.
Meanwhile, 90 miles off the Florida coast a small island, against which the US maintains a 60 year long illegal economic blockade, continues to show that there is another way.
No billionaires, no living in a box
5th April 2020
Kier Starmer changing the balance of power, or just getting Labour back into office?
Backing illegal US wars, buying in to the Trident deterrent illusion, not saying boo to the bankers and the fat cats in the City of London. Is this what we can expect from a Kier Starmer leadership of the Labour Party? A return to the pre-Jeremy Corbyn days of electability at all costs, rather than mapping out the changes needed to the society we live in, which allows billionaires to thrive while others live in cardboard boxes on the street?
The intensity of the media and establishment onslaught against Corbyn was precisely because the policies Labour advocated under his leadership were a challenge to the established order and were gaining increasing popularity. The 2019 election result would not tell that story because by then the ruling class in the UK had ensured that anything associated with Corbyn was regarded by sufficient sections of the public as toxic. Defeat at the polls was almost a foregone conclusion.
Inevitably, following the election of a new leader, there is talk of unity, all sections of the party pulling together, getting behind the new man and giving him the chance of being elected. A similar response to Jeremy Corbyn after the relative success of the 2017 election would have been welcome but, as ever with Labour, it is the Left who will compromise for unity, with the Right crying foul if the membership elect anyone with remotely radical credentials.
Starmer will get a honeymoon period with the press, not least due to the national emergency situation the country faces, and his declaration to work with Boris Johnson “in the national interest” to fight COVID-19. Not even the Daily Mail will hold that against him.
Is Kier Starmer the man to challenge the balance of power, or just to get Labour elected back into office on a safe programme? The real test will come when the current emergency is over, when the opportunity to draw conclusions and map a way forward for Labour in a changed world is presented. The necessity of planning, co-operation and the mobilisation of the nation’s resources in a national effort is evident for all to see at the moment. It could be argued that this should be the new normal, rather than the spectrum of inequality, from billionaires to cardboard boxes.
It has certainly become evident to many just how important, undervalued and underpaid the nation’s public sector workforce is in the present system. Those workers deemed ‘business critical’ in the present crisis are not running social media, speculating on the stock exchange or building careers in advertising. They are nurses, doctors, refuse collectors, care workers, social workers and local government staff, all mobilised to defend the vulnerable and provide a vital lifeline for the most socially isolated.
Co-operation is only possible under capitalism when circumstances dictate that there is no alternative. Hence the constant war time analogies in relation to the present pandemic situation.
Even then, such co-operation goes against the free market grain of the current government and the desires of the private sector to pursue huge wealth. Calls by the trade unions for the government to intervene in order to mobilise idle factories, to engage in the socially useful production of vital personal protective equipment for the NHS, have been slow to translate into action.
Starmer has taken the opportunity to level some criticism at the government, suggesting in a Sunday Times article that there have been “serious mistakes” in tackling the COVID-19 crisis, including the failure to provide enough protective equipment for frontline workers and delays over testing. This is relatively safe ground and not out of step with the view of many epidemiologists.
The government target, announced this week by Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, of increasing testing ten fold to 100,000 tests a day by the end of April, is widely seen as ambitious, if not necessarily achievable.
There continues to be disagreement on the way forward. Mark Woolhouse, at Edinburgh University, has suggested three strategies for dealing with the epidemic,
“Once lockdown has driven down the virus to low enough levels in the community we can go back to chasing down individual cases. At the same time we build more ICU capacity in the NHS so that we can relax the lockdown without the health service being overwhelmed. And thirdly we place new emphasis in shielding the vulnerable.”
John Edmunds, at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, has said that the lockdown policy needs to continue for many months, stating,
“Testing on its own will not stop this epidemic.”
The test for Labour, and Starmer in particular in his new role, will be to articulate a vision of society beyond the crisis, which resonates with the experience of ordinary people. That will mean having to challenge some sacred cows, such as spending billions on Trident when the NHS is in crisis; giving the City of London free rein to gamble with pension funds; addressing the homelessness crisis when billionaire properties stand empty; and tackling the shortfalls and unequal distribution of funding across local government.
In short, it may have to be a programme the like of which the Labour Left, and Jeremy Corbyn, would approve. Let’s see how long the press honeymoon with Starmer lasts if we get to that point.
UK Lockdown set to tighten
29th March 2020
Prof. Stephen Powis – urging against complacency
With the UK lockdown fully underway, and the further tightening of measures in prospect, the critical issue to address is the testing of health workers for COVID-19. The NHS has had to deal with the crisis at a point when 10% of posts are vacant and many services sustained through the use of agency staff. As a result of the crisis sickness levels in the NHS are already high, resulting in a shortage of medical staff, with many others self isolating with suspected symptoms. Others are worried that they may be infected without showing symptoms, posing a potential risk to patients, colleagues and families. Widespread testing of NHS staff would help protect patients as well as allowing staff to return to the frontline faster.
The urgency of this strategy was underlined yesterday by national medical director of NHS England, Prof. Stephen Powis, at the daily Downing St press conference, that the UK “will have done very well” if deaths are kept below 20,000 in the current pandemic. Given that deaths in the UK have just passed the 1,000 mark that represents only 5% of the potential death toll, even in a best case scenario.
At a cost of nearly £6m the government has taken the controversial decision to write to every UK household this week, in the form of a personal letter from Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, urging everyone to observe the lockdown measures currently in place, while reinforcing the social distancing and hand washing messages.
Debate has already started as to whether the letter is the best use of resources given the TV, radio and social media coverage of the stay home, save lives message. Evidence suggests that in most instances behavioural change is taking place, with social distancing now being the norm in supermarket queues. Amongst the minority where there is active resistance to the government measures people are unlikely to be persuaded by a letter from the Prime Minister.
The outpouring of public support for health workers, in the clap for carers initiative on Thursday and the rush of over 500,000 volunteers to provide support, has demonstrated the willingness of huge sections of the population to play their part in tackling the COVID-19 crisis. This was swiftly followed by the embarrassment of Boris Johnson, testing positive with mild symptoms, Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, having to go into self isolation and Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, temporarily withdrawing from the public stage for the same reasons.
Substitutes have had to deliver recent Downing St daily press briefings, with appropriate social distancing being observed, and reporters asking questions via video link.
With week one of the lockdown over there is every expectation that the coming seven days will see pressure upon the NHS increase significantly. Of the 6,300 COVID-19 patients in hospital, as of last Friday, at least half are in London alone, which is expected to be the worst hit part of the UK over the next ten days. Privately, many involved in local resilience are expressing the view that London is, to all intents and purposes ‘lost’, and measures to contain the virus have effectively been too little, too late.
