Blog

1^st April 2023

Oil and gas companies, still not paying their share

It may be 1st April but no one is being fooled that the current crisis, which is driving up the cost of survival for many working class families, is anything other than capitalism ensuring that wealth and profit goes in one direction, while penury and poverty goes in another.   From today Council Tax rises kick in; water rates go up; mobile and broadband costs rise; and the government’s energy support scheme ends, meaning higher bills for many families.

The water companies will not make any losses.  Foreign investment firms, private equity, pension funds and businesses lodged in tax havens own more than 70% of the water industry in England, according to research published last year by The Guardian.

At a time when calls for more control over the dumping of sewage and the run off into rivers from farming activities are increasingly being made, overseas owners are making profits from a key utility which should be publicly owned.

Mobile and broadband providers can increase prices mid contract by inflation plus an extra amount on top, resulting in some companies putting prices up by over 17%, citing their underlying operating costs going up substantially as a result of regulatory requirements, higher energy prices and increased network costs.  The worst offenders are O2 and Virgin Mobile but all are hiking prices to some extent.

While warmer weather may reduce energy consumption the ending of the government’s energy support scheme will still hit working class families hard, as energy costs for most are still two or three times higher than they were just over a year ago.

In 2022 Shell increased its profits by 211% and over the same period the increase for BP was 215%, while the taxes these companies pay in Britain are extremely small, compared to the overall amount they pay globally.  This is due primarily to tax breaks which the British government allows for investment in oil and gas extraction.  This not only helps line the pockets of the energy company shareholders but gives the energy giants little incentive to invest in renewables and other alternatives to carbon based energy sources.

For the consumer that means being robbed today, in the form of higher prices, and the future being hijacked due to the lack of investment in alternative energy sources.

The rises in Council Tax are the inevitable consequence of central government cuts to local government services, which have been ongoing for over 30 years and were accelerated by the Tories under their austerity programmes since 2010.  A tax system which tackled obscene wealth, offshore havens and super profits could put more in the Treasury coffers to support much needed local government services.  However, these are not priorities within the capitalist system, which puts the drive for profit above all else and seeks to mutually support those few who make the profits from the labour of the many.

The headline rate of inflation last month, instead of falling as widely predicted, actually increased from 10.1% to 10.4% meaning that prices are going up even faster than anticipated.  For those on the lowest incomes it is estimated that the real impact of inflation is much harder, as food price inflation is running at over 17% and this is where poorer families spend a higher proportion of their income. 

The Bank of England continue to make optimistic noises to the effect that the rate of inflation should fall over the coming year but that will still mean price increases for struggling families, just at a reduced rate of increase, and then only if the Bank’s predictions come to pass!

Still, the Tories claim there is some light in the darkness, the minimum wage has increased by 92p per hour to £10.42 per hour!   However, even this 9.7% rise is not in step with inflation so, to all intents and purposes, those on the lowest wages will still be out of pocket.

Meanwhile discussions continue with some sections of the workforce over settlements to recent disputes, which were fuelled by the accumulated impact of successive austerity drives and the Tories’ continued emphasis upon lining the pockets of their friends in the City of London.  The offer to both nurses and rail workers is below their initial demands but an improvement on the original offers, demonstrating that direct action can result in concessions being won from employers.

However, junior doctors still await a realistic offer and management at Royal Mail continue to hold out against a reasonable settlement for postal workers.  The desire of the Tories to put any disputes to bed before local elections in May and a forthcoming General Election still looks shaky.

The reality is that any agreements reached in the short term will have a limited shelf life as the capitalist system, based upon class antagonism, is always going to see conflict emerge in one sector or another.  No amount of firefighting by the Tories will stop the working class and its organisations from making demands for better wages, terms and conditions.

Unfortunately, another step away from giving any leadership in that struggle was taken by the Labour Party this week, when the National Executive Committee (NEC) supported a motion to ban former leader, Jeremy Corbyn, from standing as a Labour candidate in his constituency of Islington North.

Labour may well be on course to win a General Election but the abandonment of the principles of working class solidarity, peace and international solidarity, all to the fore under Corbyn’s leadership, are casting a shadow over what difference a Starmer government will make to the working class.

Until it is evident that the ruling class are truly trembling at the prospect of a government which is not the Tories, the benefits for the working class of a change of furniture at 10, Downing St may be little or none at all.  

If Starmer’s intention is merely the continuation of capitalism by other means, as it has been for previous Labour government’s, he is likely to find his position very precarious, very quickly.  After over a decade of Tory austerity a further dose of the same medicine will not go down well and the patient, not wishing to be fooled again, may well resort to a second opinion.     

25^th March 2023

“Democracy for All” – demand protesters in Israel

The protests which have been swelling the streets of Israeli cities against the machinations of Benjamin Netanyahu’s right wing coalition government, spilled onto the streets of London yesterday as the Israeli anti-democrat was welcomed by the Tories.  While Netanyahu shook hands with British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, on the steps of Downing Street, nearby protesters held up Israeli flags and shouted “Netanyahu go to jail, you can’t speak for Israel”.

Mass protests have been a feature of Israeli life for weeks as Netanyahu’s religious-nationalist coalition proposed changes to the judiciary that would give the government more power to choose judges and limit the Supreme Court’s power to challenge laws.

Without a trace of irony Downing St has stated that in his meeting with Netanyahu the British Prime Minister, “stressed the importance of upholding the democratic values that underpin our relationship, including the proposed judicial reforms in Israel.”  Although the pair shook hands on the steps of 10, Downing St, a planned photo opportunity was cancelled due to the vehemence of protests.

The proposals by the right wing coalition appear to have sparked the conscience of the liberal intelligentsia in Israel, who fear the erosion of their democratic rights.  Those on the Left in Israel, who have been actively supporting democratic rights, including those of the Palestinians, long before the proposed reforms, fear that things could go further.   They see a danger that the elements in Netanyahu’s government, who are religious fundamentalists even further to the right than him, will see this as just the first step towards institutionalising much of the apartheid practice for which Israel has become notorious.

