politics – Page 4 – Avanti Populo

Iranian election sham will not fool the people

30^th June 2024

‘Supreme Leader’ Khamenei votes in Iran’s election sham

The Presidential election in Iran, following the death in a helicopter crash of President Raisi in May, has borne all the hallmarks of manipulation by the theocratic dictatorship under the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ayotollah Ali Khamenei.

The death of Raisi, along with the ongoing wave of protests against inflation, poverty and corruption across Iran, have wrongfooted the regime. While the hardline Raisi maintained his position through the force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and his close relationship with Khamenei, popular support was always at a low ebb.

The response of the regime, in an election where all candidates are closely vetted by the Guardian Council, was to come up with a ‘safe’ candidate to add to the ballot paper, in order to appease so called moderates within the regime, and to head off any further protests from excluded opposition parties, trade unions, women and youth groups.

To that end the inclusion of 69 year old former Health Minister, Masoud Pezeshkian, in the list of candidates approved by the regime was a calculated and deliberate tactic, in order to create a superficial and cosmetic change, without affecting the power structure based on the theory of “political Islam”.

The reformist faction within the regime urged public participation in the election and encouraged people to vote for Pezeshkian. Their rationale is that the prospect of “building trust with the regime” is one which has more chance if a less hardline candidate occupies the presidency. However, such tactics have proven to have failed in the past, with so called reformist candidates such as Muhammad Khatami (1997-2005) and Hassan Rouhani (2013-2021) failing to make any significant difference to the theocratic power structure which underpins the Islamic Republic.

Decades of experience with reformist movements, including the Green Movement for political and cultural openness and the teachers, workers, and retirees movements for better wages, livelihoods, and working and living conditions, have shown that hoping for the possibility of reform within the ruling structure is unrealistic. The emergence of the Women, Life, Freedom movement, in response to the murder in detention of Mahsa Amini in September 2022, has been the latest expression of this desire for structural, rather than cosmetic, change in Iran.

In spite of the efforts of the regime’s public relations machine in the lead up to the poll last Friday, desperate to increase participation in the election given the less than 50% turnout in recent votes, only 40% of voters turned out. The depth of opposition supporting the boycott of candidates was widespread, further undermining the regime’s claims that the elections demonstrate democratic legitimacy.

A run off vote with the two highest polling candidates, Pezeshkian and Saeed Jalili will be held on 5^th July. However, with ultimate control over foreign and military policy remaining in the hands of the Supreme Leader the role of President in Iran can often be little more than ceremonial.

There is certainly no chance of either candidate challenging the corruption which is an endemic part of Iran’s economy, addressing the increasingly adventurist foreign policy in the Middle East, reflected in support for Hamas and Hezbollah, or addressing the lack of political and social rights of the Iranian people.

The scale of discontent within the country is underlined by the reports from the Union of Metalworkers and Mechanics of Iran (UMMI) that outsourced project workers in the country’s refineries, oil and gas installations and power plants have walked out in protest at their wages and conditions of service. The workers are demanding a change in shift patterns including a ‘14 days on, 14 days off’ rotation for oil and gas workers and to “de-casualise” workers’ contracts.

An estimated 3,000 workers joined the strike on the first day and the ongoing action may well inform attitudes towards the Presidential election. More recent reports suggest that the number of companies and workplaces affected by the action now stands at 80, involving at least 18,000 striking workers.

The scale of the suppression of political, democratic and human rights in Iran continues to be widespread an is an endemic feature of the regime. Activists across the spectrum of the protest movements in Iran do not see either of the presidential election candidates having a plan to respond to their real democratic and just demands. Even if this were the case, the theocratic structure would not allow for the opportunity to realise the implementation of democratic reforms.

Activists across the progressive opposition in Iran, who continue to advance democratic demands, continue to call for a country wide boycott of the election, in order to show that neither candidate represents the will or the aspirations of the Iranian people.

Progressive activists in Iran will continue to call for the development and deepening of the protest movements, seeking greater co-operation which can lead to the integration and convergence of different sectors.

Such a development will allow the true voice of the Iranian people to come through, not simply an echo manipulated through a sham election process.

Ukraine – adding fuel to the fire

15th June 2024

It’s a deal – Zelensky and Biden, partners in crime

The recently signed 10 year security pact, agreed between the United States and Ukraine marks a further ramping up of NATO’s proxy war against Russia. The deal, signed on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Italy last week, aims to commit future US administrations to support Ukraine, even if former President Donald Trump wins November’s election. The G7 nations also agreed to a $50 billion loan for Ukraine backed by profits from frozen Russian assets. US President, Joe Biden, asserted that the G7’s message to Russian President, Vladimir Putin, is “You cannot wait us out. You cannot divide us.”

The deal is widely seen as a step towards NATO membership for Ukraine and a further move towards the encirclement of Russia by NATO nations. Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, has been pushing for full NATO member ship for some time. NATO regards any attack launched on one of its 32 members as an attack on all, under its Article Five clause, so membership is seen as a trump card by Ukraine in pressurising Russia.

