A Christmas Message

 

So it’s Christmas Day and I thought my follower (who would normally settle down with his Mum to jeer the Queen’s speech) might well have a bit of time on his hands, so this post is just for you, dear reader, as a thank you for giving up your time to read my ramblings this year.

The thing is I’ve never written a Christmas special before so I want to get the tone right. No banging on about how awful the Government is, or how they are responsible for thousands of deaths, or how their incompetence has turned Britain into the exact opposite of Love Island - hate island (the whole World hates and fears us now, good job Tory scum). Or, how poverty is at its worst levels ever, condemned by the United Nations and necessitating UNICEF feeding British children for the first time ever.

No, the tone has to be upbeat. So no mention of the Labour Party and it’s cowardly and shameful attacks on its own members. That would not be upbeat and neither would pointing out that Jeremy Corbyn was not the only Labour leader ever criticised in a report. I won’t be mentioning the Chilcott Inquiry and how it concluded that Tony Blair had lied to parliament and the British people to send us into a war in Iraq for which we are still paying the cost. Who would want to read that on Christmas Day?

Wikileaks

Tone is everything (I looked it up on Google) so it’s important that my reader (who doesn’t even have a Xmas Day Doctor Who special to look forward to) is cheered. Best then to take a leaf out of the BBC’s book and avoid any mention of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange who currently languishes in HMP Belmarsh after his show trial for revealing that the Americans were complicit in torture. I’ll keep that to myself for now. I’m sure the Beeb and The Guardian (who used Wikileaks to win awards and then when it suited them turned on the provider of that information) will give extensive coverage to the pre-determined guilty verdict as Julian is taken off to spend the rest of his life in a maximum security prison in America. 

Writing a Christmas blog is easy just concentrate on all the good things that have happened this year. No one said it had to be a long blog. Perhaps some news from around the World would be good. Not Israel though because if I point out that they are an apartheid state who define citizenship on strict ethnic grounds I could be accused of being anti-Semitic. So no mention either of the Palestinian villages that have been destroyed or the children, including 15 year old Ali Abu Aliah that have been killed by Israeli soldiers. I’ll leave it to Mondoweiss to point out that this “was the 6th killing of a Palestinian child in the occupied West Bank this year. And though Israeli soldiers have killed 155 children in West Bank in recent years, they have had near complete impunity-- a process "unworthy of a country that proclaims it lives by rule of law," the U.N. says.” But, that isn’t a story of peace and goodwill is it? So best not to go there. Besides I don’t want to get expelled from the Labour Party (or do I?)

I also won’t mention that the catastrophe that is Syria continues to unravel as Assad’s thugs murder their way through Idlib Province causing hundreds of thousands to flee their villages. That’s not the sort of thing to think about over Christmas dinner. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Syrians are trapped on the Turkey border should not detain us too long. After all, they’ll either be murdered by Assad’s thugs or starve, because nobody is lifting a single finger to help them. Nobody is prepared to take responsibility for a war in which the arms are being provided by American and British arms manufacturers. After all, if we didn’t sell them somebody else would.

Bolivia

But, this is Christmas and the message has to be one of hope. And, let’s be honest, amidst the catastrophe that has been 2020, there have been some spots of good news. The victory of the Movement for Socialism (MAS) in Bolivia following a near-coup by the USA which saw Evo Morales forced into exile shows that the left can prevail even against insurmountable odds. The thousands who contributed to Jeremy Corbyn’s defence fund showed that even in the U.K., a country where if 4 left wingers enter a room they emerge in 2 factions, the left are capable of working together.

I remain optimistic, even knowing that the current pandemic is far from over. Sadly, it has been so badly managed that a few more hundred will die, and many more left with long-term illness (a fact that pretty much has passed the media by because of their obsession with the economy). That the Tories remain ahead in most polls, though it should be said without a significant majority, is more a reflection of the woefully inadequate performance of the opposition than anything that Johnson and his band of incompetent misfits have done. But, this is reason for hope. Clearly, the Labour Party is now in the hands of a group of people who aspire to be conservatives but lack the conviction.

As this year - 2021- develops it will become obvious to more and more people that the Labour Party can offer them nothing more than a watered down version of the Tories. Don’t get me wrong I am not expecting a mass movement for socialism to emerge from the current mess. I said I was optimistic, I never said I was delusional. But, the Tories have no answers other than attacking the poor, and the Labour Party offers no alternate vision at all. Just a more competent version of what we already have, and perhaps a trade deal with Israel.

Peace and Justice Project

I am enthusiastic about Jeremy Corbyn’s Peace and Justice Project and if Corbyn is true to form, released from the fetters of the Labour Party bureaucracy, it may well develop into something approaching a mass movement. At the very least it gives those of us on the left not attracted by any of the existing or emerging fringe parties of the left a place to go. Quite how it works out is difficult to guess, but one thing is for certain unless SirKeith has a sudden epiphany Jeremy is not getting the whip back any time soon. Personally, I can never forgive the right wingers who control the party for their treachery at the 2017 and 2019 General Elections. I hold them personally responsible for delivering this mess of a Tory government. I can also never forgive them for the way in which they have bent the knee to Zionism and demonised a thoroughly decent man in a way which in any other circumstances would be considered the worst type of institutional bullying.

I don’t share the belief that hundreds of CLPs passing motions of no confidence in David Evans and SirKeith will do anything other than strengthen their resolve to clear out the party of the remaining vestiges of the left. For those still in the party it is going to be take the knee or be suspended and expelled. But, I think this could turn out in the long term to be a good thing. For too long too many of us have maintained a belief in the Labour Party as some sort of socialist party in waiting. It never was. What is now clear is that it never can be. Now is the time to shatter that illusion once and for all. There is no parliamentary road to socialism. Or certainly not if the Labour Party is supposed to be the vehicle.