Amnesty International, in a report compiled over more than four years and published in 2022, analysed decades of legislation and policy which it said proved Palestinians were treated as an inferior racial group, stating,

 “Israel has established and maintained an institutionalised regime of oppression and domination of the Palestinian population for the benefit of Jewish Israelis — a system of apartheid — wherever it has exercised control over Palestinians’ lives since 1948.”

The Netanyahu visit comes hard on the heels of a policy paper signed by the Foreign Secretaries of Britain and Israel setting out a Roadmap for future relations between the two states.  The paper does nothing to address the failure of successive British Governments to address Israel’s systematic violations of international law.  There is not a single reference in the paper to Israel’s ongoing military occupation of Palestinian territory and planned formal annexation of the West Bank. 

Reference to Palestinians in the policy paper is limited to one sentence in which Britain promises to cooperate with Israel “in improving Palestinian livelihoods and Palestinian economic development”.  There is no mention of addressing Israel’s ongoing denial of Palestinians right of self-determination and right of return.  As agreed through the United Nations, under international law.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has expressed alarm at the actions of the British government, especially when the government of Israel is widely seen as the most ultra nationalist, racist, misogynistic and homophobic in Israel’s history.  The PSC has also expressed concerns regarding the strengthening of cyber security relations outlined in the paper.  As PSC note,

“The cybersecurity sector in Israel is interwoven with the military – with Israel being central to the development and export of military grade spyware. This poses a danger to human rights across the world.”

Netanyahu’s government presides over a situation where it has been killing Palestinians at the rate of more than one a day since the beginning of 2023, at the same time accelerating plans for settlement expansion, and confirming plans to move forward with the annexation of the West Bank.

Right wing Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, last month openly called for a Palestinian village to be wiped out.  He recently made a speech in France denying the existence of the Palestinian people, from a podium depicting a map of Israel covering not just the illegally occupied West Bank but the state of Jordan. 

PSC have also expressed concern that the new paper “gives credence to the Israeli Government’s narrative that to accurately describe this system of oppression and call for action to address it, is a form of antisemitism”.

The policy paper can only serve to further undermine any credibility Britain may have left, as a state committed to upholding rights and international law. For the British ruling class and their representatives in the Tory Party, this is of little consequence, as long as their political and economic interests are served.  

However, there is no doubt that both Netanyahu’s visit and the policy paper will be rightly condemned by all of those who realise there is no way to bring peace to the Middle East that does not address the root cause of conflict, the ongoing denial of rights to the Palestinian people.

19^th March 2023

Anti-war protests in London, February 2003

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague this week issued an arrest warrant for Russian President, Vladimir Putin, for allegedly overseeing the abduction of Ukrainian children.  The pressure upon the ICC, from the governments of Ukraine and the United States, to point the finger at Putin for war crimes has been building and their position has finally been made public.

Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky was quick to applaud the ICC saying that the issuing of the warrant was “an historic decision which will lead to historic accountability.” The US based Yale Humanitarian Research Lab alleges that 6,000 Ukrainian children have been sent to Russian “re-education” camps while Zelensky claims that the number is 16,000 or more.   

It is little surprise that US President Joe Biden, also welcomed the issuing of the warrant.

 “He’s clearly committed war crimes,” Biden told reporters on Friday. “I think it’s justified,” he said, referring to the arrest warrant.

German leader, Olaf Scholz, has also chimed in claiming that the issuing of the warrant shows that “nobody is above the law.”

The court also issued an arrested warrant to Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, on the same charges.  Lvova-Belova has an altogether different take on the alleged deportations stating,

 “It’s great that the international community has appreciated this work to help the children of our country: that we don’t leave them in war zones, that we take them out, that we create good conditions for them, that we surround them with loving, caring people.”  

The Russian intervention in Ukraine has undoubtedly been a disaster for the peoples of both nations.  Given the right wing nationalist leanings of both governments in the conflict, it is no surprise that the issue of children is one which could be weaponised by either side.  What is equally noteworthy about the ICC announcement however is the timing.

On the 20^th March it is the 20^th anniversary of the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003, without United Nations support, but with backing from Britain.  The now infamous “dodgy dossier” which claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, along with the desire of the US to avenge the 9/11 bombings of 2001, in which Iraq played no part,  were the excuses for the US led regime change operation.

Getting rid of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, whom both the US and Britain had previously backed in a prolonged conflict with Iran, was deemed sufficient reason to inflict widespread destruction upon Iraqi cities, its health, education and service infrastructure and its people.

By May 2003 US President George W Bush had declared “mission accomplished”.  For Bush this meant that Saddam was removed and the Ba’ath Party infrastructure destroyed.  It did not mean that the US had any plan to rebuild the ruined nation, which quickly degenerated into chaos, conflict and instability.

The right wing opposition to Saddam have since established a corrupt political structure that protects their power through a system of patronage and corruption.  It is a widely held view in Iraq that, “Saddam has gone but 1,000 more Saddams have replaced him”.

Demonstrations against the corrupt regime have been met with brutality and repression.  In one protest alone in 2019, where young people demanded fundamental political rights, over 600 were killed and many more injured or arrested.

An estimated 500,000 Iraqi citizens are likely to have died from direct war related violence, with over 4.2 million people being displaced by 2007, according to the UN Refugee Agency.  US troops occupied the country until the official withdrawal in 2011, although 2,500 remain in order to address the threat of Islamic State, another consequence of the destruction of Iraq.

No-one involved in the illegal initiation or perpetration of the war in Iraq have had warrants for war crimes issued against them by the ICC. 

In the build up to the invasion demonstrations, notably on 15^th February 2003, had attracted an estimated 30 million people to protest in opposition to the war in 600 cities across the world, notably one million people on the streets of London alone, with thousands more on the streets of Glasgow.