Even without NATO membership the deal contains some clauses which point to potential US intervention in the current conflict. For example, in the event of an armed attack or threat of such against Ukraine, top US and Ukrainian officials will meet within 24 hours to consult on a response and determine what additional defence needs are required for Ukraine. Under the agreement, the United States restates its support for Ukraine’s defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The agreement also outlines plans to develop Ukraine’s own defence industry and expand its military.

The text of the deal allows the two countries to share intelligence, hold training and military education programmes and combined military exercises, which will clearly be a provocation to Russia. The deal also asserts that Ukraine needs a “significant” military force and sustained investments in its defence industrial base, consistent with NATO standards. All of which is tantamount to a blank cheque for the US military industrial complex to make massive profits from the arrangement.

The deal also comes against the backdrop of Biden having recently shifted US policy against allowing Ukraine to use American weapons for attacks inside Russia, in effect permitting Kyiv to fire long-range US missiles against Russian targets near the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv.

In the press conference convened to announce the deal Biden said arrangements were being made to provide Ukraine with five Patriot missile defence systems, saying: “Everything we have is going to Ukraine until its needs are met.” Biden also added that his administration is “intensifying” its pressure on Moscow, including by warning banks earlier this week that they risk US sanctions should they do business with Russia.

The agreement between the US and Ukraine is the 16th such bilateral agreement Ukraine has now reached. As an executive order, it could be undone by a Trump administration, should Joe Biden fail to win the US election in November. However, the intention of the current US administration is that the accumulation of agreements collectively adds up to a form of security assurance that, although short of full NATO membership, will strengthen the hand of the military alliance in its provocations against Russia.

A unilateral so called, Global Peace Summit, takes place in Switzerland this weekend (15/16 June), initiated by Ukraine, to which Russia is not invited. The summit is little more than a vanity project initiated by President Zelensky in an attempt to galvanise international support around his right wing nationalist agenda. US President, Joe Biden, will not attend, sending Vice President Kamala Harris. China will not attend, as the Chinese Foreign Ministry has said it believes a peace conference should involve both Russia and Ukraine. Under half of the 193 United Nations member countries are planning to attend.

Russia remains keen to build upon a draft peace agreement negotiated in the early days of the war that included provisions for Ukraine’s neutral status and put limits on its armed forces. Ukraine continues to focus upon a 10 point plan drafted by Zelensky in 2022, which focuses upon the withdrawal of Russian troops and denial of the legitimacy of Crimea being part of Russia.

Mark Cancian, senior adviser for the International Security Programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said he expects many attendees to remain neutral on the war.

“Zelensky will want to turn the conference into an anti-Russian coalition,” he said. “However, some of the attendees may want to explore end states that are short of what Ukraine wants — for example, some sort of in-place cease-fire.”

While the summit is unlikely to achieve anything significant, without the participation of Russia or China, the signing of the 10 year deal between the US and Ukraine will ensure that the NATO strategy of encircling and provoking Russia remains in place and that the suffering of both the Russian and the Ukrainian people continues.

Peace proposals put forward by both Russia and China have been rejected out of hand by the West, which continues to increase the militarisation of Ukraine and pour weapons into the conflict, adding fuel to an already raging regional fire and increasing the threat of global war.

Ambition for real change?

9^thJune 2024

On the buses – but will Labour commitments short change?

While the political boomerang that is Nigel Farage, newly re-installed as leader of the Reform Party, wants the looming General Election to be about immigration, that will not be the major issue concerning working class people in Britain. Farage has for many years now pedalled his own xenophobic agenda and, while he has succeeded in fooling some of the people, some of the time, he will not fool all of the people all of the time.

Net migration into the UK is running at around 650,000, hardly a massive issue for a nation with a 65 million population and a responsibility to those it has forced to become migrants due to its complicity in bombing Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Iraq in recent years. The least the British government can do is to give those displaced due to imperialist wars a place of shelter.

The real issue underlying everything facing the British electorate is, as ever, the economy. Capitalism is not a system designed to help, support or alleviate the suffering of the working class. It is a system based upon the exploitation of that class by a property and land owning autocracy, fronted by the Church of England and the Monarchy. Its representation in Parliament is ostensibly through the Conservative Party, although the occasional safe Labour administration is allowed to slip through the net, while the Tories untangle themselves from a political mess of their own making, or have simply been in government so long that people desire a change. The current point finds the Tories under pressure for both reasons, hence the likelihood of a Labour government on 5^th July.

In which case, what will Labour do about the economy? The Labour leadership is absolutely committed to capitalism, so that will not change. The Labour leadership is committed to renewing Britain’s weapons of mass destruction, in the form of the Trident nuclear submarine programme, so less scope for spending on desperately needed schools and hospitals.

Labour’s manifesto will commit to the creation of GB Energy, a publicly owned green power company. It will commit to 40,000 more NHS appointments per week and the recruitment of 6,500 new teachers to shore up the flagging education workforce. It will even contain a commitment to recognising a Palestinian state, as part of the peace process.