While government measures to help the employed and self-employed during the week were welcomed, the period of uncertainty leading up to the announcements meant that many continued to travel to work on crowded tube trains and buses. Without any certainty about income people felt they were being forced to choose between going to work and taking their chances with the virus.
Similar scenarios are playing out across major conurbations across the world, with New York and Tokyo continuing to report significant increases in cases and Mexico announcing a nationwide one month lockdown in an effort to contain the spread of the virus.
In the UK, ‘field hospital’ arrangements have been set up in London, with 4,000 additional beds, with Birmingham and Manchester expected to follow. NHS guidance suggests that staff from across hospitals including non-nurses such as care assistants, therapists and pharmacists may be drafted in to assist with the care of patients, with intensive care nurses overseeing teams of carers across several patients. Guidance also suggests that staff volunteering to work in field hospitals may need to be prepared “to live-in for the period the field hospital is open.”
In the context of a lack of high grade masks and inadequate levels of personal protective equipment, in an already under resourced NHS, capacity is soon going to be stretched beyond any reasonable limits.
Under resourcing and the creeping privatisation of the NHS have been starkly exposed by the present pandemic. The symptoms though have been presenting for a long time. The drama of current events is increasingly confirming that the long term cure for health provision in the UK is only possible with the planning, investment and organisation necessary under socialism.
Whatever it takes?
20th March 2020
Boris Johnson – a little less bluster, a little more action?
The COVID-19 coronavirus crisis is throwing up significant contradictions for capitalism. In a system built upon competition, the only way to defeat COVID-19 is through co-operation. In a system which prides itself upon being dedicated to the free market and privatisation, the only answer to COVID-19 is centralised control and state intervention. In a system in which companies in the FTSE100 are happy to rake off enormous profits when times are good, they are desperate for a government bail out when times get tough.
Having been elected on the ‘Get Brexit Done’ mantra the Tories are now running with ‘Whatever it takes’ as the slogan in their efforts to tackle COVID-19. Rishi Sunak, newly installed Chancellor of the Exchequer, last week revealed a budget that sought to provide a bail out for business, but expects workers at the sharp end to settle for little more than half a loaf, as the economic consequences of COVID-19 begin to bite.
Capitalism inevitably sheds labour in times of crisis but is in danger of shedding more labour even more quickly than the system can cope with, plunging into worldwide recession as a consequence.
In spite of this, Parliamentarians and the press alike are being are being very polite. It is a national crisis and we must all pull together to get through, it’s no good indulging in a blame game, after all, who could have seen his coming?
Short term memory is a wonderful thing. Bird flu? SARS anyone? It was only a question of time before another viral attack was unleashed upon the world and building capacity to resist should have been a priority for some time now.
The reality is somewhat different. Ten years of Tory enforced austerity has not only weakened the capacity of the NHS to deal with the medical consequences of the virus but has severely undermined the community infrastructure necessary to help support people through the crisis.
Local government services already at breaking point have limited capacity to adjust. The zero-hour contract, low pay, gig economy, beloved of so many of the companies Sunak will bail out, gives millions of workers no security or protection at such a critical time. Many will turn to local services for support and find that these too have been eroded over the past decade.
UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has donned his populist cloak and claimed that, unlike the 2008 financial crash when the banks were bailed out, this time the people will be bailed out and not suffer unduly. During the course of the same press briefing (19th March), Johnson also claimed that if we all pull together it will be possible to ‘turn the tide’ on COVID-19 within 12 weeks.
This seems to fly in the face of the assumptions made by the Imperial College London (ICL) report upon which the government is now making its planning assumptions. The ICL report suggests that the mitigation approach, initially adopted by the government, would result in “hundreds of thousands of deaths” and overwhelm NHS intensive care units. ICL models suggested 250,000 deaths in Britain based upon experience to date in the UK and Italy.
More effective, according to the ICL report is a strategy it terms suppression, now adopted by the government, which aims to reverse the epidemic growth altogether by reducing case numbers and keeping them down. ICL suggest that,
“A minimum policy for effective suppression is therefore population wide social distancing combined with home isolation of cases and school and university closures.”
ICL claim that suppression policies would need to stay in place for at least five months and claim that, to avoid a spike when suppression is eased, restrictions in some form may need to be in place until an effective vaccine is available, which could be up to 18 months.
This is a far cry from the blustery optimism of Johnson’s turning the tide in 12 weeks rhetoric.
The UK has a total capacity of 5,000 intensive care unit beds in surge capacity mode. In Italy, deaths increased when beds hit capacity and critical care was not available. Estimates suggest that nearly 5% of people with COVID-19 will need to be hospitalised, a figure which increases into the older age range. An estimated 70% of the over 80s who require hospitalisation will be likely to need critical care.
While the Tories cannot quite be accused of acting like Mexican president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who thinks he can defeat COVID-19 with lucky charms, including Catholic scapulars and a US 2 dollar bill, they still need to take more urgent action more quickly.
As ever, it is the poor and the elderly who are most at threat. As ever, these people are the most reliant on public services which the Tories have consistently undermined. As ever, these are the sections of the population which rely most on the NHS.
COVID-19 knows no boundaries, either of geography or class, but it is inevitably the case that those with the least resilience, both medically and financially, are at the sharp end of the social spectrum. They will need more support than a few long terms loans to private business will provide. They will need sick pay and their wages and housing costs covered in order to get through the crisis.
Whether the system can really be turned around to support the poor, the elderly and the unemployed, rather than the banks, the rich and the City of London, remains to be seen. Johnson’s daily 5pm press briefings will continue to be monitored with interest.
9th March 2020
No queues at the Colosseum in Rome as COVID-19 hits tourism
Recent World Health Organisation (WHO) praise for the way in which the Chinese authorities have contained the coronavirus, COVID-19, outbreak has been tempered by those suggesting that, in world economic terms, China is too big to criticise, even for the WHO. Routine anti-Chinese positions are not new to the Western media but attempting to undermine the WHO will not encourage public confidence in how the epidemic is being handled.
WHO representatives reported back recently on a joint WHO-China mission on COVID-19 after which epidemiologists were impressed by the ‘differentiated approach’ taken in China towards different situations, including sporadic cases, clusters of cases and community transmission.
The WHO recognition of the response measures in China has led EU representatives to express the desire to maintain close communication, in order to draw upon Chinese experience.
The WHO Regional Office for Europe stated that,
“We are encouraged by the continued decline in cases in China. We remain concerned about the increasing signs of transmission outside China. International cooperation between nations, sharing experience and best practice, has been, and will continue to be, crucial to managing this outbreak.”
EU health ministries have agreed to develop a co-ordinated approach to prevention and protection of people at risk, including coherent containment measures, as well as advice regarding travel to and from risk areas.