My optimism is fuelled by two movements that exploded without a political party in sight. Black Lives Matter and the environmental crisis (though technically that’s a description not a movement). BLM was important because it showed that a worldwide movement could develop without the obvious support of politicians who are always wary of movements that place ordinary people at the centre. Who was the leader of BLM? As far as I’m aware there is no one person who speaks for a movement that is global. And, yes, it’s a movement not a moment. Those dopes who booed footballers for supporting BLM are a minority who in their poverty of imagination cannot understand that the black footballers they cheer are actually human beings and deserve their respect. 

Greta Thunberg

And, of course, the environmental movement does have a voice. Greta Thunberg. Like any woman who puts her head above the parapet politically (and at 17 is it fair to even call her a woman, she is still a girl, though she turns 18 on January 3rd) she gets abused for her looks rather than what she says. Those keyboard warriors who spit out their bile (number one bile creator one President Trump) are the last echo of a dying breed of misogynistic white losers whose sole contribution to society can be expressed in a ‘sad’ emoji. Greta, on the other hand, is taking forward a fight so important that the World literally hangs on its success. That she has the support of so many young people who, inspired by her dogged determination, walked out of school demanding change, gives us all hope. It is, after all, their future. 

The pandemic, Brexit, Labour’s civil war have encouraged us to push the environment to the back of our minds. After all we have 10 years before things are really catastrophic. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that limiting global warming to the 1.5-degree Celsius (2.6 degrees Fahrenheit) mark by the end of the century — a goal set to stave off the worst impacts of climate change — "would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society," we had 12 years to act. We have already lost 2 years of that time. 

Watching the way people in the U.K. have reacted to the SARS-Cov-2 virus (to give it its proper name) we can see why making the significant changes necessary to save the planet is not going to be easy. Most people were initially scared of what was labelled a killer virus, but over time more scepticism has crept in to the point that people not directly affected by the virus have started to question its veracity and even its existence. Much like telling people not to smoke because it may do them harm in the long run, telling people to work from home and avoid contact with others has been a difficult sell to people who have been encouraged to think that if you are under 50 you are safe and that even if you get it it’s just like the flu. I can only assume these people have never had flu and are confusing flu (which is a really nasty virus which in extreme cases can kill) and the common cold which is mildly irritating but most of us shrug off within a week. 

Socialism or barbarism

Although people are aware that we are getting more extreme weather for many people this is just an inconvenience and not worth making massive changes for. Now it is Christmas and I don’t want to depress people, but sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the climate emergency is not, well, an emergency is not only short sighted but potentially suicidal. When I say suicidal I don’t mean on an individual basis but for society. The fact is people cannot both maintain the lifestyles they now have and make the changes necessary to avoid a catastrophe in a few years time. Indeed, it is probably the case that maintaining lifestyles which include commuting miles for work, jumping in jets 2 or 3 times a year in search of sunshine and guzzling up the earths resources for our amusement is to put it simply no longer sustainable.

As a socialist I am motivated by a desire to build a better future for everybody. I am prepared to make sacrifices if it is to the benefit of everybody. I’m not prepared to make sacrifices so that the worst polluters can continue to hoard the wealth they take from the labour of others. In the coming months many of these issues will come to a head. The experience of the pandemic has shown one thing clearly: in a crisis you need a governmental/state response, the private sector is simply not geared to care about the wider community. As the Tory establishment seek to transfer all the burdens of the past 12 months on to those least able to pay, and as normality returns and they go back to attacking working people, an opportunity for a different kind of conversation will emerge.

My hope and my dream is that socialists, be they organised in Labour, or other left groups or independent will be able to have a significant impact on those conversations. Some of them will take place on picket lines, some on demonstrations, some through petitions and other forms of solidarity. Some over tea in the works canteen, some over a quiet pint in the local. But the truth is this Christmas Day as we look over the tattered remnants of what we still laughingly call ‘Great’ Britain, we can be sure that people are pretty fed up and seeking answers. If we allow a void to develop those answers will be provided by right-wing bully boys (and girls) who will seek to divide in order to bring in their own version of fascism. We know that the Labour Party has no answers, but socialism doesn’t need a party to flourish. The idea of socialism is so strong that attempts to destroy it have consistently failed. 

I would like anybody who reads this blog to enjoy Christmas as best they can. Take a break and have a rest. But come back rejuvenated for we will face significant challenges ahead, but if we are strong willed and determined we can develop the ideal of socialism in a new generation who may unite behind a red-green banner and both save the planet and humanity. That, at least, is my dream. As Rosa Luxemburg (citing Friedrich Engels) once said: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” That choice has never been starker. In 2021 let’s see if we can’t change course and avoid barbarism. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy Christmas and thank you for your continued support for this blog.

Whilst you’re here. If you like what you’ve read please subscribe by using the widget at the top left.

You can sign up for the Peace and Justice Project headed by Jeremy Corbyn here  

Socialist reading: Please support the following socialist blogs

Charlotte Hughes https://thepoorsideof.life/

Rachael Swindon http://rachaelswindon.blogspot.com/

Jonathan Cooke https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

And avoid the MSM and support these left wing sources instead:

The Canary https://www.thecanary.co/

Skwawkbox https://skwawkbox.org/

Counterfire  https://www.counterfire.org/

And for a great listen, I recommend Project Coups regular shows on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/incapablestaircase/project-coup-1730-22122020/

Being socialist

 

What does it mean to be socialist? Not, what does socialism mean? I’ve written on that previously. Twice. But, rather what type of person becomes a socialist and what do they believe in?

According to the popular press socialists are a very dangerous breed indeed. We are bullies who hate billionaires. We are extremists who support terrorists. We are vile creatures who are so full of anti-Semitism we can barely see it. We are frauds who seek to turn the country into a grey, joyless gulag. You get the picture.