Yet as positive as these pledges sound, there is still no real commitment to invest in order to grow the economy or address the issues of job insecurity faced by working class families. Sharon Graham, general secretary of UNITE, one of Labour’s biggest trade union backers, has said that she cannot endorse the document as the union has reservations about Labour’s position on hire and fire practices and zero hours contracts.

Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has been the standard bearer of economic caution, promising not to spend more than the economy can allegedly afford and not to boost public spending. The reality is however that to address the needs of working class people, in order to improve their lives, public spending is essential.

A recent report by the Resolution Foundation think tank suggests that the next government will have to make £19 billion of annual cuts to unprotected departments by 2028-29 if budgets are to be sustained without new tax rises. Both the Tories and Labour are committed to military spending increasing to 2.5% of GDP, an area both will protect, while local government, the deliverer of key services to help working class families survive is afforded no such protection.

There are ways to raise additional funds, quite apart from not buying weapons of mass destruction in the first place. A wealth tax of 1% to 2% on those with assets of more than £10 million, just 0.04% of the population, would raise £22 billion annually. That would pay for 75% of the entire social care bill for a year. In 2020 the Wealth Commission recommended a one off wealth tax for five years, which could raise a tidy £260 billion. Recent YouGov polling suggests that 78% of people support an annual wealth tax on the super rich. Clearly not a vote loser!

No one is expecting a Labour government led by Kier Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves to make a call to build the barricades and tear down the capitalist system. However, it is disingenuous of all three to suggest that there is not money there to support working class people and to make their lives more bearable.

Electing a Labour government on 4^th July remains a necessity but, with a majority which could be nothing short of monumental, that government ought to be firmer in its commitment to challenging the clear inequities in the system and putting in place policies to challenge them. Such a small step would make a minor dent in the edifice of capitalism but could make a huge difference to the lives of many working class families. Pressure must remain upon the Labour leadership to be more radical and to see getting the keys to 10, Downing St as the beginning of an ambition for real change, not the conclusion.

US/Saudi pact a prospect?

31^st May 2024

All eyes on Rafah – Palestinians survey the damage done by an Israeli strike

As the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) assault on the civilian population of Rafah continues, under the thinly veiled excuse of rooting out Hamas fighters, behind the scenes discussions are ongoing to reshape the map of the Middle East.

The prospect of an historic pact between the United States and Saudi Arabia is gathering momentum with the carrot of access to the latest US military technology being dangled before the Arab dictatorship.

The deal could be part of a package to extend US influence in the Middle East by including a pathway to diplomatic ties with Israel. The quid pro quo would be that the Israelis halt the genocide in Gaza.

Negotiations between Washington and Riyadh have accelerated recently, with some reports that a deal could be reached within weeks.

An agreement would undoubtedly aim to reshape the Middle East in favour of the United States, reinforcing the ongoing support for its long term regional proxy, Israel, while bolstering influence in the Arab world by increasing weapons sales to the Saudi dictatorship. The US is keen to strengthen its position in the region, which it sees as being threatened by Iran and China.

The rumoured pact is thought to offer Saudi Arabia access to advanced US weapons that were previously off-limits. The dictatorship would then agree to limit Chinese technology from the nation’s most sensitive networks in exchange for major US investments in artificial intelligence and quantum-computing, as well as getting American assistance to build its civilian nuclear programme.

The conclusion of a US and Saudi Arabia agreement would, it is suggested, be followed by forcing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a choice. Netanyahu would be offered the opportunity to join the deal, which would entail formal diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia for the first time. Israel would also be offered more investment and regional integration. The challenge for Netanyahu would be to end the slaughter in Gaza and agree to a pathway for Palestinian statehood.

In such a scenario Netanyahu would clearly face the ire of the right wing religious fundamentalists who currently prop up his government and are determined not to see an independent Palestine. However, a pact with the US and Saudi Arabia could also be seen by Netanyahu as a counter to Iran’s growing influence in the region and a potential restraint on attacks by Iran backed militias such as Hezbollah.

With a US election only months away President Joe Biden is desperate for a foreign policy breakthrough and the issue of Gaza has proven divisive amongst Democrats domestically. Student protests on university campuses across the US have exposed a fault line between those calling for a harder line to be taken with the Israelis over the action in Gaza and those more inclined to back the apartheid regime at all costs.

The thousands killed by the Israelis in Gaza are widely seen as a disproportionate response to the attacks by Hamas on 7^th October 2023 and the recent vote by the United Nations General Assembly, to increase the status of the Palestinian state, although dismissed by Israel, has added to the international pressure for a lasting ceasefire. Subsequent recognition of Palestine by Ireland, Spain and Norway has increased the pressure upon the apartheid Israeli regime.

“We have done intense work together over the last months,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed recently, while in Saudi Arabia. “The work that Saudi Arabia and the United States have been doing together in terms of our own agreements, I think, is potentially very close to completion.” Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan has also said that an agreement was “very, very close.”

However, while Blinken and Biden may be making positive noises about a deal there is scepticism, not only from the right wing in Israel, but also in the US. Republicans are unlikely to countenance a deal which does not give Israel sufficient guarantees, in particular Saudi recognition of Israel, even of it does mean an increase in arms sales to the Saudi dictatorship.