Uncertainty about how to contain the virus is having an impact upon tourism, travel and economic activity worldwide. Stock markets opening in the City of London today (9th March) saw an initial fall in the value of shares on the FTSE 100 of 9%, the third biggest single day’s fall in history and the biggest since the financial crash of 2008, an indication of the impact which COVID-19 is having upon the world economy.
The impact of measures taken to combat COVID-19 in China is significant precisely because of its position in global trade. China alone accounts for almost a quarter of global manufacturing, one quarter of global automotive production and a high percentage of parts for the automotive, steel, plastics and high-tech telecoms industries for Western manufacturers, all of which rely on just in time production processes, now grinding to a halt as goods stockpile in Chinese ports.
Almost inevitably, given the origin of the virus in China, conspiracy theories about COVID-19 are gaining a grip. This is especially true in the United States, where anti-Chinese sentiment is barely beneath the surface in certain political circles and the demonisation of China may be seen to have some political advantage, especially in a presidential election year.
The most persistent rumour, repeated by many from right wing radio host, Rush Limbaugh, to former Donald Trump strategist and infamous right wing commentator, Steve Bannon, claims that the virus originated in a laboratory in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
However, a significant group of experts studying the virus have claimed recently in The Lancet that the virus originated in wildlife. Scientists who have sequenced the genome of the virus have identified it as 96% the same as viruses that circulate in bats. The first cluster of cases in China had ties to a live animal market in Wuhan, where seafood and other wildlife were sold as food, leading infectious disease researchers, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, to state that the evidence,
“…implicates a bat-origin virus infecting unidentified animal species sold in China’s live-animal markets.”
From there the virus made the leap to humans where it has been spreading ever since.
Another conspiracy theory, that the virus was a bio-weapon gone wrong is also dismissed by microbiologists, in part due to the unusual biochemical features of the virus and also because, as a weapon, it is not very efficient. There are far deadlier pathogens which, if weaponised, could have a much more significant impact than COVID-19.
There is consensus however that live animal markets are a potential source of further viruses being generated, as there is the opportunity for transmission between animals and from them to humans. If any criticism is to fall with the Chinese it is their approach to public health, which allows this potential for transmission in live animal markets.
China is not the only country in which such practice exists. However, given its role as a global economic superpower, home to nearly 20% of the population of the planet, it does have some responsibility to stamp out practices which can impact adversely on public health both nationally and internationally.
It is positive that the WHO has praised the Chinese for their action in dealing with the outbreak, in spite of some of the criticism it has received for doing so, but action so far is only dealing with the symptoms. For the Chinese, and others who allow unregulated live animal sales, the pressure now is to bring all of their economic and political influence to address the cause of COVID-19.
Experts fear coronavirus cover up in Iran
2nd March 2020
As the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread, there is growing evidence of an increasing impact in Iran. It is feared that sanctions imposed by the US may have weakened the capacity of the country’s medical sector to cope. Jane Green reports.
Coronavirus in Iran – may be worse than officially reported
Since first announcing the presence of coronavirus COVID-19 recently, Iran has reported a total of 388 cases and 34 deaths, a far higher fatality rate than seen elsewhere. It is widely suspected that the official tally vastly underestimates the true number of cases. Iran has the highest number of coronavirus cases outside of China.
A senior medical doctor at the Masih Daneshvari hospital in Tehran, the country’s top pulmonary public hospital and the main facility overseeing coronavirus patients was keen to retain his anonymity but stated,
“We think that this virus has been in Iran for the past three to four weeks and has circulated throughout the country. Right now in Iran we are facing a coronavirus epidemic.”
Medical teams are concerned that they do not have the means to test effectively or to screen potential cases. Testing kits were not available in Iran until last week due to the sanctions imposed upon the regime by the US.
Medical workers are also concerned that their equipment is badly outdated, a situation made worse by the US sanctions, although the US administration says “humanitarian and medical needs” are exempt from sanctions. Nevertheless, many European companies fear doing business in Iran for fear of retribution from the US.
In addition, sanctions on Iranian banks make it difficult to carry out financial transactions with Europe. It can take three times longer to make a simple banking transaction with Europe under the newly imposed sanctions.
Ventilators and medicines are also in short supply as the scarcity of US dollars limits purchasing power. While the government has imposed some restrictions on holy sites and called off some Friday prayer services, President Rouhani has said there are no plans to quarantine entire cities hit by the virus.
Due to the shortage of surgical masks and hand sanitiser in shops, public health experts say Iran could become the hub of a major outbreak across the Middle East, especially given its porous borders with unstable countries at war or in turmoil.
Studies by Human Rights Watch and other groups last year found the country’s health care sector was severely affected under the latest round of US sanctions, putting cancer and other patients in danger, without access to life-saving medicine.
Iran’s reported mortality rate for coronavirus, at just under nine percent, surpasses the rate for other countries by a wide margin. Earlier this week, it was 16 percent. China’s reported mortality rate is currently at 3.5 percent. In South Korea, 13 patients have died out of 1,766 cases, for a reported mortality rate of slightly less than 1 percent.
Precise figures for Iran however, are difficult to come by. The head of the Medical Science University in Qom, Mohammad Reza Ghadir, a city in which there has been a significant number of confirmed cases, said on state television that the Health Ministry had banned releasing figures on the outbreak in the city.
Asked how many people had been placed in quarantine, Ghadir said, “The Health Ministry has told us not to announce any new statistics.”
The lack of clear reporting from Iran has prompted experts to raise concerns over whether there has been an official cover-up of the scale of the epidemic, and whether the country will be able to contain the deadly disease.
The response of the leadership of the regime has not inspired confidence, with the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, playing down the outbreak, accusing Tehran’s enemies of playing up “negative propaganda” over the coronavirus threat, to undermine recent Parliamentary elections.
The lack of concern shown by the regime is underlined by the fact that nine flights by Mahan Air, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps controlled airline, were made without any official permit to China, for the transportation of passengers and freight in the two weeks prior to the Iranian government’s acknowledgement of the presence of coronavirus inside Iran.
This was despite a rule having been made by the Iranian government supposedly suspending all flights between Iran and China. The passengers of these flights were not subject to quarantine or any control whatsoever upon their return to Iran.
However, given the growing international concerns and the prospect of the World Health Organisation (WHO) declaring a coronavirus pandemic, there have been growing calls upon the US to ease its restrictions on humanitarian trade with Iran, which would allow China and other Tehran-friendly countries, including Russia, to provide medical and humanitarian aid to the Islamic Republic before the disease escalates into a greater crisis in the region.
Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s emergencies programme, told reporters last week that the virus “came unseen and undetected into Iran, so the extent of infection may be broader than what we may be seeing.”
If the situation in Iran continues to deteriorate the US will come under mounting international pressure to remove some of its sanctions to allow humanitarian aid. Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington, said last week,
“The Trump administration will face a moral dilemma: whether to remove some of the pressure on Iran or face international condemnation for putting millions at risk.”