But whilst that characterisation is actually quite amusing, especially if you’ve ever met a real life socialist, I decided to find out what some real socialists had to say about being socialist. I posted the following question on Twitter a couple of weeks ago:

If somebody asked you what it means to be a socialist how would you answer them? I was overwhelmed with the responses. You can see the entire thread here. (Some of the names that follow may not be true.)

Empathy

The socialist characteristic I picked up most was one of empathy or caring for others (for which empathy is a requirement). This was well expressed by Lynda Whyman who described being socialist as “To have empathy and care for everyone” Dave Clark also put empathy top of his list: “To have empathy and the ability to put others before yourself!” He continued: “To care for those who cannot care for themselves.” This was a theme also picked up by Mel Whittaker who said: “It means caring for the least able to care for themselves.” Caron Pierre went slightly further: “kindness and caring to ALL, Fair and decent wages and jobs for ALL, every man and woman being valued for their worth not their pocket and unity and democracy, no one person left behind!!!”

The ability to not only see the suffering of others but to feel it too, is part and parcel of the socialist personality. I don’t want to over-egg this. Not every ‘socialist’ has empathy oozing from every pore, and some people can be fairly instrumental when it comes to others suffering believing that the more people suffer the more they will see through the system. But, most socialists are highly capable of not only understanding suffering on an intellectual level but also of putting themselves in the shoes of the other. Of course, many people are drawn to socialism through their own conditions. But the truth is that dire poverty rather than producing socialist consciousness very often results in its exact opposite. It is no mystery that support for reactionary movements tends to come from the poorest and less well educated sections of the population. In 2019, for example the Joseph Rowntree Foundation using data from the British Election Survey estimate that more low income voters voted Conservative than Labour.

Socialists are often accused, by their critics, of envy. But it is not envy that drives the socialist impulse. Rather as Louise Hart put it: “An understanding that we all have the same needs and these must be met for society to thrive, its that simple.” Or, as Nikki T expressed it, “its about ..closing the divide between the haves and have nots of this world.” Or, as S Granic put it: “Caring for others and wanting a more equal society.” Whilst Karen Owen summarised it: “Equality for all”. Simone saw equality as rooted in a desire to live better. “For me it’s about a belief that we can have a better society than the one capitalism currently provides, built on principles of social justice, equality, human dignity & respect for the environment we live in & all the other species that we share the planet with.”

Connectedness

Socialists can, in many ways be summed up as being selfless. We are motivated not merely by individual acquisitiveness but a sense of being connected to others. This sense that working together toward common goals is a theme of socialism is captured by the American founder of the Democratic Socialists Nathan J Robinson:

“Those who have marched under the banner of socialism have shared a common aspiration toward a society without class divisions, where exploitation disappears, people relate to one another on the basis of equality and a spirit of comradeship, and the world is not owned and operated for the benefit of a few.”

The socialists on Twitter saw things similarly. As D Wailer put it: “At its simplest I think it’s just a recognition that a collective effort where the proceeds are shared equitably benefits all.” Or as Mariana Grajales saw it: “It means cooperation rather than competition.” Rin said something similar: “Being part of a collective for creating a selfless more equal society from the bottom up.”

This sense of the collective is, of course, in direct contrast to the ideology of individualism which fuels neo-liberalism. It shows socialists as not only believers in a different type of society but as willing to challenge the status quo. As Jan summed it up: “Speaking up when you see injustice in the world.” Or as Ellie Dunn put it: “It means that you try to speak for those who have no voice and that as a society you put the needs of the vulnerable and the many above the needs of the few.”  Of course, plenty of people rail against injustice by shouting at the TV, the difference with socialists is by our nature we want to work together to overcome injustice. Alan Marsden put it well with regard to our motivation: “It’s feeling the pain of others and wanting to create a world in which pain is minimised.”

Bravery

Let’s be clear here. It is no easy thing to make a stand against injustice. It takes guts. In the demonisation of the left it is always overlooked that almost anybody who devotes their time to socialism is not doing so for personal gain. It is far easier, and considerably less stressful, to look the other way and not get involved in battles where the odds are inevitably stacked against you. In popular culture ordinary people generally need a superhero or a middle class professional in order to win battles, but the truth is that ordinary people working together are a match for any police force, army or totalitarian government. What socialists have in abundance is bravery. A necessary condition for speaking for justice and peace. But, this bravery has its own reward as mentioned by @ellamanahmou which is “Being able to sleep at night with a clear conscience..”

No British politician of the last 20 years has captured this more than Jeremy Corbyn who offered a vision of peace, justice and equality at a time when the dominant message was one of austerity and increasing levels of deprivation at one end of society and ever increasing wealth at the other end. As a Labour leader he encapsulates a Labour Party that had until 2015 lived more as an ideal than a reality. That is not to say that it was without its successes. As Wanda Lozinska says: “I remind people that we've all benefitted from Labour’s socialist policies since the 1945 government which gave us the NHS, free education, the Welfare State and many more good policies since.”

The NHS stands out as Labour’s greatest achievement. This has never been clearer than during the current pandemic, where despite the risks to their own well-being staff continue to treat everybody regardless of ability to pay. It is this which socialists will continue to defend. As Peter Chave points out: “I'd say it's having regard for the needs of everyone regardless of their status or contribution.  Rather like the NHS.  As it still is but possibly not for much longer.”

Outrage

A number of people mentioned their outrage at the current system. “To be outraged that children are going hungry,” as Anne Maria Watkins put it. Al Bopper put it slightly differently: “Everyone deserves a home, a job with decent pay and to feel accepted and equally part of society”, but the idea is the same. Capitalist society is not delivering for many people and socialists see the possibility of progressive change. What is surprising is that these things need saying. That there are people who can defend a situation where children are hungry, or people are working on poverty pay unable to make ends meet. But, so long as there are, there will be socialists challenging them.