For their part the Saudis are keen to get as strong a deal with the US as possible, the aim being a formal defence pact which would bring the US military into play should the dictatorship be attacked.

While Saudi Arabia and Iran have been moving to normalise relations recently, with the signing of a deal in March 2023, the two Islamic dictatorships remain wary of one gaining more influence than the other in the region. For the Saudis, a defence deal with the United States needs to be sufficiently robust to send a message to Tehran without alienating the Iranians. For Riyadh to decide to openly bolster its security cooperation with Washington the reward would have to be worth the risk. In effect, Saudi Arabia seeks a defence pact with the United States that is credible enough in the eyes of both friends and foes.

The escalating violence in Gaza and Israeli intransigence on the question of a two state solution for Palestine is likely to undermine previous US diplomatic initiatives such as the Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, which established diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.

While hailed by the US as a means to encourage Israel to take positive steps toward ending its occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory, the real premise of the Accords was to prove that the Palestinian issue was no longer an obstacle for Israel’s relationships in the region, as Arab states dropped their demand for a Palestinian state as a condition to normalising ties with Israel.

Far from curbing Israeli abuses the Accords have emboldened successive Israeli governments to further ignore Palestinian rights. In the first year after the Accords, settler violence dramatically increased in the West Bank. Following the election of Israel’s most right-wing government in history in 2022, cabinet ministers openly called for the annexation of the West Bank and announced massive settlement expansions.

The United States does not have a great diplomatic track record in the Middle East, putting its own imperialist interests ahead of those of the people of the region. There is little indication that current initiatives will see different results.

Resisting the call up

26^th May 2024

Rishi Sunak in Belfast this week – life jacket essential!

The decision by British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, to call a General Election for 4^th July has been greeted with bemusement, not least within his own Party. The merest hint of economic good news, that prices continue to rise but by 2.3% rather than the double figures of a year ago, seemed to be enough to fire the starting gun for the campaign trail.

However, given the predictions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), neither of which hold out much hope for growth in the British economy over the next year, July may be Sunak’s best, if still slim, hope.

The OECD see growth at 0.4% this year with the IMF suggesting 0.7%. The IMF went on to suggest that the government’s sums for the next five years would see a £30 billion gap between what it proposed to spend and the amount it expected to raise in revenue. True to form the IMF suggested that the government would need to increase borrowing, raise taxes or cut public spending to meet these targets. With Chancellor Jeremy Hunt ruling out more borrowing, proposing to cut taxes, that just leaves another assault on public services in prospect if the Tories did pull off the minor miracle of re-election.

While Sunak pores over economic spreadsheets and concerns himself with the opinion of the Financial Times readership, the outlook in the real world is quite different. Quite apart from the catastrophe of 14 years of Tory government, with the damage inflicted upon public services and working class communities, there is the fact that since the calamity of the Liz Truss mini-budget alone shop prices are 20% higher than they were in 2021. For families eking out a living on the margins, forced to make the dreaded choice of whether to heat or eat, these figures have a massive impact. Inflation reducing to 2.3% will make little difference.

The first few days of campaigning have reinforced the sense that Sunak is out of touch with the real world. His initial announcement outside 10, Downing St in a torrent of rain, was to a serenade of Things Can Only Get Better, quite audible in the background. As the rain poured and the music blared, Sunak did not look like a man with any grip on his destiny.

The week has continued with a visit to the Titanic museum in Belfast, prompting a journalistic wit to ask if Sunak was the captain of a sinking ship. One senior Tory has been quoted as saying,

“It’s quite staggering that we’ve managed to call a snap election that took ourselves by surprise.”

Not exactly a vote of confidence. Former leadership candidates, Andrea Leadsom and Michael Gove have announced that they will not be standing for re-election. Gove is misleadingly described as a ‘big beast’ in the Tory ranks, though the only jungle creature he shares traits with is of the distinctly reptilian variety.

The latest Tory attempt at a vote winning campaign wheeze has been the announcement to bring back National Service, compelling all 18 year olds to serve a year in the armed forces or be engaged in some form of community service. Clearly Tory focus groups have not included anyone in the youth demographic, for whom this suggestion will have all of the buoyancy of a lead balloon. No doubt young people will already be mobilising to resist the call up. Another five weeks of this and Labour’s strategy of saying as little as possible will begin to look astute!

The Guardian columnist, Marina Hyde, has characterised the approach of Kier Starmer as being like “watching a very buttoned up man try not to have an accident.” It is certainly true that the Labour leadership could be more adventurous and that the commitment to supporting working class communities and trade union rights could be more robust. The six point plan announced by Kier Starmer is very much a dilution of the platform upon which he was elected leader and has been countered by the Left in the form of the Socialist Correspondent, which has suggested the following 6 steps towards peace and socialism:-

Peace and Non-Alignment
Sustainability
Health and Education
Public Ownership
Public Housing
Democratic and Workers’ Rights

The full article articulating the case for the above points can be found here https://www.facebook.com/story.php?id=100064546488320&story_fbid=846049760889899&__n=K

A vote for Labour will be essential in order to get the Tories out. A Labour government led by Kier Starmer however, will need to be kept under constant pressure not to succumb to the demands of the City of London and big business, not to make working class communities pay for the failings of the capitalist system and to begin the process of real, not just superficial, change in the interests of the working class.