Luft also expressed concern that, as fears of a global pandemic grew and countries stockpiled face masks and other medical equipment, it could be hard for other nations to help Iran effectively.
In an ironic twist State media said last week that a member of the Iranian Parliament, Mamoud Sadeghi, and the country’s deputy health minister, Iraj Harirchi, who lead a task force battling the virus, had tested positive. The news came a day after Harirchi appeared at a news conference looking feverish, reaching for tissues to wipe his brow. He wore no mask as the ministry spokesman standing next to him expressed confidence about the government’s response to the crisis.
Health ministry spokesman Kianush Jahanpur called on Iranians to avoid “unnecessary trips inside the country”, while Iran’s neighbours have closed their borders. The UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Estonia in northern Europe all recorded new cases of the virus in people travelling from Iran.
Globally, more than 80,000 people in nearly 50 countries have been infected with the coronavirus. Nearly 2,800 have died, the majority in China’s Hubei province.
This article first appeared in the Morning Star (02/03/20)
For more information visit www.codir.net
Pledges and Priorities
23rd February 2020
Pro-Palestine but against antisemitism – perfectly compatible
Voting for the Labour Party leadership will get underway this week, with the top job now narrowed down to three candidates; Kier Starmer, Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey. To some extent all three are compromised, by supporting the Ten Pledges to End the Antisemitism Crisis diktat, by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which seeks to impose external controls on how the Labour Party addresses allegations of antisemitism, stating that,
“An independent provider should be used to process all complaints, to eradicate any risk of partisanship and factionalism.”
The pledges include handing responsibility for training on antisemitism to one group in the Jewish community, the Jewish Labour Movement, and for Labour to,
“…engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations and individuals.”
This latter being code for the Board of Deputies or groups it approves as being ‘representative.’
This presumably excludes Jewish Voice for Labour, for example, which has supported a rejection of the Ten Pledges by the leadership candidates.
Even Rebecca Long Bailey, the most progressive of the leadership candidates, has fallen victim to the antisemitism smear campaign, suggesting in Jewish News that,
“Unfortunately, some people who regard themselves as anti-racist may nevertheless, when talking about the legacy of colonialism or the distribution of power within our capitalist society, use some of the negative stereotypical ideas or images that have become embedded within our culture over time.”
Long Bailey could have more usefully made the point that conflating criticism of the Israeli government’s failure to respect UN resolutions and international law with antisemitism, is the most dangerous of the “negative stereotypical ideas or images” being systematically embedded within our culture.
In the Deputy Leadership race only Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler have not agreed to the demands of the Ten Pledges, a position which has brought on predictable vitriol from the Board of Deputies and its mouthpiece the Jewish Chronicle, which quoted Board president Marie van der Zyl saying it “beggars belief” that Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Burgon and Shadow Equalities Minister Dawn Butler had withheld their endorsement.
Butler, in a statement as to why she would not sign the Ten Pledges made clear,
“If I thought that signing these 10 pledges would help solve the problem, I would do it. It would no doubt be the easy thing for me to do and I know the attention not doing so will bring. I endure racism on a daily basis. I know what it feels like. I have dedicated my career and life to doing just that, including in my current role as Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities.
That’s how I know that the easy route is not always the best route and I must do what I think is best. I fear that signing the pledges without further discussion will result in no positive change and I fear it will just be a token gesture.”
Her full statement is here:-
The Ten Pledges from the Board of Deputies has received far greater profile that the Ten Key Pledges to Support Muslim Communities, released by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) during the General Election campaign, and to which all leadership candidates have also signed up.
More information is here:-
It is interesting to note pledge 10 on the subject of Ethical Foreign Policy which states,
“Support a binding recognition of Palestine as an independent and sovereign state, and address human rights abuses abroad, including in Kashmir, Xinjiang and Myanmar.”
The Board of Deputies will no doubt have a view on the Palestinian question. It will be interesting to see how much time the successful candidate devotes to this MCB pledge, compared to those in the Board of Deputies set of pledges. There can be little doubt which will receive the most scrutiny from the media and which organisation has the strongest lobby, both inside and outside of the Labour Party.
One thing is certain, real leadership will come from the candidate who is not only vociferous in their condemnation of antisemitism but who calls out racism in any form. That will mean being prepared to make the case for the rights of Palestinians, in accordance with international law, however strong the pressure may be not to do so.
The Centre Cannot Hold
15th February 2020
Sinn Féin break the mould in the Irish general election
The Left in Britain should take heart from the outcome of the recent General Election in Ireland, where Sinn Féin broke the stranglehold of the centre right consensus in Irish government, in the form of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which have dominated the political life of Ireland for eight decades.
Sinn Féin leader, Mary Lou McDonald, has set about the task of attempting to form a People’s Government with the support of smaller parties and independents in the Irish Parliament. It may take time to put together such a coalition but the fact that Sinn Féin are even in such a position is a huge leap forward.
In a statement on the election outcome the Communist Party of Ireland (CPI) made the following assessment,
“This election result has grown on the rejection of EU-imposed austerity and the polices that give priority to the needs of capital, of the rich and powerful, at the expense of workers, policies promoted by all the establishment parties, including the Labour Party, and the establishment media. It follows from the mass struggles on water, housing, health, Repeal the 8th, and marriage equality.
The election only confirmed that housing, health, pensions and child care were central questions that have had a great impact on the working class.”
However, as the CPI go on to warn, Sinn Féin must remain vigilant against the efforts of the Irish establishment to incorporate them into the system and blunt the demands which have propelled them into such a strong position. A coalition with one of the establishment parties could very well lead to a watering down of the programme on which Sinn Féin were elected. As the CPI go on to state,
“In the next few weeks we will witness the behind-the-scenes negotiations and back-room deals being pulled together to see which combination of parties will form the next Government. The opportunism of the Labour Party, Social Democrats and Green Party will make them very amenable to forming or supporting a Government with Fianna Fáil.
While Irish communists welcome these progressive developments, we are mindful of the history of class struggles and the fight for national independence and sovereignty, of how easily the demands and the energy of working people have been smothered in the past, promoting the blind faith that the electoral system alone can deliver real or lasting change.”
In the words of Irish poet WB Yeats , “the centre cannot hold.”
The election in Ireland does illustrate that Left policies can prove popular, as the Labour Party in Britain demonstrated in the 2017 General Election. The contest for the leadership of the Labour Party has now been narrowed to three candidates, with Emily Thornberry failing to make the cut for the final ballot.
Kier Starmer remains the clear front runner, based upon Constituency Labour Party and trade union nominations, with Rebecca Long Bailey and Lisa Nandy also in the frame. The election now goes to one member, one vote with all 500,000 Labour Party members eligible to make their choice.