Tommy Orwell put this opposition succinctly: “Socialism is defined in opposition to Capitalism.” But, most socialists do not define their beliefs just in terms of opposition, but rather in the possibilities that could be humanity’s future. Sue Horsford summed this up as “.. believing in a fair and just society where everyone has the right to a decent quality of life.” Few socialists would argue with that.  Daisy Dewdrop also believed we were working toward a society where “everyone gains a good quality of life with rewards for effort”.  Whilst Stephanie Odai also analysed the potential difficulty: “To be able to live in a society where no one is struggling for a basic decent quality of life, while others amass wealth they cannot get through in a life time.”

Inequalities in wealth and, by extension, opportunities perhaps form the main difference between socialists and neo-liberals. Whereas neo-liberalism treats massive inequality as an unfortunate side effect of their free market economics and the poor as largely responsible for their own poverty, socialists see the systemic inequalities as inherent to an unjust system. As Steve Cann puts it: “To want to live in a fair society - one where wealth isn’t hoarded by a minority at the expense of the majority, and everyone is treated with equal respect and humanity.” This sense that equality is a matter of fairness informed a number of the contributions. As Tony says it’s: “a yearning for a better fairer society .. it's about sharing not taking. it's about caring and not hating.”

Redistribution

For most socialists the goal is not to do away with wealth entirely but rather to see it distributed more fairly. Stan Innate captured this succinctly: “Having feelings for things other than money & possessions. Wanting a more level playing field: it’s not wealth itself, it’s how it’s distributed.” This sense that socialism is about economic justice comes through loud and clear. Malcolm Parker summed it up well: “Where ownership of wealth is decided democratically, understanding that political democracy is meaningless if there is no economic democracy.”

A number of people used quotes to express their ideal of being socialist. These included Liverpool football manager Bill Shankley who famously said: “The socialism I believe in isn't really politics. It is a way of living. It is humanity. I believe the only way to live and to be truly successful is by collective effort, with everyone working for each other, everyone helping each other, and everyone having a share of the rewards at the end of the day. That might be asking a lot, but it's the way I see football and the way I see life.” That quote summed things up for Lefty, though I doubt many would disagree.

Others preferred Tony Benn. Red Eric, for example, thought these words apt: “SOCIAL-ists focus on  SOCIAL issues and things that will make people's lives better. CAPITAL-ists focus on capital, or things that will make them more money.” Journalist and socialist campaigner Paul Foot also got a mention, Mike Stanton using this quote:  “We are not fanatics or timeservers. We are socialists because we see the prospect which life holds out for all working people. We want the commitment of workers who laugh and love & want to end the wretchedness & despair which shuts love & laughter out of so many lives.” It was not just the words of journalists and politicians that inspire people ‘Shakespear’s Sister’ found it in the words of ‘The Boss’ Bruce Springsteen:  "Nobody wins unless everybody wins." Whilst Trevor Sterratt channeled Emilliano Zapata:  “Stand up and say something. Better to die on your feet, than live on one's knees.”

It is difficult to be a socialist and keep quiet. There is so much that is wrong with the World, much of which has been brought to the surface by the pandemic that socialists will always want to speak truth to power. As @HerzlIrgun put it: “I want nobody to be poor and everybody to have the best kind of life our species can have.”

Marxism

Billy Sellsley made reference to Marx in his contribution: “From each according to their ability to each according to their need.” The idea that there is a balance sheet of social life in which we can take out only if we put in is a common theme in socialism. But in addition to to expecting everybody to contribute what they can goes the recognition that the most vulnerable should be protected. Eddie Hughes had his own take on this: “To expect from each the realisation and input of their abilities for the health of Society, and to ensure each and every last person gets what they need to lead a full and fruitful life.” Although nobody actually mentioned Marx one of his most famous quotations cropped up more than once. Paul was another who saw socialism in Marxist terms: “The age old idea that we expect everyone to contribute to society as well as their abilities allow, and for everyone to be supported according to their needs.”

This sense that the World can be a better place provides another characteristic common among socialists. That is the ability to see beyond the particular. To be a socialist requires a wider view than just our own suffering. It is an ability to generalise. It is why Lenin described workers as only capable of reaching trade union consciousness and requiring a socialist party to create socialist consciousness. That is why the trade union movement has had to fight for the right to exist and why it is still a threat. As Noam Chomsky has put it: “Policies have been designed to undermine working-class organization, and the reason is not only that unions fight for workers’ rights, but they also have a democratizing effect. These are institutions in which people without power can get together, support one another, learn about the world, try out their ideas, initiate programs — and that’s dangerous.”

Trade unions can be schools for socialism, in that you probably learn as much on a picket line as you will from any number of Zoom meetings or blog posts. Most importantly, picket lines create solidarity. You will never forget the people who stood beside you on a freezing cold picket line, but more importantly you will never forget those that did not, particularly those that crossed. If there is one characteristic that defines socialists perhaps more than any other it is: solidarity. I have stood beside striking miners, dockers, print workers, firefighters, teachers, lecturers, council workers and have felt better for doing so each time. I have never knowingly crossed a picket line. These, it seems to me, are something of what socialism is all about. 

Solidarity

As Todd Chretian of the the American Socialist Workers says: “..as socialists, we should all reach out a hand to ordinary people who are under attack to offer our solidarity and support in whatever way we can, even if we do not trust progressive politicians as far as we can throw them.” The truth is that based on our understanding of an unequal society, and our empathy for those who are in the worst positions socialists find solidarity easy. Carole Walker perhaps came closest to capturing this sense: “We are not all in the came boat. We are in the same storm. Some have yachts, some canoes and some are drowning. Just be kind and help whoever you can.” Those in yachts are able not only to sail past those who are drowning but happy to throw the weak and most vulnerable overboard. The strength of socialism is certainly in the collective, but it takes a certain strength of resolve too, as encapsulated beautifully by Hazel Ann: “I am not a liberal snowflake. My feelings aren’t fragile, my heart isn’t bleeding. I am a badass believer in human rights. My toughness is in tenderness. My strength is in the service of others. There is nothing more fierce than formidable, unconditional love. There is not a thing more courageous than compassion. But if my belief in equity, empathy, goodness and love indeed makes me or people like me snowflakes then you should know - winter is coming.” And with that nod to Game of Thrones if that is on a t-shirt put me down for one.