The next five weeks will be crucial in ensuring the election of a Labour government; the following five years will be even more crucial, in ensuring that a government serving the interests of the working class emerges.

Shadow and substance – Labour’s six point plan

19^th May 2024

Starmer drama but where is the plot?

Much of the presentation of political debate in Britain, by political parties and the news media, is couched as theatre. Clashes at Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons are regularly reported in dramatic terms. Head to head television debates at election times pit candidates against one another with billings worthy of heavyweight boxing title fights. Personalities, rather than policies become the stuff of tabloid headlines as the popularity of TV soap opera is translated into political drama.

Presentation has become as important as content for those seeking the keys to 10, Downing St. With a General Election just months away the respective teams of Kier Starmer and Rishi Sunak are developing their communications plans and public relations strategies with a vengeance, in the hope of getting their man more media time, more positive coverage and more votes when it comes to the crunch of an actual election.

This week’s set piece from Kier Starmer was the presentation of Labour’s six point plan, an event which could not have been more theatrical. With a team of Shadow Cabinet colleagues behind him and an audience in front Starmer, in rolled up shirt sleeves, no jacket or tie, was presenting as a man who just wanted to get on with the job and get things done. TV cameras and news media were there of course to capture the key moments and translate them into the headlines such dramatic presentation was deemed to warrant.

The six points were emblazoned above Starmer,

Crackdown on anti-social behaviour
Launch a new Border Security Command
Deliver economic stability
Set up Great British Energy
Cut NHS waiting times
Recruit 6,500 new teachers

All very rehearsed and choreographed, no doubt tested through focus groups and with a certain type of Labour activist, but does this list represent the concerns of working class communities, where parents may be working two jobs to pay the bills, where the cost of childcare may mean the difference between taking a job or not, where Carer’s Allowance is being clawed back if earnings creep a penny over the princely sum of £151 per week?

Apparently, Kier Starmer does not mind being compared to former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, because Blair was a three times General Election winner, and who would not want that comparison? Which gives away Starmer’s philosophy entirely. Winning elections only matters if changes are made as a result of election victories, the winning in itself is unimportant otherwise.

Blair’s three election victories did not result in reversing the anti trade union laws of the Thatcher years. They did not abolish the right to buy which has seen the run down of Council housing stock and the decline of affordable homes. They did not reverse the privatisation of water and energy companies and prevent private shareholders from reaping vast dividend payouts while bills soared. They did not reverse the break up of the comprehensive education system, abolish university fees or impose greater regulation upon the City of London, to prevent the gambling, greed and speculation which led to the 2008 financial crash.

The Blair/Brown years of Labour government did not see a reversal of the damage done by the Thatcher/Major Tory governments but a consolidation of the errors, an acceptance of neoliberal economics and the cult of the individual as being of key importance, rather than the collective wellbeing of the community.

There is nothing in the six points outlined by Starmer that Rishi Sunak would not sign up to or disagree with. There is nothing which suggests a challenge to the status quo or any shift in the balance of power from the entitled few to the downtrodden many. Starmer describes the plan as Labour’s first steps on a mission towards change but after 15 years of Tory imposed austerity working class communities are crying out for giant strides not baby steps.

Is it possible to be a mere shadow of something which does not have substance? If so, Starmer fits the bill as being a mere shadow of Tony Blair who, in spite of his election victories, did nothing to improve the lives of working class communities. Starmer is set on the same course, in danger of taking working class votes for granted, an election victory for granted and hoping that a programme which does nothing to scare the King’s horses will be enough to get him there.

It is said that history may at first play out as tragedy but repeats itself as farce. The Blair/Brown Labour governments tragically let down the working class, keeping capitalism safe for the ruling class and the return of the Tories in 2010. While voting Labour at the General Election will be necessary, after so many years of Tory austerity, we must resist the danger of a Keir Starmer government keeping the seats at the Cabinet table warm for the return of the Tories in five years time.

Mass extra Parliamentary action to compel a Labour government to act in the interests of the working class and to develop a manifesto for real change is vital in the run up to the General Election and beyond. Without it we will have a Tory-lite, Blair-lite episode from Labour and it may matter little who wins an election in five years time.

Right to a home, not the right to buy

12^th May 2024

Labour leaders Kier Starmer and Angela Rayner – is housing policy radical enough?

The insidious ‘right to buy’ policy was one of the mainstays of the Thatcher government in the 1980’s. The policy was not sold as the privatisation of Council housing as a means to enrich private landlords or to inflate house prices, generating lifelong debt for many. That would have been too honest, too direct for the Tories.

Instead, the policy was sold as a chance to get on the housing ladder, an opportunity for home ownership, the golden ambition promoted as part of the philosophy of the individual above all, as the Tories marched onward in their determination to dismantle any semblance of post war social provision in housing, education and health.