Only Long Bailey has presented a platform which is consistent with the progressive positions Labour has developed over the past four years under Jeremy Corbyn. Her demonisation by the media is in proportion to her support for left wing policies and every effort is being made, by both the media establishment and the establishment within the Labour Party, to undermine her position.
Starmer has recognised that he will not win without some left wing support and has made conciliatory noises, suggesting that Corbyn’s leadership and policies had some merit, and that the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water. This is rich coming from him as Starmer was one of the key architects of Labour’s defeat, in arguing to ditch the policy of support for the referendum outcome, while lending weight to the so-called People’s Vote campaign.
Lisa Nandy is the current darling of the soft left and is likely to garner votes from those determined to see a woman leader but not brave enough to vote Long Bailey.
Whatever the outcome of the Labour leadership election the successful candidate can be sure of a media vilification campaign, if not on the scale of that directed at Corbyn, at least sufficient to pose questions about their leadership competence and economic credentials. Even Starmer, the safety first candidate, will not escape this.
Nor can the centre hold in Britain any more than it can in Ireland. Whoever lands the Labour Party job can be sure that they will face a Prime Minister whose primary objective over the next five years is to secure a further five years in office. The effective sacking of Chancellor, Sajid Javid, heralds a move to centralise economic decision making in the hands of No.10 and a determination by Boris Johnson to increase public spending on infrastructure projects, the green light for HS2 being just the start.
It is Johnson’s calculation that such spending will not only prove popular but will boost the economy, at least sufficiently, to gain him a second term. However, it will take more than fast trains to turn around some of the structural issues of poverty, which have been compounded by ten years of austerity and biting welfare reforms. It is ironic that HS2 will not even reach those Northern seats that Johnson has characterised as ‘lending’ him their votes. It may not be long before many voters realise they have been short changed.
Johnson has been equally determined not to raise taxes, leaving him in the position of fuelling his spending plans through increased borrowing, albeit at favourable interest rates, or breaking the tax pledge.
In Britain, as in Ireland, it is hard to see how things will not, at some point fall apart.
9th February 2020
Trump – basks in his impeachment acquittal
“Trump Acquitted” screamed the headline in The Washington Post, held aloft by the self promoting, narcissist currently occupying the White House at his press conference on Friday.
“Best headline I’ve ever had in The Washington Post”, quipped a delighted Trump, barely able to conceal his joy at the outcome of the impeachment trial, which will surely go down in US history as one of the greatest constitutional debacles ever.
The move to impeach Trump was set in train last August when the President was accused of putting pressure upon the President of Ukraine, to dig dirt on the son of Democratic presidential hopeful, Joe Biden, or say goodbye to US aid and political support. Trump is alleged to have held back millions of dollars of military aid to Ukraine and promised a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president, as bargaining chips. This forms the basis of the first charge against Trump.
The second charge against Trump is that, after the White House refused to allow staff to testify at the first impeachment hearings last year, Trump was effectively obstructing Congress.
An investigation in the House of Representatives from October to December resulted in a vote to impeach Trump, which led to the case being passed on to the Senate. While the House of Representatives is controlled by the Democrats, the Republicans control the Senate, giving Trump a distinct advantage once the trial got underway in January.
The Republican majority rejected moves by the Democrats to allow new witnesses and documents to be brought into the trial hearings, rendering them virtually meaningless and the outcome a foregone conclusion. In the final analysis only one Republican Senator, Mitt Romney, broke ranks and Trump got his acquittal.
The news came at the end of a week when the Democrats had initially failed to declare a winner in the Iowa caucuses, the first step on the road to finding an opposition candidate to Trump for November’s presidential election. On Tuesday, Trump delivered his State of the Union speech, which was greeted with thunderous applause by Republican Senators and compelled House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to rip up her copy of his speech, as Trump basked in the applause.
While Pelosi’s protest may have made for dramatic TV it will not have moved the Democrats any closer to laying a glove on Trump in November. Iowa eventually announced that little known small town Mayor, Paul Buttigieg, had nosed slightly ahead of veteran firebrand Bernie Sanders in the caucuses. There is a long way to go however.
The main talking point in the Democrat race has been the position of former New York mayor, the billionaire Michael Bloomberg, allegedly keeping his powder dry till the bigger states, especially California, come into play in the Democrat selection process on so-called Super Tuesday on 3rd March.
Bloomberg’s response to anyone concerned about a rich Democrat trying to buy the race to defeat a rich Republican is typically robust,
“Someone said, Are you spending too much money? And I said, I’m spending money to get rid of Donald Trump. And the guy said, Spend more.”
On the one hand, the impeachment debacle and the Democrat primary race would appear to sum up the hopeless state of US politics, certainly as reported by the mainstream media. Alternatively, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) has a more hopeful perspective, noting that,
“…the strength and stability of any government rests not so much on the accumulation of power at the top but the degree of support below among the governed. With a split ruling class at the “commanding heights of big capital”; hard public support hovering around one-third; and a widespread, well-organized opposition in the labor, civil rights, women’s, Latino, LGBTQ, and youth movements—Trump is in big trouble.”
As the CPUSA acknowledge though, that opposition still needs to be galvanised in a way that can mount an effective challenge to Trump in November and that,
“…much depends on the ability of the various components of the people’s movements to forge greater unity around issues as the primaries play out. As recent events reveal, this is not a given. All of us have to keep our eyes on the prize. Defeating Trump….is central to social progress.”
The response to Trump’s State of the Union address from the CPUSA can be found here:-
It offers the hope of an alternative USA in which the people are truly empowered and elections cannot be bought, by Republican narcissists or Democrat billionaires.
As the media coverage builds towards the election in November, and the focus in the short term sharpens on the Democrat primaries, it is worth remembering that a bigger alternative is possible. There are millions in the USA committed to fighting for that alternative. They deserve our support and solidarity.
1st February 2020
UK departure a step towards solving the EU puzzle
In the past forty seven years the UK has seen the Winter of Discontent and the collapse of the Labour government; the Thatcher government, incorporating the rundown of manufacturing industry, the erosion of trade union rights, the destruction of Council housing, the dismantling of comprehensive education, the Miner’s Strike and poll tax demonstrations; the Blair/Brown years with the illegal war on Iraq, troops in Afghanistan and the banking crisis of 2008, paving the way for more Tory austerity, the consequences of which we are still living through.
All of this has occurred while the UK has been a member of the EU. Membership has done nothing to stop any of this and the EU has actively colluded in much of the economic deregulation, free movement of cheap labour and flexibility for capital, upon which the EU depends.
Those who regard the EU as the greatest deliverer of peace, progress and prosperity the world has known tend to forget Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria or the migrant crises which have followed being tied to adventurist US foreign policy. They tend to forget the conditions imposed upon nations such as Ireland, Greece and Portugal as part of so called ‘bail out’ packages, when their economies have been bled dry by the stronger EU states.