While these protests did not stop the war the momentum behind them left a strong legacy of anti-war sentiment which the British ruling class have been working to dilute ever since.  Much of the support for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader was built around his anti-war views and emphasis upon international solidarity.  The smear campaign against Corbyn was consciously targeting his internationalism, especially in relation to the cause of Palestine, to undermine his ‘patriotic’ credentials and associate support for peace movements as a sign of weakness.

The carefully orchestrated media campaign around the war in Ukraine is also part of this process, justifying the massive spend upon weapons to prop up the Ukrainian government, as opposed to stressing the need for diplomatic solutions to the crisis, which will recognise the claims of all parties involved.   

A peace narrative would not fit with the anti-Russian objectives of NATO and its allies, nor would it support the demonisation of the Russian President which appears to be central to the Western game plan.   The ICC warrant appears to be the latest part of that strategy.  The profile which the media have given the issue is designed to drown out any parallels with the position of leaders such as Tony Blair and George W Bush, who do not have the ICC on their backs for their war crimes.

The fact that 20 years on the people of Iraq, not to mention those of Afghanistan, Libya and Palestine, find themselves in a worse position than before US and NATO interventions is not the story the West wants to tell.  The ICC warrant against Putin may be an attempt by the West to suggest that no one is above the law but it also serves to highlight the fact that not all leaders are subject to it.    

11^th March 2023

Gary Lineker – gagged by the BBC for speaking out on the Illegal Migration Bill

To suggest that state broadcaster the BBC have scored an own goal by suspending Match of the Day (MOTD) presenter, Gary Lineker, would be a worthy tabloid headline if the Tory supporting tabloids were not lined up to criticise Lineker rather than the BBC.   

For tweeting that the language used by Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, in describing the proposed policy to return asylum seeking migrants to their country of origin, whatever the consequences, as being akin to the language used in 1930’s Nazi Germany, Lineker has been asked to ‘step back’ from MOTD until an agreement is reached.  In plain terms the BBC is being asked to gag Lineker from making any comments the government find controversial.

What the BBC could not have foreseen is that key pundits, including Ian Wright and Alan Shearer, have refused to appear on MOTD in solidarity with Lineker, or that match commentators will refuse to work on MOTD today.  By kowtowing to the fulminating Tory right wingers, who are holding Rishi Sunak and his Cabinet as political hostages, the BBC has embroiled itself in an even bigger mess.

BBC Director General, Tim Davie, claims that the position on Lineker is in defence of the BBC’s supposed impartiality.  However, there has been no impartiality in the reporting of the so called migrant crisis. The government line that the country is being overrun by illegal immigrants appears to be generally accepted, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.  The real crisis is that people are forced to be migrants at all, very often as a consequence of military interventions in which Britain has colluded, such as Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, from where people have been forced to flee for fear of their lives.

The fact that the government’s proposals, contained on the Illegal Migration Bill, have been questioned, with several legal commentators expressing reservations over whether or not the law is compatible with Britain’s commitments under international treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), should be the real story.  The fact that a sports commentator has an opinion about the proposals is simply diverting attention form the real issue.

With the Home Office facing a backlog of more than 160,000 immigration cases and only a small number of countries available to which the government can send failed asylum seekers, many have branded the bill “unworkable”.

In other vital but less headline grabbing news, the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) has this week published a report which finds that more than half of local councils plan to raise Council tax by the maximum permissible 5%, while at the same time reducing the services they have on offer.

In order to balance budgets 93% of councils plan to increase charges in areas such as parking and waste collection, while over two thirds plan to utilise reserves or sell off land and assets to balance the books.  The LGIU suggest that at least 12 councils are on the edge of “effective bankruptcy” as they struggle to meet the core statutory services, such as social care, which they are obliged to deliver.  As the LGIU report states,

“This is an unsustainable situation. Eventually, there will be no more cuts that councils can make without endangering their essential services. Our evidence suggests that for just under 10% of councils, this is the situation they find themselves in now.”

Those services which are non-statutory and which councils are not obliged to deliver, have taken a hammering over the years.  Cultural activity such as arts centres, theatres and museums have seen massive reductions.  Swimming pools have either been closed or farmed out to the private sector but are in any case struggling to meet rising energy costs.

Over a decade of Tory inflicted austerity, followed by the profit crisis for capitalism, which is forcing living costs up for working class people, is pushing many councils to the brink of financial ruin.  In order to try and mask their responsibility for this growing crisis the Tories have created a series of regional Elected Mayors, handing them control over budgets which run to billions of pounds over a 30-year period.  The proposed North East Mayoral Combined Authority (NEMCA) is the latest creation to emerge, with an Elected Mayor likely to be in place by May 2024.

However, as ever with any Tory scheme which is supposed to devolve power and contribute to ‘levelling up’, it is merely smoke and mirrors.   The money taken out of local government over decades is not compensated for by the regional Mayoral deals.  The fanfare and publicity over the deals grabs the headlines but there is often little analysis of how much real impact they can have and how little they will redress the damage done to local communities.

There is no indication from Labour that they are likely to end this masquerade and put real power back into the hands and local communities and local councils, properly funded and resourced to meet local needs.

One of the areas under pressure due to the attacks upon local government is support for the homeless, including refuges and migrants, clearly not a concern for a government whose main policy drive is to “stop the boats”, as it attempts to ramp up its jingoistic pre-General Election rhetoric.

The very use of the slogan “stop the boats” in itself is an echo of the approach taken in 1930’s Germany to Jews.  Described as ‘vermin’ by the Nazis, the dehumanisation of a people laid the groundwork for tolerance of their persecution.  In the same way, “stop the boats” is a step down the same path and echoes more recent repatriation policies advocated by Tory racist Enoch Powell and the National Front in the 1970’s.