The impact of the policy has been to increase uncertainty for working class families as Council stock diminishes, private rents increase and mortgages soar. As a consequence homelessness and poverty have spiralled.

Figures published by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) at the end of last month showed a sharp rise in the number of children living in temporary accommodation.

There were 145,800 children in temporary accommodation as of the end of December last year, up by a fifth on 20 years ago when records for this measure began, and up 15% on the same period in 2022.

Michael Gove, the DLUHC Secretary of State has admitted that “for years now we have not been building enough homes” and that the Government has missed the supply target of at least 300,000 new homes per year. However, building homes only addresses part of the problem, making those homes affordable and secure for working class families is the real challenge.

Recent Freedom of Information requests, sent by the New Economics Foundation (NEF), found that 41% of all council homes sold under the right to buy scheme are now being let on the private market.

The research also found that the number of homes bought under right to buy and now in the private sector has risen by 3.2 percentage points since 2014/15. This means that around 109,000 more former council homes are now being let privately.

The New Economics Foundation (NEF) has called for a ‘suite of powers’ over housing policy to be devolved from Westminster to local authorities, which would give councillors the “ability to make decisions regarding the future of their council housing stock and give them greater control over the tenure balance of homes in their area”.

Insecurity in the private sector is supposedly being addressed with reforms to the private rented sector. Gove has insisted that the long-promised plan to end tenants being forced from their homes under section 21 notices will take “a matter of months”, but could not give an exact timetable.

With housing security being such a key issue for working class families and with a General Election looming it would be timely for the Labour Party to have a radical approach to housing and look to repeal the right to buy legislation in order to give Council’s more control over housing stock.

Labour does have a plan for housing, which focuses on building on brownfield sites and on poor quality and ugly areas of the Green Belt, which it has redesignated the Grey Belt. Affordable homes are mentioned, in the context of new developments having to target at least 50% affordable housing when land is released. Which sounds fine but a target is not an obligation and housing can quite quickly become unaffordable, when it is on the private market, or it can get sucked into the private rented sector.

As with many policy commitments the Labour leadership position on housing is kept vague in an attempt to avoid any direct criticism. Meanwhile, Homeless Link, the national membership charity for frontline homelessness organisations, criticised the UK government for not uplifting funding to match rising inflation. The group found there were 39% fewer accommodation providers and 26% fewer bed spaces for people experiencing homelessness in England in 2021 compared to 2010 with funding cited as one of the main reasons for the decline.

Abolishing the right to buy would be a massive step towards a policy which could make housing truly affordable for working class families. Labour need to prioritise giving working class families the right to a home, over the Tory philosophy of the right to buy.

Cultural terrorism crackdown in Iran

6^th May 2024

Death sentence – Iranian rapper Toomaj Salehi

Engulfed in political, social, and economic crises, as well as rampant corruption, the Iranian dictatorship has accelerated its crackdown on the women and youth of Iran. The regime is attempting to demonstrate to its remaining loyal supporters its unwavering commitment to its outdated and medieval beliefs. In addition, the regime is seeking to divert public attention away from its economic failures, endemic corruption, growing social ills, and the environmental destruction caused by its wasteful missile programmes, all of which have blatantly squandered hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds.

Confirmed reports from Iran tell of a calculated attempt by the regime to drive women and youth away from protests in the streets, main throughfares, and city centres.

The recent crackdown by the security forces on women is taking place against the backdrop of a failing economy and widespread public discontent. The Iranian dictatorial regime, which has failed to overcome the deep economic crisis it has created, is presiding over a relentless rise in the cost of living. The majority of the population is being crushed under the weight of meagre wages, at the same time as the price of basic goods, food items and rents is skyrocketing.

Protests by workers, teachers, pensioners, nurses, students, young people, and women across Iran reflect the dire economic situation and deep-seated opposition towards the continuing rule of the theocratic regime.

Jailed Iranian Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Narges Mohammadi urged Iranians to protest against “full-scale war against women” after authorities intensified their crackdown obliging women to obey the country’s Islamic dress code.

The recent crackdown on women in Iran is a direct consequence of the decree by Ali Khamene’i, the regime’s Supreme Religious Leader. Khamene’i’s aim is to return the country to how it was before the murder in custody of Mahsa Amini in September 2022 and the massive “Woman! Life! Freedom!” protests which followed. Since then, the majority of women in Iran have chosen to shed their hijab in a show of defiance against the misogynistic regime and public assertion of their rights.

As part of the regime’s current crackdown a death sentence has been passed upon underground Iranian rapper Toomaj Salehi, an act described as cultural terrorism by the Committee for the Defence of the Iranian People’s Rights (CODIR). Calling for the unjust sentence to be quashed CODIR General Secretary, Gawain Little, voiced the organisation’s ongoing concern at the lack of freedom of expression in the Islamic Republic.

“Iran is a country with a significant youth population and popular artists like Toomaj Salehi are increasingly expressing the discontent that many young people feel about the theocratic dictatorship”, said Mr Little. “To sentence an artist to death, charged with ‘corruption on earth’, for nothing more than speaking out against the government is nothing short of cultural terrorism.”