There are some things which socialists take for granted and which were hardly mentioned.  Being a socialist, for example, certainly requires a questioning mind and the ability to see beyond what you are told is ‘natural’. Tony Benn, late on in his life, said that the ability to question was fundamental to progress: “The key to any progress is to ask the question why? All the time. Why is that child poor? Why was there a war? Why was he killed? Why is he in power? And of course questions can get you into a lot of trouble, because society is trained by those who run it, to accept what goes on. Without questions we won't make any progress at all.”

I believe it was Fidel Castro who said: “Socialism is and will be the hope, the only hope, the only path for the peoples, for the oppressed, for the exploited, for the pillaged; socialism is the only alternative!  And today, when our enemies would like to question that, we must defend it more than ever.” This exercise has shown that out in Twitterland there are a number of people prepared to defend the ideal of socialism and in so doing they are striving to create a better World for everyone. Some are in pretty dire circumstances themselves but all are able to show compassion for suffering whether close to home or further afield. All value solidarity, comradeship and collective action. All show empathy, compassion and incredible bravery. Just knowing that these people inhabit an often callous World gives me hope for the future. I’m proud to be a socialist, and everybody who joins me in that sobriquet should also do so with pride.

Whilst you’re here. If you like what you’ve read please subscribe by using the widget at the top left.

You can sign up for the Peace and Justice Project headed by Jeremy Corbyn here  

Socialist reading: Please support the following socialist blogs

Charlotte Hughes https://thepoorsideof.life/

Rachael Swindon http://rachaelswindon.blogspot.com/

Jonathan Cooke https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

And avoid the MSM and support these left wing sources instead:

The Canary https://www.thecanary.co/

Skwawkbox https://skwawkbox.org/

Counterfire  https://www.counterfire.org/

Women Only

 

Note: Apologies for the lack of live links. Google Blogger was not allowing live links when I wrote this so I have included a full list of references at the end.

This post is likely going to lose me a considerable number of readers, particularly amongst women. I have a confession to make. I have never been a supporter of all-women shortlists. This, I assure you is not due to any misogyny on my part. I have considered myself a feminist for a number of years. But, rather is related to two connected principles. 

Principle one is that positions, particularly well paid political ones, should go to the best candidates. Principle two is that if a party has a culture that is hostile to the idea of women candidates that it is the culture that needs changing not the rules dictating who can be candidates. 

Historic gender imbalance

I understand the arguments in favour of all-women shortlists. There has been a historic imbalance in the number of women in senior positions, including politics. In 1979, despite there being a woman Prime Minister, there were only 19 women MPs, 3% of the total. By 1997, the year New Labour were elected, that figure had increased to 120, but this still represented only 18% of all MPs. 

Given those figures the case for all-women shortlists was easy to make. In order to correct a historic injustice, it was necessary to take steps to privilege women candidates. Only the Labour Party implemented women only shortlists which it did in 1997. As of December 2019 51% of Labour MPs were women. In fact, whilst 51% is the highest number ever for women Labour MPs, there were 15 less women than in 2017, a total of 220 women MPs from a total of 650.

According to the Labour Womens Network “Without AWS we could easily go backwards, as we did in 2001 when AWS was not used.” Of course, this only refers to the Labour Party because the proportion of women MPs overall was 18% in both 1997 and 2001. In 2001 there was a slight retrenchment within Labour with 6 less women MPs. Though to be fair Labour lost 5 seats in that election. The LWN make the point, “Labour is best served by having a strong and diverse body of representatives. We are most likely to win when we field a team which reflects voters and can connect with them.” So, the aim is not simply a fair representation but, as importantly, winning elections. Hold that point for as we will see this is key to any debate around all-women shortlists.

Sexist attitudes

The more important point is that in Labour, at least as far as I can tell, there is no anti-woman culture. There certainly was a significant number of men in the party when I joined in 1983 who were, to be charitable, not accommodating of feminism. Many of these men were from industrial trade union backgrounds, but the feminists who spent a good deal of their time confronting them did a fine job of making those attitudes untenable within the party. 

That is not to say that women do not experience sexist attitudes from time to time but on the whole women have positions throughout the party and both men and women vote more on factional grounds than gender ones. In the Labour leadership election given a choice of four women and one man, 34 women MPs (15%) chose to nominate the only man. Indeed over 40% of his nominations were from women, a fair few of whom were selected from all-women shortlists including my own MP Anna McMorrin who, ironically, told us that it was time for Labour to have a female leader. By comparison only 14 women nominated Lisa Nandy, which accounted for 45% of her nominations. Rebecca Long-Bailey, the left candidate also received 14 nominations from women, amounting to 42% of her total. Emily Thornberry received 11 women’s nominations and Jess Phillips also received 11 nominations. In total, therefore given the opportunity to make a big statement 40% of those who nominated voted for the only man on offer. Perhaps more astounding though is that with 4 women candidates to campaign for, representing all factions within the party, over 60% chose not to nominate anybody.

I was never entirely convinced that the deep seated misogyny in wider society was reflected in the Labour Party, but some women tell me otherwise and I have no reason to disbelieve them. There is an argument that we have now had those battles and won. But even if that is not true my misgivings about all-women shortlists are not quite calmed. In 2019 84% of Labour MPs were university educated and 20% went to Oxbridge. I have nothing against university education, after all I spent 25 years working in universities, but it tells us something about the type of person who becomes an MP. It is worth stating here that there are no formal educational requirements to be an MP. In other words, a university education is not a requirement.