While the BBC will fill its news coverage with scenes from Ukraine, in line with government support for the right wing nationalist government there, it avoids facts about the reality of life for many in Tory Britain and the consequences of government policy for working class communities.  This is not impartiality, it is partisanship of the highest order. 

News reporting is by its nature a selective process, but what a broadcaster chooses to select tells a story in itself.  The BBC can try to cover up its failure to report objectively on the Illegal Migration Bill by suspending Gary Lineker.  It can fail to report on the realities of day to day life for working class communities under the Tories.  It cannot make these choices and at the same time claim to be impartial.  The BBC is and always has been, the voice of the British state.  The BBC’s claim to impartiality is an illusion.  Whatever it may claim, the BBC’s actions always speak louder than its words.    

4^th March 2023

The Patriarch of Jerusalem – oiling the wheels of British aristocracy

Mendacity and infighting are never far from the surface in the Conservative Party but this week has been something of a jamboree for those taking delight in seeing the party of the British ruling class turn itself inside out.

Headlines have been dominated by the farrago of the WhatsApp messages between former Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, and his various cohorts around decision making during the Covid 19 pandemic.  Hancock shared the messages, which amounted to 100,000 in total, with journalist, Isabel Oakeshott, whom he loaned a pen in order to script his memoirs, Pandemic Diaries, aimed at getting him off the hook for the thousands of unnecessary Covid deaths on his watch.

As a Daily Telegraph journalist, it is fairly safe to assume where Oakeshott’s political sympathies will lie.  She was presumably chosen by Hancock as someone who would give his version of events the best spin.  However, a mere two months after publication, hardly time for Hancock’s book to hit the remaindered bins, Oakeshott, who probably has not donated her fee to any NHS Strike Fund, has decided to release the messages and tell all to a national newspaper.  No surprises, that would be the Daily Telegraph! 

Whether Oakeshott has received a further fee for spilling the beans, and giving the Telegraph an exclusive, may come out in due course but suffice to say she is unlikely to be winning any awards for journalistic integrity.

In the scheme of things Oakeshott’s actions are mere misdemeanours compared to the crimes of Matt Hancock who, quite apart from presiding over the highest Covid death rate in Western Europe, has continued to pocket cash since he left office.  For his television stint on I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here Hancock is said to have added £320,000 to his bank balance, while at the same time claiming his salary as an MP, even though he was not there to do the job!  Presumably his memoirs came with a healthy advance too, so it is unlikely that Hancock will be visiting his local food bank any time soon.

Hancock has made the headlines because of his high profile role during the pandemic and the disastrous consequence of poor decision making on his watch.  The fact is however, that Hancock is not an exception but the rule when it comes to money grabbing amongst Tory MPs.  Boris Johnson is estimated to have made in the region of £5m since being forced from office, the latest payment being a £2.49m advance from one agency alone.

Johnson has resurfaced in the news this week as the Partygate inquiry prepares to get underway.  The interim report from the House of Commons Privileges Committee has already cast doubt on Johnson’s defence, indicating that his own communications chief admitted that there was a “great gaping hole”  in Johnson’s account of Partygate; that a colleague was “worried about leaks of PM having a piss-up and to be fair I don’t think it’s unwarranted”; and that there was reluctance from the government to provide the committee with unredacted evidence when Johnson was still prime minister, which held up its inquiry.

In spite of his recent earnings bonanza, the government has signed off tax payer funded legal support worth £222,000 to Johnson during the privileges committee investigation.  For his part Johnson regards the committee’s report as a vindication of his position and has instead suggested that it was,

 “…surreal to discover that the committee proposes to rely on evidence culled and orchestrated by Sue Gray, who has just been appointed chief of staff to the leader of the Labour Party.”

Johnson has been joined by the usual suspects in the European Research Group, Jacob Rees-Mogg et al, in condemning Gray’s original report as a left wing whitewash, given the post that she has been offered by Starmer.

The timing of Starmer’s announcement will not be helpful to the work of the privileges committee in the short term, as Johnson and his cronies will use every lever they can to cast doubt on Gray’s original report on the breeching of Covid regulations on Johnson’s watch. Whether it will be enough in itself to shift the weight of evidence against Johnson is unlikely.

The appointment of Gray is perhaps more important for what it says about Starmer’s intentions, should he be elected Prime Minister, namely that British capitalism is safe in his hands.  As a career civil servant and dyed in the wool establishment figure, the appointment of Gray is Starmer saying loudly and clearly that the boat will not be rocked.  Apologists for the Labour right have called the move astute, others see it as yet another sign of Starmer’s efforts to engineer a rightward shift in Labour policy.

In a further effort to normalise the absurdities of the British class system one of the lead stories on the BBC this weekend has concerned the consecration of the oil to be used in the coronation of King Charles III.  The oil has been created using olives from two groves on the Mount of Olives, using a formula dating back centuries.  Ruling class lackey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, enthused that,

“This demonstrates the deep historic link between the coronation, the Bible and the Holy Land.  From ancient kings through to the present day, monarchs have been anointed with oil from this sacred place. As we prepare to anoint the king and the queen consort, I pray that they would be guided and strengthened by the Holy Spirit.”

That anyone in full possession of their faculties in the twenty first century would give any credence to the notion of the divine right of kings is hard to believe.  That the BBC should report it as credible rather than credulous, sadly is not.

It is certainly true that the realities of the temporal world are such that what the government plans to spend on the coronation could be better spent on the wage demands of rail workers, posties, nurses, teachers and junior doctors, all desperate to make ends meet.  Such are the priorities of the British ruling class.  Yet another indication that they have more than outstayed their welcome.

25^th February 2023

The first anniversary of the Russian intervention in Ukraine has seen a propaganda frenzy in the British media extolling the supposed virtues of the Ukrainian government. Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, was afforded a prime time TV interview with the BBC’s imperialist apologist, John Simpson, to mark the anniversary of the war and was given a characteristically easy ride.