Salehi, aged34, had gained widespread popularity with the youth of Iran, due to the challenging content of his lyrics, which addressed issues such as ethnic discrimination, child labour, human rights violations and protest activity.

Salehi was originally imprisoned for taking part in a peaceful protest, a verdict initially overturned by Iran’s Supreme Court before being reversed by a lower court in a bizarre manipulation of Iran’s judicial system.

The lower court, a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Isfahan, regarded the decision of the Supreme Court as ‘guidance’, before proceeding to confirm Salehi’s imprisonment and impose a death sentence upon him. The court alleged that Salehi had aided rebellion, committed assembly and collusion against the state, propaganda against the state and incited riots.

Salehi was originally arrested in October 2022 for participating in the countrywide Women, Life, Freedom movement protests, sparked by the murder in detention of Mahsa Amini the previous month. In July 2023 Salehi was handed a prison sentence of 18 year and 3 months for the original ‘corruption on earth’ charge.

While his case was referred to the lower court in Isfahan he was granted bail on 18 November 2023 only to be arrested less than two weeks later, on 30 November, for speaking out against the torture he endured while imprisoned. Salehi’s lawyers have vowed that they will appeal but without massive international pressure the regime is unlikely to change its stance.

With the regime’s actions, popular resistance has not dwindled in the least, and the solidarity demonstrated by the public, and support extended to those arrested, including efforts to secure their release, is growing markedly. All evidence points to the fact that the current resistance, together with popular support for women, is set to significantly broaden in scope.

The Committee for the Defence of Iranian People Rights (CODIR) strongly condemns the brutal assault on Iran’s brave and resilient women and calls on trade unions to protest the actions of the ruling regime in Iran.

CODIR believes that only through the concerted and widespread efforts of women’s rights organizations, human rights defenders, and the mobilization of public opinion around the world, expressing solidarity with the struggle of Iranian women and supporting their cause, can this oppressive regime be forced to retreat.

CODIR has also called for the international community to intervene, through the United Nations, to call for the release of all political prisoners and the dropping of charges against Toomaj Salehi.

More info at www.codir.net

Water No Get Enemy*

28^th April 2024

Sewage discharge into British rivers, an ongoing scandal

The scandal of water privatisation continues to outrage the public while having little impact on the policies of Britain’s major political parties. There is no doubt that water, along with the energy industries should be in public ownership, to ensure that they meet the needs of the people rather than the profits of shareholders, but neither the Tories nor the Labour leadership are committing to it.

The Tory position is no surprise. As the perpetrators of the deconstruction of the welfare state, comprehensive education, Council housing and much of the country’s manufacturing base, the Tories have demonstrated over many decades their commitment to the interests of the rich few rather than the working class.

Privatised in 1989 the water industries have borrowed £64 billion, paid out £78 billion to shareholders, failed to build the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing 21^st century economy and been under the control of a wide range of foreign investors with no interest in the needs of the British people.

Current foreign owners of the various regional water companies in Britain, totalling 72% of the industry, include the Chinese government, investment authorities in Qatar and Abu Dhabi, the Hong Kong based Li Ka-shing and Malaysian, Francis Yeoh. The state of rivers in England and Northern Ireland is such that the most recent report by the Rivers Trust does not rate any of them as being of “good overall” status.

Yet water companies continue to assert that the ratio of sewage that they treat, compared to the untreated sewage that pours into rivers and the sea, is improving. In reality, this is not the case. The sleight of hand performed by water companies is called “flow trimming”. This is a practice whereby sewage is diverted into rivers upstream of water treatment works. So, less sewage is entering the works, resulting in companies claiming to treat a higher proportion of it.

While the patchwork of private investors walk off with fat dividends the price is being paid by the public, who not only suffer from the poor environmental consequences, but also foot the bill in higher costs. The recent high profile debacle of Thames Water is a case in point. Given the massive mismanagement and fleecing of Thames by the private sector there is even talk of temporary nationalisation by the Tories to bail the company out. Not only will this require the government to take on board the company’s £18 billion debt but Thames continue to plan for a payout to shareholders and raise customers bills by 40% in the coming year.

The estimated water loss in the area covered by Thames Water is 600 million litres per day, almost a quarter of all the water it supplies.

Public policy elsewhere in Europe demonstrates that the British model is by no means accepted as universal, even within other capitalist economies, and a more people oriented approach can prevail. In 2010, Paris re-municipalised its water service from the hands of private companies including Veolia and SUEZ to create the public company Eau de Paris. The performance of Eau de Paris has made a significant difference. The price of water has been cut by 8 per cent and a new citizens’ commission was formed to enhance transparency and democratic governance. The new public utility created an active policy of water affordability for poorer households, migrants, and homeless people and increased the number of public water fountains.

Water use in Ireland is free up to a certain quantity and funded through general taxation. When Ireland’s creditors pushed for an end to this policy amid the Eurozone crisis and the introduction of water charges in 2014, the move was met with strong resistance, including large demonstrations, a non-payment campaign, and civil disobedience in the active blocking of the installation of water meters. These tactics eventually led to the suspension of water charges in 2016.