Occupational bias

It is though when we look at the occupations from which MPs come that we can see why all-women shortlists may not only be the wrong answer, but that we are not even asking the right question. In 2017 almost three-quarters of Labour MPs come from what might be termed the professions. As Helen Lewis commented in the New Statesman “Say your industry is dominated by men, which often means white, privately educated Oxbridge men. Institute a gender quota without tackling the underlying issues and you’ll largely fill the slots with white, privately educated Oxbridge childless women..”

Now, of course, this could be accused of whatifery in that pointing to the lack of access for one class of people does not justify discriminating against another. But the truth is that if the now prioritised group are disproportionately from one narrow sub-section of the population then the stated aims of the policy are not being realised. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the shift to Labour MPs being from a narrow sub-section has been caused by all-women shortlists, nor that it is unique to the Labour Party. 

My concern is whether all-women shortlists rectify their stated aim which is to make the parliamentary party representative of the electorate. In pointing to the class bias which has become a feature of parliamentary selection, for both women and men, it is worth stating the obvious. Privileging middle class professionals does not only favour women it favours men from those backgrounds too. What all-women shortlists do is provide a level playing field for women and men from those backgrounds, but in so doing continue the inherent biases against working class women, who alongside working class men now have virtually no representation in parliament and no realistic prospect of achieving parity.

Statistics

Let’s look at some statistics. We know that the population is roughly 50-50 male:female. In 2017, according to the Office For National Statistics 42% of adults had a higher education qualification. Of those with a degree, less than 1% had been to Oxbridge.  Yet, even amongst Labour MPs 84% have a degree and 20% are Oxbridge educated. As academic Tom O’Grady has pointed out “When (Labour) first achieved electoral success in the 1920s, more than 70% of its MPs were drawn from working-class occupations..” He shows how those from working class occupations have declined from over 30% in 1987 to just 5% in 2015. Labour MPs are more likely to have been barristers than baristas.

You might wonder whether this really matters and particularly if it is relevant to all-women shortlists? O’Grady points out that what he terms “careerist” politicians not only have a different background to working class MPs but view their role very differently. “Careerists are more concerned than working-class legislators with advancing their own political career. They are more willing to take policy positions for strategic political reasons (such as gaining the favour of certain sections of the electorate) or to help advance their political career, and they are more instinctively loyal to the party leadership. Hence, careerists have lower relative ideological support for left-wing policies, and their ideologies are less important in determining their stances in the first place.”

This is not just an opinion based on his own prejudice, his study looked at the careers and politics of a number of Labour MPs during the Blair years and used their attitude to welfare reform legislation as an indicator of his assumptions. He is clear, and I think this is significant, that these categories are not absolute. Individuals may differ, but overall the tendencies toward conforming to their group profile is very strong. Part of the reason concerns socialisation. Bear in mind that 49% of Labour MPs come from what the House of Commons Library call ‘instrumental’ professions, that is researchers, party officials, journalists, trade union officials or lobbyists.

Occupational socialisation

“Having begun their working careers around campaigners, pollsters, party staff, and others who are invested in electoral success, they will come to view winning elections as an important goal in its own right, and an intrinsic part of their job. Having worked closely with the party leadership, loyalty will become more ingrained for them. And having been surrounded by people who are invested in politics as a career, they too will start to see it as a career with a structured trajectory like any other white-collar profession, and will strive to reach high office.”

There it is. They “.. come to view winning elections as an important goal in its own right”. This instrumental approach to politics is justified on the grounds that it is necessary to win elections. The result is that the same women MPs who get their positions because women are under-represented, then pursue policies that disproportionately negatively affect other women. The careerist MPs, and this includes plenty of men, view the World through the prism of their own background and experiences. And, despite their stated affinity to the working class whose votes they need to maintain their position, their background is best described as middle class with very little lived experience of the daily struggles experienced by many working class women.

Tom O’Grady is clear that working class MPs can also be affected by careerism. The socialisation process of parliament is designed to promote fealty to the party, not to your constituents. I once worked in local government with John Smith who had been Labour MP for Vale of Glamorgan and he would tell us stories of his time as an MP. One such tale was his telling of the power of the whips office. As a new MP, he said, it would be made very clear to you that if you did as the whips told you, then you would be rewarded with, perhaps, a nice “fact finding” trip to a warm, hospitable country. Refuse and you might get a trip to Outer Hebrides. If you were lucky!

Blowing with the wind

In his analysis of speeches O’Grady found what many of us on the left have always suspected: “most working-class MPs were consistent over time, taking almost the same position regardless of the political context. Careerist MPs were the opposite: much more likely to blow with the political winds.” Indeed, blowing with the wind usually meant moving away from policies that might benefit their constituents and toward policies that would mainly benefit their careers. Of course, these two positions are not always mutually exclusive, but where they clash the careerist impulse is to favour the latter over the former.

The issue explained empirically by Tom O’Grady is that the British political system has evolved to provide access to the political system disproportionately to a narrow sub-section of the population. The same is undoubtedly true of other liberal democracies. What this means is that politics is presented through a lens that is shaped by the experiences and backgrounds of a narrow part of the electorate. More importantly it almost totally excludes people from around half of the population. Ordinary, non-university educated, working class people do not get into parliament, and with only rare exceptions get into the media which reports on, favourably or otherwise, our political institutions.

But what has all this to do with all-women shortlists? Surely if women are 50% of the population they should be 50% of MPs, of judges, of journalists, and, yes of the unemployed and homeless too? Fairness dictates that if they are less than their proportion in the population in every part of society that they should be given the leg up to achieve that proportion. Interestingly enough nobody is arguing that 50% of all poor people should be women, nor 50% of all homeless people.