While the British media coverage continued its focus upon the demonisation of Russia, and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called for more arms to be poured into the conflict, China was proposing a 12 point peace plan as a basis for ending the war.

Earlier in the week the US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, had suggested, without evidence, that China was considering supplying weapons and ammunition to Russia.  The assertion was repeated throughout the week in US and British media with the suggestion that such action by China would be adding fuel to the conflict.  The millions of dollars worth of weapons poured into Ukraine by NATO clearly not adding any fuel in the media’s eyes!

The Chinese plan was met with characteristic scepticism by the leader of the imperialist world, with US President Joe Biden commenting,

“Putin’s applauding it, so how could it be any good? I’ve seen nothing in the plan that would indicate that there is something that would be beneficial to anyone other than Russia.”

As Left wing German MP, Sevim Dağdelen, stated at an international conference in Havana in January,“those who seek war send weapons; those who seek peace send diplomats”.  It is clear on which side of that assertion, Joe Biden stands. 

The history behind the war in Ukraine is given little media coverage in the West but is important to an understanding of the reasons for the present conflict. The war is the direct consequence of NATO’s eastward expansion after the end of the Cold War.  The expansion of NATO, to effectively encircle Russia, positioning increasing numbers of troops and weapons close to Russia’s borders, was clearly seen as a threat by Russia to its own security. In this respect, the accession of Ukraine or Georgia to NATO were unmistakably seen as red lines.  The demands for both EU and NATO membership from the current government of Ukraine are only serving to exacerbate this situation.

The failure of the Ukrainian government to adhere to the Minsk accords, agreed in 2014, effectively extended an ongoing conflict in the predominantly Russian speaking Donbas region of Ukraine, which saw 14,000 casualties in seven years.

A key factor driving the war in Ukraine is the desire of the United States to preserve its global dominance in the face of the rising economic power of China in particular.  The US has endeavoured, since the end of the Cold War, to prevent the creation of a common security system in Europe that includes Russia. The resultant war is partly due to the inability of Europe and the EU to act independently of the United States and to develop a policy in line with the interests of the people of Europe as a whole, including Russia, aimed at peace, stability and prosperity.

Across Europe, the war is having profound economic consequences.  The militarisation which follows from the mobilisation against Russia is creating widespread economic misery, energy price rises and increased daily living costs for working people across the continent.  While the low paid, unemployed and refugees fleeing persecution are in despair, at trying to meet the rocketing cost of energy and food, the shareholders of energy companies continue to rub their hands in glee, reaping billions in windfall profits.

A compelling argument has been made that the US, with Norwegian complicity, blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, cutting off supplies of Russian natural gas to Europe and increasing European dependence upon US imported liquefied natural gas imports. https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

The war is also having an increasing impact on the poorer countries of the Global South. Rising food and energy prices, the spread of hunger and poverty and the stifling of economic development in these already vulnerable parts of the world are the devastating consequences. Given the global impact of the war and the way in which the so-called “rules-based international order” propagated by the West has lost credibility, it is understandable that many states in Africa, Latin America and Asia have refused to take sides in the war in Ukraine.

Many nations in the Global South are clear that NATO and its allies are behaving hypocritically by asserting that the Russian attack on Ukraine marks an unparalleled violation of international law. NATO is seen as sidestepping its own history of illegal wars, involving crimes against human rights, the bombardments of civil infrastructure, extrajudicial executions and the selective application of international law. 

None of this has strengthened the credibility of the West in relation to Ukraine in the Global South, as demonstrated in the recent United Nations vote, when many abstained from supporting a Western backed motion condemning the Russian intervention.

Given the impact of the war on the Ukrainian people, and those in many other parts of the world, along with the real danger of nuclear war, ending the conflict must be a priority. The forces for peace and social justice across the world are this weekend organising widespread protests, focussing their appeals for a ceasefire and a diplomatic solution that will bring an end to the war.

The Western strategy of seeking to defeat Russia militarily by providing Ukraine with increasing supplies of heavy armaments is dangerous and irresponsible. Russia is a nuclear power and is not prepared to give up its existential interests. The arms supplies are prolonging the war and creating a risk of escalation to a third world war.

Like all wars, the war in Ukraine must be ended through negotiation. It will not be possible to arrive at a peaceful solution by unilaterally blaming Russia for its actions, while not addressing the issues of ongoing NATO enlargement and the need for Ukrainian neutrality.

The first anniversary of the conflict in Ukraine should be a time, not for an escalation of the conflict but for peace to prevail, for the sake of all of the peoples of Europe and the world.

Beyond the present conflict the issue for the Left across Europe must be to raise the question of the dissolution of the aggressive military alliance, NATO, and the establishment of a new security architecture across the continent, which is not aimed at intervening to support or initiate aggressive actions.  While the Russian intervention in Ukraine is difficult to justify the overwhelming response of the Western powers and their military wing NATO cannot go unchecked.

Without taking on this challenge the prospects for a negotiated settlement of the present conflict, or of preventing any future outbreaks, are greatly diminished.  

18^th February 2023

Jeremy Corbyn – victim of a witch-hunt of the Left by Kier Starmer

It may not say ‘New Labour’ on the label but Kier Starmer’s retreat from anything resembling socialism, to a European Social Democratic model for the Labour Party, took another step forward this week.  Starmer made it clear that former leader, Jeremy Corbyn, would not be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate at the next General Election.

Starmer left no room for equivocation in relation to his opinion stating,

 “Let me be very clear, Jeremy Corbyn will not stand at the next General Election as a Labour Party candidate.  The party is unrecognisable from 2019 and it will never go back.  If you don’t like that, if you don’t like the changes we’ve made, I say the door is open and you can leave.”