In economic terms growth in the UK economy has collapsed from 2% a year on average to 0.5% a year. The growth trend across mainland Europe is not much better, having fallen from a 4% per year to a 1% average. As Larry Elliott, economics editor for The Guardian has pointed out,
“Europe has world class companies but none of them were set up within the past 30 years. There is no equivalent of Facebook, Amazon or Google: the reason the UK has turned to Huawei to build its 5G mobile network is because the Chinese company is ahead of Europe’s rivals: Nokia and Ericsson.”
There is no economic miracle waiting to happen across Europe that the UK will be missing out on by leaving.
Of course, UK departure does not guarantee economic nirvana either. The fact that growth rates are tanking in both the EU and UK is not to do with EU membership but with the general crisis faced by capitalism. The EU is only one means by which the ruling classes across Europe attempt to manage this crisis in their own interests. In large measure that means the stronger economies, of Germany and France, managing the EU market in their interests.
However, the German economy only just avoided going in to recession in the last economic quarter. Discontent continues to simmer in the annexed East Germany where opportunities since ‘unification’ remain slim and a two tier system in terms of access to education, economic and political opportunity effectively operates. The rise of right wing populists Alternativ fur Deutschland (AfD) is in part a reflection of this.
France has been beset by street demonstrations over the past year, through the gilets jeunes. The recent pressure to reverse proposed attacks on the working week and pensions has seen thousands more pour onto the streets in protest, with a high level of mobilisation through French trade unions, especially the CGT, and a leading role played by the French Communist Party (PCF).
The British ruling class has always been split over the EU and this has been reflected in the struggle within the Tory Party over the past fifty years. For the moment, those seeing that their interests are best served inside the EU have lost their grip and the Little Englander faction is on the march.
For socialists the EU has not brought any benefits and the social democratic gains of the post war period have been steadily eroded, without the EU affording any protection. The EU, friend or foe, is essentially a distraction from the main issue. That is that capitalism itself is the main enemy and the ruling class, however it chooses to organise, inside or outside an economic and political union or not, will never act in the interest of the working class.
Leaving the EU is a momentous occasion and an historic step. However, it will not result in the ‘freedoms’ the right wing imagine, or be the calamity imagined by hand wringing liberals. In many respects it is simply a continuation of the ongoing class struggle by other means and on slightly different terrain.
For workers in the UK the enemy should be a bit clearer. We need to make sure that our focus is sharper and that the real needs of ordinary people can be articulated and delivered, freed from the shackles of the monetarist restrictions imposed by the EU. That will not mean arguing a case to return to the EU, as Labour leadership candidate Kier Starmer is advocating, but putting the case for a forward looking, truly internationalist, socialist Britain.
The people of the UK need to move forward, with no regrets about leaving the EU, but looking forward to a true internationalism, based upon the union of the peoples of Europe, not a union of the banks and corporations which exploit them.
Theatre of the Absurd
30th January 2020
Marwan Bishara, Senior Political Analyst at al-Jazeera shares some thoughts on the so-called Middle East Peace Plan, unveiled this week by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu and Trump – aiming to call the shots in the Middle East in more ways than one
The devil is not in the detail; it’s in the headlines of Trump’s initiative.
So, to resolve the problem of the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands, Trump wants them legalised and recognised as part of Israel.
To resolve the problem of Israel’s illegal annexation of occupied Jerusalem, Trump wants it recognised as the capital of Israel and Israel alone.
To deal with the question of Palestinian refugees and their inalienable right of return and compensation, Trump wants to prevent their return.
To solve the problem of violent, repressive and inhumane Israeli control over the Palestinians, Trump wants to see that extended indefinitely. Even after the Palestinians meet all the new conditions imposed on them, they would still be at the mercy of Israel’s security forces.
The Trump plan tramples over United Nations Security Council resolution 242, which requires Israel to return to its 1967 borders (or to their approximate, according to past US initiatives), and redraws the borders to suit Israel’s settlements and facilitate its control.
Instead of ending Israel’s apartheid system in Palestine, Trump wants to see it continue under a different name, at least until his promise for a provisional Palestinian “state” is fulfilled, one which will have no sovereignty or independence.
Basically, Trump envisions half a Palestinian state on half of the West Bank, but only after the Palestinians combat terrorism and recognise Israel as a Jewish state extending over some 90 percent of historic Palestine.
Trump’s embrace of apartheid in the holy land, as a pragmatic even indispensable prerequisite for “peace” and stability adds insult to Palestinian injury.
And lest we forget, the Trump administration has already closed down the office of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Washington, suspended aid to the Palestinian Authority, transferred the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and repealed US recognition of the refugee issue by suspending all funding to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
The full text of this article can be found here:-
Is progressive patriotism possible?
27th January 2020
UK Armed Forces – not to be criticised….
The idea of progressive patriotism is being raised as one of the issues the Left needs to grapple with following Labour’s General Election defeat in December last year. It is certainly the case that by the measure of patriotism used by the BBC and right wing media, Labour in general, and Jeremy Corbyn in particular, do not measure up.
The new patriotism test, against which Labour fails, has evolved by degrees following the defeat of the Soviet Union; the post 9/11 war on terror, resulting in UK troops being deployed following UK backing for the US invasion of Iraq; the deployment of UK troops, supporting the US once again in the unwinnable war in Afghanistan; and the four years long commemoration of the centenary of the First World War.
Replacing the International Workers’ Day May Day Bank Holiday, with an 8th May Bank Holiday to mark 75 years since the end of World War 2, is just the latest occasion to glorify the armed forces. It is ironic that across much of Europe both 1st May and the 8th May, marking the end of WW2 and the defeat of fascism, have been public holidays for many years, the two not being seen in opposition to each other.
The UK was in a different position to much of Europe as World War 2 approached. The British Empire was still a tangible reality and the ruling class were desperate to keep it that way. The role of the UK in colluding with the Nazis in their re-armament programme; the free hand given to the German and Italian invaders of Spain in the so called Civil War (1936-39), due to the policy of non-intervention; and the desire to see either Japan, Germany, or both, attack the Soviet Union, are conveniently airbrushed out of the popular histories of the 1930’s and the build up to war.
On the contrary, the popular assumption is that Britain won the war, which in one sense it did but not without the help of allies in the United States and more significantly, in terms of damage done to the Nazis, the Soviet Union.
In the bid to win hearts and minds in Labour’s traditional heartlands these historical facts will not cut any ice. By the same token, in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, Colonel Qaddafi and tackling the Taliban, ‘our boys’ have been doing their bit to keep the free world safe. The reality for many working class communities is that ‘our boys’, and increasingly girls, are just that, family members who have signed up to the armed forces as the best career option, in areas where the run down of manufacturing and the public sector have gone hand in hand to create virtual ghost towns.