Middle Class Labour

Finding candidates who are not middle class is increasingly difficult. According to Tim Bale, Professor of Politics at Queen Mary’s, University of London, who runs the Economic and Social Research Council-funded Party Members Project,  77 per cent of Labour members fall into the ABC1 (middle class) category, compared to a national average of 62 per cent. In other words, the problem of a lack of working class MPs is not just a question of different women, or men, coming forward, but of changing the dynamics of the party entirely. Unfortunately, current moves in the party to drive out anti-Zionists of the left, is likely to increase the over-representation of the professional, middle-classes. Whilst this is good news for women who view gender as the key characteristic of discrimination, it is bad news if the goal is to show that Labour represents either its voters or the general public.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is tasked with monitoring ‘fairness’ which it does on a range of key indicators. Their report ‘Is Britain Fairer?’ Is published on a regular basis. The last one was presented to Parliament in June 2019. The question here is did it find widespread discrimination against women that would justify special measures such as all-women shortlists?

Although the report mentions the under-representation of women in Westminster (and Holyrood and Cardiff Bay), it fails to look at the way in which different political parties take a different view. So whilst Labour now has 51% female representation the overall percentage is brought down by the other parties. But, overall, it is not discrimination against women that is highlighted but under-representation amongst ethnic minorities and the worsening conditions for those from the lower socio-economic background - men, women and children. The report concludes:

“Socio-economic disadvantage and deprivation are strongly linked to poorer outcomes in education and health. People from the most deprived households have significantly lower educational attainment, putting them at a lifelong disadvantage in the employment market.”

Women are disadvantaged

Women are disadvantaged. But, more so if they are from the lower classes. Of course women from all classes can be subject to domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, misogyny, and patronising, disrespectful attitudes. I am neither denying these nor underestimating their impact. But, systems thinkers suggest that in complex systems a failure to take a holistic approach can have unintended consequences. So that all-women shortlists whilst solving a problem of under-representation of women exacerbate a related problem by making political representation the domain of a particular social class. Far from making political representation more representative of the population they have made it less so.

The emphasis placed by middle class women on under-representation of women in the professions should make socialists wary of the motives of many women. That tendency to blow with the wind is seen in the shift from Corbynista to witch finder general by Angela Rayner, a beneficiary of an all-woman shortlist but also one of the few Labour MPs without a university degree. 

If there was ever a case for all-women shortlists we have to ask whether they are now a tool for bringing the Labour Party closer to the electorate, or one that drives a wedge between the elite and the rest. Do we really need more women like Lisa Nandy or Jess Phillips? Those on the left advocating all-women shortlists forget, or ignore, that it was not gender that determined whether MPs supported Corbyn, nor gender which determined whether they support policies which would benefit their less well off constituents. These things were determined by politics and although there are plenty of middle class socialists it is partly a function of class orientation. All-women shortlists have strengthened a currency in which being a parliamentary representative of the Labour Party is neither a vocation nor an honour but simply another career choice for people who can already choose from a variety of middle class professions.

References

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7483/

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05057/

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-labour-the-party-of-the-working-class

https://preventioncentre.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Systems-thinking-paper1.pdf

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/is-britain-fairer-accessible.pdf

https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2018/jul/decline-working-class-politicians-shifted-labour-towards-right-wing-policy

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0010414018784065

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/11-01-2018/sfr247-higher-education-student-statistics/qualifications

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominations_in_the_2020_Labour_Party_leadership_election#Members_of_Parliament_4

https://www.lwn.org.uk/all_women_shortlists

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/03/success-all-women-shortlists-risks-masking-issues-they-were-meant-solve

Whilst you’re here. If you like what you’ve read please subscribe by using the widget at the top left.

Why socialists should support foreign aid

 

If you want a sign of the political mood of the British people it is that, according to at least one survey, over 66% of people approve of the recent cut to the foreign aid budget. This includes 44% of Labour voters.

When Rishi Sunak announced the reduction of around £3 billion in foreign aid, he justified it on the basis of being “difficult to justify to the British people”. He went on to boast of how the Tories were planning to spend “over £24 billion of investment in defence over the next four years”. Of course the government have no difficulty justifying the more than £10 billion of contracts awarded without competition during the Covid crisis, including almost 500 suppliers with links to politicians or senior officials. Or the £13.8 million awarded to Seaborne Freight to run ferry services post-Brexit when it did not possess a single boat. A company that despite Chris Grayling’s support as a “new British business” which he was confident would deliver subsequently went into voluntary liquidation, according to Companies House, on 8th September 2020 without delivering a single ferry trip.

UK one of richest countries in the World

But, narrow minded little Englanders ask, why should the U.K. give money. After all, it’s true that times are tough for everybody. It is also true that they are tougher for some than for others. Whilst that is clearly the case nationally it is even more the case internationally. According to the World Bank (you’d think they might know) the U.K. is the 6th richest country in the world according to its GDP. Whilst there are different methods of calculating wealth GDP has been a standard one, only disliked by the countries that come top because it tends to show them up as mean spirited when it comes to supporting those lower down the list. Rather like rich people who like to make a big show of their charitable donations whilst at the same time doing nothing but complain about paying taxes and in many cases doing all they can to avoid them.

In 2019 the GDP of the UK was $2,827,113.18 millions. There are currently 195 countries in the World and the UK has a larger GDP than 189 of them. The foreign aid budget, prior to the latest cut, was 0.7% of GDP. This figure was agreed by the United Nations in 1970 and only by 2013 did the UK manage to meet it. This amounts to $19,789 million (around £13-14 billion). Over 70 countries have a GDP less than that amount. That includes Rwanda, Nicaragua, Macedonia, Jamaica and Afghanistan. Now you might think, why is it my responsibility to give money to those countries? It’s not my fault they are poor. But, to keep some perspective here, the foreign aid budget, and here I will use an analogy that plenty of economists will tear their hair out over, is akin to you having £100 and somebody asking you for 70p for a cup of tea. In that situation you might ask where on earth are they getting such a cheap cup of tea, but you would have to be pretty heartless (or Chancellor of the Exchequer) to believe that you could not afford it.