Quite how Starmer’s view aligns with the actual selection rules for Constituency Labour Party branches is another matter, although the right wing in Labour have historically found ways of imposing candidates on branches in the past, through a variety of arm twisting methods.

Corbyn was expelled from the Parliamentary Labour Party in 2020 for suggesting that the findings of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) investigation into anti-semitism in the Labour Party had been grossly exaggerated.  There is little doubt that the EHRC investigation was part of the orchestrated right wing and media campaign to smear Corbyn in the run up to the 2019 General Election, paving the way for the ill fated victory of the Tories under Boris Johnson.

More important for the ruling class than putting Johnson in No10 however was ensuring that Corbyn was kept out and a programme which could begin to challenge the entrenched interests of capitalist corporations and the City of London would not see the light of day.

As a willing puppet, Starmer was complicit in the smearing of Corbyn and the subsequent backtracking on the policy agenda for change, which had been initiated under Corbyn’s leadership, and was reflected in the 2017 and 2019 election manifestos.

The prospect of a mass popular base developing, around policies which would begin to challenge the power of capital, through nationalisation of key sectors such as energy, rail and mail; investing in the development of green technology; and tackling the inequities in the tax system for wealthy individuals and companies, was a step too far for British capitalists to tolerate.

Though the proposals of Labour under Corbyn would only begin to make a dint in the power of capital in Britain, the fact that they were leading people to question the system itself, question the reasons for the scandalous rise in billionaires while others lived in poverty or on the street, was enough to worry the ruling class.

The ever willing state run media, through the BBC, enthusiastically echoed the positions adopted by those expressing concern in the ‘national interest’, about the prospect of a Corbyn led Labour government.  Starmer weighed in as a vocal supporter of the so called People’s Vote campaign, pressing for a second referendum on Brexit, in contradiction to Labour’s declared policy of honouring the 2016 referendum outcome.

The anti-semitism campaign was the reactionary’s coup de grace, effectively accusing a lifelong anti-racism campaigner of racism and citing his support for the Palestinian people as evidence!

Starmer clearly wants to put the issue of Corbyn’s candidacy to bed well ahead of the next General Election and send a signal to the Left that the coup d’etat he helped engineer has been successful.  However, he may find that things are not so straightforward.  Quite apart from the Labour Party rule book issue there is that of natural justice.  Added to that is the potential for fightback from within the Labour Party, by Left activists and trade unions, keen to see policies which will address the needs of working class communities.

Any Left wing leader behaving in as high handed a fashion as Starmer would be branded Stalinist by a baying media.  Starmer will no doubt escape that fate but the inconsistency of a former Director of Public Prosecutions not being able to stick by his own party’s rules will be noted by many.

Distancing himself from Corbyn sends out a signal from Starmer to the ruling class that he has done their bidding and is making Labour safe for capital.  The ruling class have certainly obliged in boosting his electoral chances by handing him a Tory Party in a state of disarray.  In similar circumstances, in 1945, 1964, 1974 and 1997 the Tories have resorted to their tried and tested approach; retreat, regroup and return.  In spite of their own internal difficulties there is every likelihood that they will look to do the same again, seeing Starmer and his front bench playing no more important a role than keeping their seats warm.

As things stand, Starmer is likely to get the keys to 10, Downing St in less than two years.  The price paid though will have been a massive one and Labour’s commitment to real change quite possibly diluted beyond recognition, at least in the short term.  Fighting for the right of Jeremy Corbyn to stand as a Labour candidate is not a case of fighting past battles.  It is a fight for Labour’s future.

The mass extra parliamentary action which has developed in the current strike wave, challenging the government’s economic narrative that there is no money, or that wage rises fuel inflation, has kept the issue of challenging capitalism as a system on the agenda.

Organised working class resistance to attacks upon terms and conditions will erupt, whovever hold the keys to Downing St, but harnessing that energy into a political force for change remains the real challenge. That will require a focus upon the strengthening, not just of the Labour Party as a Parliamentary vehicle, but the whole Labour Movement as an expression of dissatisfaction with the class basis of British society.

Starmer may think that he is moving towards making Labour safe for capital but capitalism will never ensure the safety of the working class. The struggle to move beyond captalism and towards a socialist society, which can truly meet the needs of the people, rather than simply deliver profits to the billionaire few, will continue whether Starmer likes it or not.

The door is open. If he doesn’t like it, he can leave.

11^th February 2023

Tehran – protests continue in the Iranian capital

Today (11th February) marks the 44th anniversary of the revolution in Iran. The developing situation in Iran at present, and the international response to it, underlines the danger of widespread war in the Middle East as the struggle for political control in the region unfolds.

The stolen 2009 election, which saw the return for a second term of populist Islamist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, resulted in widespread protest on the streets of Iranian cities and gave birth to the so-called Green Movement, which demanded reform within the Iranian political system.  Mir Hossein Mousavi, the popular candidate who on all accounts had been considered as winner refused to accept the result and the mass protest of millions overwhelmed Iran for almost 8 months.  Mousavi has lived under house arrest till now. 

Last week Mousavi called for a peaceful political transition from the current Islamic Republic to a democratic secular model based on the continued and legitimate demands of the people of Iran.  Strikes and protests have been engulfing the country since 2017, as workers demand improvements in pay and conditions, along with meaningful trade union recognition.

There were mass uprisings in January 2018 and November 2019, and again last year, with various important ‎economic triggers, for example, the three-fold increase in the price of fuel.  There have been ‎labour strikes, teachers’ strikes, as well as numerous protest rallies held by ‎pensioners, nurses, and others.  Therefore, the factors behind the current uprising were already present and waiting for the spark which would ignite the fire. 

That spark came with the news of Mahsa Amini’s killing on 16 September 2022.  Street protests were a feature of Iranian life long before the murder in custody of Mahsa Amini but have intensified since then.  The momentum has the potential to pose a real existential threat to the Islamic regime.