The winning of hearts and minds on the Left has for too long focussed upon the second part of that equation. For example, it is altogether rational to equate the estimated £150 billion cost of renewing Trident nuclear submarines with so many roads, schools or hospitals which could be built instead. When the response to that however, is that scrapping Trident will leave us defenceless, it is clear that the debate is not necessarily about the rational.
While it is intellectually self evident that Trident weapons will not stop someone in a suicide vest, a cyber attack or a knife wielder on London Bridge, there is still a strong emotional appeal for many in the idea of a ‘strong’ defence of the UK and that includes nuclear weapons, with all of the international status and prestige they confer.
In the North East of England, one of the areas hardest hit by the Tories’ austerity programme, traditional Labour seats tumbled in the 2019 election. Labour’s ambivalent position on Brexit was undoubtedly a factor. The unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn came high on the list of reasons not to vote Labour. Why was Corbyn so unpopular? Scratch the surface for many North East voters and it was not the Labour programme or the issue of anti-Semitism, it was that Corbyn was perceived as ‘unpatriotic’. The drip feed smear campaign of the right wing press and BBC had made an impact. Combined with the other factors undermining Labour’s position, it proved fatal.
Whether progressive patriotism is the right phrase or not the Left needs to reassess how it projects its position in relation to the armed forces. That does not mean simply playing to the lowest common denominator. It could mean redirecting some of the projected spend for Trident into conventional forces, while still retaining some for socially useful production. One or two Generals may even be persuaded to back such a position.
The commitment to peace is so deeply engrained in many on the Left that voicing any support for the armed forces may seem anathema. However, a socialist Britain will still need to retain some form of defence capability. In the longer term it need not be deployed in support of adventurist US wars. It need not be a vehicle to shore up the post colonial ambitions and greed of the minority. It need not be allied to NATO.
If the Left is even to get close to these possibilities it needs to be thinking now about its own strategy for the military and how we build bridges to neutralise the ‘anti-patriotic’ smear campaigns in the meantime.
Picking fights with the establishment
18th January 2020
BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg – more lazy journalism
The field of candidates for the Labour Party leadership is not a hugely inspiring array but it is becoming clear, even this early in the race, who the political and media establishment do not want to see win; Rebecca Long-Bailey.
The relatively modest platform of reforms aimed at taming some of the worst excesses of capitalist austerity, otherwise known as the Labour Party 2019 election manifesto, has been branded as a template for ‘Corbynism’ by the lazy journalists of the BBC, including Andrew Neil and Laura Kuenssberg.
There is of course no such thing as Corbynism, as Jeremy Corbyn would be the first to point out. As a shorthand however it allows the likes of Neil and Kuenssberg to use the term as a trope for anything, or anyone, they regard as being remotely left of centre and, by implication, a threat to the established order. In this way Rebecca Long-Bailey, before she says a word, is caricatured as the ‘continuity candidate’ of Corbynism.
Needless to say, in the world of Neil and Kuenssberg, Corbynism is a failed project and therefore anyone associated with it must be defending the indefensible. After all, does the 80 strong majority enjoyed by Boris Johnson not signal the death of Corbynism?
In their usual shoddy approach to the issues Neil and Kuenssberg make every effort to undermine the intelligence of their viewers and characterise the Labour leadership according to the lowest common denominators.
Summarising on the Andrew Neil Show on the BBC this week Kuenssberg casually referred to Long-Bailey as “the party machine’s preferred candidate”. Kuenssberg went on to offer her assessment of the desire of Labour Party members to “move on”, something she regarded as unexpected “given how strong Jeremy Corbyn’s teams grip has actually been on the levers of power inside the machine”. Neil then chipped in to suggest that, “continuing Corbynism without Mr. Corbyn looks to be more difficult than they might have expected….”; Laura couldn’t agree more….
The programme had featured an extended interview with leadership candidate Lisa Nandy, who performed reasonably well and kept some of Neil’s usual excesses in check, but fell well short of being convincing. Nandy wobbled on selective education and devolving power to communities. She failed to address the need to halt the obsolete Trident nuclear weapons programme.
On the question of anti-Semitism she regarded characterising the Board of Deputies of British Jews as Conservative backing, and asking them to condemn Israeli atrocities in the Gaza strip and West Bank, as anti-Semitic. Nandy’s shallow grasp of the issue was alarming.
Long-Bailey meanwhile secured the backing of the Momentum pressure group inside Labour, a further red rag to those looking for more evidence of her ‘Corbynist’ and hard left credentials.
Outlining her position in The Guardian this week, Long-Bailey stated that,
“The next Labour leadership team must not junk our values, or abandon plans to deal with the big challenges of the age. Instead we must plot our path to power then deliver it.”
Seeing the need to galvanise Labour’s grass roots and the communities it should be representing Long-Bailey calls for,
“…a government for and by the people…a popular movement to turn the British state against the privatisers, big polluters and tax dodgers that have taken hold of our political system.”
It is a bold recognition of the need to combine extra-Parliamentary action with action in Parliament to bring about change, stressing the need to “pick a fight with the political establishment.”
It was such a break with the political consensus which saw Jeremy Corbyn rise to such levels of popularity before the 2017 General Election. It is exactly what gave the political establishment such a fright that it unleashed the systematic campaign of vilification, which went right through to the 2019 General Election.
For Rebecca Long-Bailey, the fight with the political establishment is already underway.
Pressure Builds on Iranian dictatorship
12th January 2020
Debris from the Ukranian plane crash just outside Tehran
The death toll following the assassination, by the United States, of Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) commander, General Qasem Souleimani, currently runs at over two hundred, with over 60 civilians being crushed in scenes of grief at Souleimani’s funeral and 176 deaths in the shooting down of the Ukranian civilian airliner, which the Iranian regime has admitted was a tragic mistake.
Neither of these events would have taken place without the assassination of Souleimani and both are examples of the unintended consequences which can follow on from significant political and military decisions, taken outside the norms of international law.
Souleimani, was the loyal servant of a theocratic dictatorship, unpopular with its own people, as recent demonstrations in November 2019 against corruption and political cronyism across Iran illustrate. The Iranian regime will never admit it but his assassination came at a time when uniting the country against a foreign enemy could have been a useful distraction from domestic pressures.
While the regime may have been hoping that the death of Souleimani would provide a distraction, the shooting down of the Ukranian passenger aircraft, with significant loss of life, has refocussed the Iranian people upon the incompetence of the regime.
Over the weekend massive demonstrations have taken place in Tehran and other key cities, in protest against the IRGC forces shooting down the plane killing 176 passengers, 82 of them Iranian, on their way to Europe and North America. The Iranian authorities had for three days falsely claimed technical difficulties as the cause of the crash. However, early on Saturday morning they announced that an IRGC air defence system had shot down the airliner minutes after leaving Tehran international airport. Protesters have been demanding the regime’s resignation, including that of Supreme Leader, Ayotollah Ali Khamenei.