The fact that most Italian water remains in public ownership is largely due to the 2011 referendum at which more than 55 per cent of voters opposed the attempts at water privatisation that were also part of the larger austerity agenda that followed the financial crisis.

The consequences of the failure to address water quality go far and wide. Apart from the increase in direct bills there is the increased risk of disease from polluted water ways, potentially putting more pressure upon the NHS to deal with water borne infections. The accumulation of sewage into the sea has an impact upon marine life, while land based flora and fauna are threatened by the pollution of rivers upstream, to “flow trim” the regulation of sewage treatment.

That all of this is easily preventable, with the element of private profit eliminated and public good as the priority, should be a gift to a campaigning Labour Party leadership as the General Election looms. However, the fear of being accused of being ’woke’ is immobilising the Starmer leadership on this issue, in the same way that it will not address the question of energy nationalisation, and has diluted its approach to investment in green technologies to develop a progressive twenty first century economy.

Ultimately the solution to the question of how water resources are allocated and used is a socialist one, where the economy is structured upon the needs of the people, not the profits of private investors and shareholders. However, Britain has been particularly badly served by successive governments adopting an essentially neo-liberal approach to resources which should be under public control.

Evidence from elsewhere in Europe demonstrates that mass public pressure can bring about change. As the Tories look towards meltdown in local elections this week, and Labour look set to win a General Election later in the year, it is time to seize the moment and compel the Labour leadership to take a clear stand on this, amongst many other questions, which impact directly upon the lives of working class voters.

*with credit to Nigerian musician and activist Fela Kuti for the title. Check out more here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xviLDFqMznQ

Starmer commits to weapons of mass destruction

13^th April 2024

Kier Starmer at BAE Systems in Barrow

Labour leader, Kier Starmer, this week committed Labour to an additional £10 – £12 billion spend on weapons of mass destruction if elected. Writing in the house journal of the Tory petit bourgeoisie, the Daily Mail, Starmer described his commitment to British nuclear weapons as “unshakeable” and “absolute”. Starmer went so far as to describe the creation of the NHS and the British nuclear programme as “towering achievements” of the Labour government elected in 1945.

Starmer stated that he wants to raise military spending to 2.5% of GDP “as soon as resources allow”, echoing the commitment of Tory Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, to raise military spending to 2.5% of GDP “as soon as economic conditions allow”. Government spending is currently at 2.3% of GDP.

Of the 30 countries which are part of NATO Britain is currently tenth in terms of its percentage spend on its military budget by GDP. A rise to 2.5% would take Britain to sixth position. The other nuclear powers in NATO, the United States and France, spend 3.49% and 1.9% respectively on their military.

All NATO members have pledged to spend at least 2% of GDP on their military by 2024.

In a visit to Barrow-in-Furness where British nuclear submarines are built, Starmer said that Labour was making a “generational commitment”, stressing that this was to the,

“…Dreadnought submarines, to the continuous at sea deterrent, and to the upgrades that are needed over time. And of course there is AUKUS in there as well.”

AUKUS is the military pact agreed by Britain with Australia and the United States to provoke China in the Indo-Pacific region, under the pretext of a Chinese military threat to US ‘interests’ in the region.

The announcement by Starmer follows hard on the heels of Labour backtracking on its investment to develop green technologies; the commitment of Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, not to bail out bankrupt local councils; and the claim that there is no money to introduce universal free school meals, a measure which would benefit working class families and those facing the sharp end of the capitalist economic crisis.

Commenting on the plans, CND general secretary Kate Hudson said: “Putting billions of pounds into the pockets of arms companies and their investors will not reinvigorate the economy in any meaningful way.

“Instead, it takes vital funds and skills away from what could be spent on the just transition: like energy-efficient homes, better public transport and a public health service that saves lives and heals people.

“By committing to the modernisation and expansion of Britain’s nuclear arsenal Labour is contributing to the global arms race and tensions that we are currently seeing.”

She added that if Labour wanted to offer a positive option to the electorate, “it would commit to scrapping Trident and its replacement, and put nuclear disarmament at the forefront of its foreign policy agenda.”

The idea that the possession of nuclear weapons makes Britian safer, or sustains a world power status, is an illusion fed by the military-industrial establishment; the Tory Party and its backers; and the right wing press. The basis of the nuclear programme is that, if Britain was under nuclear attack, it could launch a retaliatory strike, based upon the concept of mutually assured destruction, appropriately given the acronym MAD. Destruction of any kind is hardly a guarantee of safety, destruction that is mutually assured is clearly mad in every sense.

Starmer has shifted Labour so far into Tory territory that the distinction between what each would deliver, following a General Election, is becoming almost impossible to distinguish. Given the abysmal record of the past 14 years it is almost inconceivable that the Tories could be returned to office. The character of any Labour administration however remains very much in doubt.

Unless mass extra Parliamentary pressure can persuade the current leadership to change course the dangers of Labour being little more than Tory-lite when in government remain real.