Latest statistics from human rights organisations estimate that at least 500 people, including 70 minors, are known to have been killed.  Hundreds more have been injured and maimed during the current wave of unrest. More than 20,000 people have been arrested in connection with the protests during the same period.

The Iranian government has recently announced a pardon for those involved in the protests.  However, those who are deemed to qualify for a pardon are expected to admit that they were wrong to engage in protest action and commit to not engaging in such action in the future.  

So far, four of the detained protesters have been executed, in December and early January. More than 100 other detainees have been sentenced to death and are at imminent risk of execution. Fortunately, in the last five weeks, none of the detained protesters are reported to have been executed. This is mainly due to the international outcry that followed the last executions, along with protests and appeals from around the world for a halt to the other death sentences being carried out.  It is clear that the Islamic Republic dictatorship is feeling the heat and pressure in this respect, at least for now.

The executions follow a tragically familiar pattern in Iran where the accused have no access to lawyers or family members and are subject to horrific beatings and torture throughout their detention. “Confessions”, which are then publicly broadcasted via regime media, are routinely extracted through torture and have no real evidential value.

Instability inside Iran is attracting significant external interest as the enemies of the regime begin to mobilise in anticipation of its collapse.  On the one hand there is the increasing threat of military intervention from Israel.  At the end of January an Iranian military installation in Isfahan came under drone attack.

Reports of the impact of the attack are conflicting.  Iranian state media claim that the drones were destroyed, with limited impact upon the complex at Isfahan.   The Wall St. Journal describes the attack as “the work of Israel”, while the Jerusalem Post suggests that the drone strike had been a “tremendous success.”

Whatever the truth of these reports there is consensus that an attack took place, an indication that the scope for foreign intervention in Iran is being tested, the consequences of which could lead to wider conflagration in the region.

Just days before the drone attack, the Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, had called for NATO to confront “Iranian threats” and urged member countries to toughen their approach against the Iranian regime.

According to Euronews, after meeting with the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, Herzog stated: “The illusion of distance does not stand anymore. NATO should take the strongest possible stance against the Iranian regime in the form of imposing economic, legal, and political sanctions, as well as adopting a credible approach to militarily deterring this regime.”

Also circling are supporters of Monarchy, endorsing exiled Reza Pahlavi, son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, suggesting that Monarchy could be the way to “lead a transition” when the Islamic Republic falls.  While there is no evidence for popular support for a return to Monarchy within Iran, there is every possibility that a dictatorship compliant with Western interests may be deemed an option, if foreign intervention is stepped up to accelerate regime change. 

The demands of the current popular protests are for peace, democracy and social justice.  Neither foreign intervention, Monarchy, or a combination of both, will deliver these demands for the Iranian people. 

The drone attacks on the military complex in Isfahan must be condemned, as such dangerous military adventures pose a threat to the Iranian people, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf region.  All progressive and freedom-advocating forces in the region and around the world must raise their voices in protest against these policies.  The genuine protests and demands of the Iranian people must be supported and the future of Iran must be entirely in their hands.

Further information at www.codir.net

4^th February 2023

Energy companies – continue to pile on the profits

The means by which the working class in Britain are persecuted are many and varied.  Poor housing, increasingly limited educational opportunities, limited apprenticeships for skilled work, low pay, zero hours contracts, limited trade union rights, the list goes on.  Add to this the so called cost of living crisis (in reality a crisis of profits for capitalism), in particular relating to energy bills, and life for many of the poorest in our communities is little more than miserable.

In such circumstances it is no surprise that some may fall behind on bills as they try to square the heating or eating circle, forced to make impossible choices in order to stay warm, maintain good health and survive to the end of another week. 

Into this mix add the practice of energy firms forcibly installing prepayment meters, resulting in many vulnerable families being at risk of having their power cut off, if they cannot afford to top up.   Prepayment meters are generally more expensive, meaning that the scam perpetrated by the energy companies does not just put vulnerable families at risk it helps ramp up their already obscene profits.

The energy watchdog, Ofgem, having finally woken up to the practice of forced installation, has asked the energy firms to review how they deal with customers who fall behind on their bills.  The public furore over the practice has forced the energy firms to step back and most have now said that they will suspend all prepayment warrant activity, the polite euphemism for breaking into people’s homes, “at least until the end of winter.”

British Gas, one of the main perpetrators of the breaking and entering scam, have attempted to blag their way out of their responsibility by claiming that, “It’s not how we do business.”  This may be a thinly veiled effort to shift the blame onto the bailiffs they employ to break doors on their behalf but there is certainly no indication that British Gas are returning any excess profits accrued as a result of their nefarious actions.  It is very much how they have been doing business and may continue to be the case after “the end of the winter.”

Like a bankrobber counting the loot from his latest heist, ending forced entry is the least the energy firms can do, though it sounds a lot like saying, we have fleeced you enough for now but we will be back….

As robbery goes the energy firms could easily teach the average safe cracker a thing or two.  Shell this week announced profits of £32.2 billion for 2022, the highest in its 115 year history!   The company is valued at £168bn but lobbied hard against a windfall tax on the basis that it would hinder energy investments.  The reality of how Shell spends its profits is quite different however. 

The think tank Common Wealth has found that in the final quarter of last year Shell invested £871 million in exploring hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.  Shareholder dividends for the same period totalled £5 billion while marketing cost the company a cool £1.6 billion.  Apparently, shareholders will also benefit from a £3.2bn share buy back scheme. 

This is hardly the action of a company committed to forging ahead in pursuit of renewable energy sources.  On the contrary, a complaint has been filed in the US accusing Shell of including investments in gas under the label of renewables.

While the Tories did, under pressure, introduce a form of windfall tax on the profits of energy companies, calls for this to be made tougher are growing.   There is no indication at present that the Tories will relent with Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, more content to applaud Shell’s “substantive investments here in the UK.”