While political assassination as a tool of foreign policy is not a new tactic for the US, the assassination of Souleimani still came as a shock to the Iranian regime and a blow to its adventurist foreign policy in the Middle East. With responsibility for the IRGC Quds Force, in charge of overseas operations, Souleimani was instrumental in extending Iranian influence throughout the region, across Iraq, into Syria and in Lebanon and Yemen. His military and tactical acumen is widely credited with having turned around the prospect of a Western led victory in the war of intervention in Syria.
The assassination of Souleimani followed a sequence of events going back to the 27th December, when an Iranian backed Shia militia attacked an Iraqi military base, killing a US contractor. Reports from the US indicate that Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, suggested the killing of Souleimani at that point but the tactic was rejected in favour of air strikes against the militia responsible for the attack.
The air strikes led militia supporters to attack the Green Zone in Baghdad’s diplomatic quarter, overrunning the gated US embassy compound, before Iraqi forces arrived to break up the intrusion. It would seem that the event was sufficient for Pompeo to win over Trump to his viewpoint and Souleimani’s fate was sealed.
The political balance in the region, already precarious, has become even more volatile since Souleimani’s death.
Iran is using the opportunity to call for the complete withdrawal of US troops from the region, a demand echoed by the Iraqi Parliament, but one with which the US is unlikely to comply. An estimated 5,500 US troops are in Iraq and the US is in negotiations with NATO about an increased non-US NATO contribution. This is added to the fact that the United States has moved 14,000 additional troops to the Gulf region in the past year.
The volatility of US foreign policy, the ideological objectives of Saudi Arabia and Israel, and the geopolitical ambitions of Russia, do not lend themselves to any degree of regional certainty. Added to that the increasingly unstable position of the theocratic dictatorship in Iran, under intense pressure from its own people for democratic change, will continue to be a major factor for instability in the regional balance. Resistance to US troops in Iraq continues to be an issue, political instability in Lebanon continues and the ability of the Syrian people to recover from seven years of war will, no doubt, continue to be tested.
Much of this uncertainty is also due to the pressure for democratic change coming from the people of countries suffering under dictatorships of one form or another, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, or suffering under US occupation or influence such as in Iraq.
The Middle East remains a complex web of alliances in which there is no obvious or easy route to navigate. However, solidarity with the people of the Middle East, in their efforts to reshape their nations and the region in their interests, rather than those of Western corporations or the military industrial complex, will be more vital than ever in the coming period.
Trump in shoot to kill outrage
3rd January 2020
Qasem Soleimani – assassinated by US airstrike
The assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, on the order of US President Donald Trump, marks a massive escalation in the undeclared war on Iran, which has been waged virtually from the moment Trump took office.
Soleimani was killed by an air strike on Baghdad airport early on Friday. As the leader of the Quds Force, an elite unit of the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Soleimani was widely regarded as second only to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the pecking order in the Islamic Republic’s hierarchy.
Khamenei has said that “severe revenge awaits the criminals” behind the attack and three days of national mourning have been announced. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has called the attack an “act of international terrorism”, going on to say that,
“The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism.”
Condemnation has come from Iraqi Prime Minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, who described the killing as a “dangerous escalation” and from Russia where Vladimir Putin warned that the assassination would “seriously aggravate the situation in the region”.
US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo stated that the strike was “lawful” and that it “saved lives”.
In the UK Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, issued the following statement,
“The US assassination of Qasem Soleimani is an extremely serious and dangerous escalation of conflict with global significance. We urge restraint on the part of both Iran and the US and we call for an end to the belligerent actions and rhetoric coming from the US.”
The Stop the War Coalition have called a protest outside Downing Street for Saturday, 4th January at 2pm.
In the wider context of the ongoing interventionist war against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and the fact that the United States has moved 14,000 additional troops to the Gulf region in the past year, there is every potential for wider conflagration.
A wave of protest has been sweeping the Middle East in recent months, with demonstrations against unpopular regimes unfolding in Iran, Iraq and the Lebanon. The protests have resistance to government corruption, mass unemployment and plunging living standards in common. All three regimes have reacted with increased violence and repression.
In Iraq at least 400 people are reported to have died since protesters took to the streets in early October. Amnesty International estimate that at least 208 people have died in nationwide protests in Iran since protests erupted in October. The true figure could be much higher. Protests against new taxes in Lebanon brought hundreds of thousands onto the streets and forced the resignation of Prime Minister, Saad Hariri.
While the protests across the region have been the result of internal repression and government incompetence, key players have been maximising their efforts to link the protests to wider regional tensions. The Intelligence Ministry in Tehran for example claimed to have arrested eight “CIA operatives” accused of inciting riots.
Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) chief commander, General Hossein Salami, suggested that the riots were conducted by “thugs” with the backing of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Salami went on to link the protests to the US policy of “maximum pressure” against Tehran, following the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran last year. Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has talked of a “dangerous conspiracy” implicating the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The US, on the other hand, has characterised the protests in Iraq and Lebanon as part of a region wide insurgency against Iranian power.
At least 7,000 people have reportedly been arrested in 28 of Iran’s 31 provinces since mass protests broke out on 15th November, prompting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, to state that she is “extremely concerned about their physical treatment, violations of their right to due process, and the possibility that a significant number of them may be charged with offences that carry the death penalty, in addition to the conditions under which they are held.”
While protests continue to sweep Iran, underlining the unpopularity of the Islamic Republic, the regime continues to try and bolster its position and circumvent US sanctions. Excluded from the US international interbank payment system, SWIFT, Tehran is looking to link with alternative systems in China and Russia.
Oil sales continue, primarily to Syria and China in order to generate income for the regime, prompting Khamenei to state recently that,
“The US policy of maximum pressure has failed. The Americans presumed that they can force Iran to make concessions and bring it to its knees by focussing on maximum pressure, especially in the area of economy, but they have troubled themselves.”
In countering the US “maximum pressure” approach Iran has upped the ante by participating in joint naval drills with Russia and China in the Indian Ocean in late December.
However, the assassination of Soleimani gives the whole “maximum pressure” policy a dangerous new twist.
The danger of external intervention in Iran is one which has been in the wings for some years. With the Iranian regime itself increasingly under pressure the possibility of a major strike, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from its domestic problems, should not be ruled out. Soleimani’s assassination may just give the clergy in Iran the excuse they need. Such an outcome would be disastrous, not only for the region, but for world peace.
Trump may have ordered the killing of Soleimani in order to look tough at home in an election year but there is every danger that, this time, the international consequences may far outweigh any perceived domestic benefits.