Nor is the government prepared to tighten the law when it comes to constraining the issuing of prepay warrants and the forced installation of meters, stating through an unnamed spokesman that,

“The independent regulator Ofgem operates the licensing regime for energy suppliers.  They have the power to fine suppliers who do not comply with their licence conditions.”

In effect the government is confirming its complicity in attacks upon the most vulnerable families, while doing its utmost to protect the methods of those prepared to maximise their profits by any means, at anyone’s expense.

The current strike wave is a clear demonstration that resistance to the Tories is growing and that their actions are clearly based on protecting the interests of their own class, rather than some spurious notion of the ‘national interest’. 

Linking organised trade union action to community resistance will be vital to taking the struggle against the Tories to a new level in the political arena.  That will require a commitment that the energy companies must be nationalised, in order to serve the interests of the many, not the few wealthy shareholders, as at present. That would be a real commitment to the national interest. Labour need to wake up to the need to take the lead on this issue or they may well be left behind.

28^th January 2023

Nothing in the tank – Chancellor Jeremy Hunt fails to enthuse even his own supporters

Britain’s Tory Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, claims to have a plan for economic growth.  As he and his political predecessors have presided over the active de-industrialisation of Britain for over 40 years this news was not greeted by thousands pouring onto the streets, to await words of wisdom from the Chancellor.  Thousands have continued to swell the ranks of picket lines however, protesting the case for better pay, terms and conditions.

Undeterred by the evidence of political chaos and the sounds of the crumbling economic edifice all around him, Hunt pressed on regardless.  He was at least conscious of the dangers of making any pronouncements in a public sector building, so retreated to the safety of the City of London, choosing the headquarters of the financial data and news service Bloomberg.  No nasty picket lines there and no one worrying about their next meal, their wait for a hip operation or how they were going to pay the energy bills.

Scene set, what did the wisdom of Jeremy Hunt consist of?  Well, in typical soundbite fashion, Hunt explained that he wanted to focus on ‘the four Es’; enterprise, education, employment and everywhere.

On the issue of enterprise Hunt was keen to see Britain as a leader in digital technology.  Hunt failed to account for the fact that the tech world is united in its criticism of the scale and speed of Britain’s broadband infrastructure, which is becoming more of an impediment than an aid to progress.  The failure of Britishvolt this week to establish the electric battery manufacturing plant in Blyth in Northumberland, also sent out something of a negative signal.  When asked about this during the week the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, denied it was lack of government support which undermined the project but a failure of the private sector to cough up enough cash.  

Enterprise, looked wobbly and its prospects were not enhanced by reliance on private companies, BT Openreach and the National Grid, to modernise the technology and electricity infrastructure.   Hunt is clearly relying on the misplaced Tory mantra that the private sector is the engine of the economy.   In reality it is public sector investment, planned and sustained, without which the private sector cannot function, that is the engine of economic growth, even in capitalist terms.

As the party which has done all in its power to dismantle the comprehensive education sector, and continues to champion tax payer subsidised public school education for the privileged few, hopes were not riding high for the second E from the Chancellor; education.

The recent autumn budget did see an injection of £2.3 billion for the schools budget but, far from this being a boost for greater educational opportunity or training pupils for jobs in a bright high tech future, it just about saved them from having to go onto the streets to busk and beg for pencils!   With seven days of strike action by teachers coming up throughout February, in protest at real terms cuts in teachers’ pay, and a struggle to recruit and retain in the profession, Hunt seemed to be out of touch with the realities once again in his second E.

Third E; employment.  The outcome of a confident booming economy where well educated and well trained young people get well paid jobs with prospects of promotion and advancement.  Such an approach would go against the Tory economic model of the past forty years and nothing Hunt said indicated that this would change.  The low pay, zero hours contract, anti trades union, gig economy does not appear to give Hunt any cause for sleepless nights.  Nothing in Hunt’s plan appeared to suggest that there were any issues to address here. 

With even workers at Amazon centres going on strike this week, it is obvious that the bubble is beginning to burst in a sector which has traditionally relied on poor terms and conditions being compensated for by relatively higher pay than low paid public service jobs.  The derisory 50p an hour pay increase offered to Amazon staff contrasted sharply enough with the billions the company made in profits to see GMB membership soar in the past week.

Finally, Hunt moved on the E number four; everywhere.  The government’s failure to give up on the redundant concept of ‘levelling up’ is abject.  The last round of so called levelling up funds saw 60% land in London and the South East; £19m go to the well heeled constituency of one Rishi Sunak MP, Richmond in North Yorkshire; with a few scraps left over to try and shore up so called red wall seats for the Tories, in advance of the looming General Election.  Continuing to labour under the levelling up delusion Hunt nevertheless claimed that the programme would ensure all parts of the UK would benefit from “making Britain one of the most prosperous places in Europe.”

As the world’s sixth largest economy it should not have escaped Hunt’s notice that Britain is already quite prosperous.  The problem, for the majority, is the uneven and inequitable distribution of that prosperity with the number of billionaires increasing at the same time as more people end up homeless and sleeping on the streets.  

In economic terms Hunt and his boss Rishi Sunak behave with the mentality of a couple of barrow boys flogging knockoff kit at a street market.  Shift as much gear as you can, as quick as you can, then do a runner before the cops turn up.  It is no way to run a modern economy, even a capitalist one.

A planned approach to production, investment based on the needs of the people, not the profit margins of private companies, and a socialist approach to economic planning, are the ultimate solution.  These are not approaches which fit the mindset of the Tories and sadly continue to be too taxing for the limited imaginations of those running the Labour Party at present.  The Tories are beyond redemption as dyed in the wool defenders of capitalism.  The hope remains that with pressure and persuasion Labour can change.

The final word on Hunt’s plan for growth however goes to the Institute of Directors, a traditionally reliable true blue Tory supporting institution, who described the content of the Chancellor’s speech with a fifth E; empty.