Indeed, the evidence is that British people are strongly disposed toward giving to charity, whilst at the same time not trusting Government to spend their taxes wisely. In fact trust in government, according to the Pew Research Centre, is at an all-time low in the so-called advanced democracies including both the U.K. and USA. In terms of charitable giving there is now a growing body of evidence that suggests that the British are fairly generous. According to the National Philanthropic Trust (NPT) around 64% of people in the UK gave to charity last year. The average monthly donation (according to 2018 figures) was around £45. The average wage in 2018 was around £29,000. After tax disposable income was probably around £24,000, giving a net income of £2,000 per month. This means the average person is giving 2.25% of their income to charity. This, for comparison purposes, is more than three times what the government is giving to foreign aid. Which raises the question if we are generous when it comes to charitable giving, then why are we so mean spirited when it comes to helping the poorest people in the World?

Charitable British

It is worth considering what charities people donate to. The most popular causes in 2018 were medical research (25%), animal welfare (26%), hospitals and hospices (20%) and children or young people (26%). The most money, however, went to religious organisations who account for 19% of all the monies given to charities. The majority of foreign aid is spent on humanitarian aid, education, health programmes and developing infrastructure so that countries are not for ever reliant on aid, which is very close to what most people are prepared to give money to charity to support. In other words, it is difficult not to reach the conclusion that people’s aversion to foreign aid is motivated by something other than the way in which the money is spent.

Whilst I was doing some research for this article (okay I googled it), I did find an interesting paper which has some relevance. In 2011 the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy based at City University, London produced a fact sheet exploring the relationship between household income and charitable donations. What they found was not overly surprising. As a household’s income rises so does their proclivity to give to charity. But, one of their key findings was that among households that do give to charity, those on lower budgets gave more as a percentage of their spending than do households on large budgets.

So, why do people feel so strongly about foreign aid when many would hand over 70p for a cup of tea to somebody they have never met in an instant?  An obvious reason is that they are encouraged to think of acts of charity as a good thing which make them feel good about themselves; but encouraged to think of anything ‘foreign’ as, by definition, a bad thing (well, obviously not cars, TVs, computers, quite a lot of foodstuff, doctors, nurses etc.). If being poor is seen as a personal failure being both poor and living on a different continent with different coloured skin represents the ultimate in failures. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the almost two-thirds of the population who oppose foreign aid are motivated by petty minded racism coupled with a sense of, largely undeserved, British superiority.

Foreign aid works

Quite often, and backed up by very little independent research it is asserted that aid programmes do not work and that they are riddled with corruption. This is often asserted by Tories who really should try looking in the mirror. Steve Radelet of Brookings Institute argues “There is lots of evidence from independent research showing the positive impacts of aid on development and raising living standards.” But he is not claiming that every aid programme works. As he points out: “..not all aid-financed projects work, some completely fail, and not all of the evidence points to positive outcomes. This is to be expected, just as some diplomatic efforts fail, not all military interventions work, and not all private sector investments succeed. So don’t be fooled by people who point to examples of individual aid projects that have not worked as evidence of systemic failure any more than someone who would point to Enron, Lehman Brothers, or any of the 20,000 U.S. companies that file for bankruptcy every year to argue that private investment doesn’t work.”

This is a really good point and whilst the majority of ordinary voters probably spend, on average, no time at all looking at the success or otherwise of aid programmes, they are highly susceptible to negative media narratives from billionaire funded “newspapers” which have an opaque racism at their heart. The Daily Express, for example, was positively salivating over the cut to foreign aid announced in the spending review. On November 25th it justified its opposition to foreign aid in a story headlined “Foreign aid budget cut was right thing to do say Express readers -'Charity begins at home'“ The shock result of their online poll being that Express readers are a bunch of racist, bigots, 98% of whom supported the cut. 

Whilst Express readers, in common with, it has to be conceded, many ordinary people, think the money should be spent closer to home this ignores two inconvenient facts. First, cutting foreign aid will not result in a single penny being diverted from projects abroad to good causes in this country. On the contrary, public spending (which funds the good causes so close to Express readers hearts) is also being cut. Second, if they are under the illusion that as a result of this mean spirited penny pinching the money might end in their own pockets, think again. The spending review contained no tax cuts for ordinary people at all.

Aid saves lives

To claims that foreign aid is ineffective Steve Radelet gives a number of examples of documented success stories. This is just one: “The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which among other things provides antiretroviral treatment for 11.5 million people, has been a key reason why global deaths from the disease have fallen by almost half since 2005.” Not that such evidence would convince the average Express reader (and here I should in the interests of balance point out that other racist, bigoted newspapers are available) because frankly those who dislike the very idea of foreign aid don’t give a damn about its successes. What a cut in foreign aid represents is an attack on ‘them’ by ‘us’. It is motivated by a kind of reverse envy in which giving even a small amount by those with the most  to those who desperately need it, seems to threaten the very status of the elite.

Those who dislike the idea of foreign aid hate only one thing more: refugees. Immigration, as we now know, was a key driver of the Brexit debate and subsequent decision to leave the European Union, a disastrous decision now less than a month away. The Vote Leave campaign homed in on a long-standing media obsession with so-called ‘illegal’ immigration to galvanise ordinary voters in a belief that leaving the EU would reduce the number of immigrants to the U.K. Most people do not make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants or between illegal immigrants and refugees. What they do make a distinction between is the country of origin of immigrants. As the Migration Observatory points out the distinctions are racist in origin: “At the preferred end of the scale are those who are white, English-speaking, Europeans and Christian countries while at the least preferred are non-whites, non-Europeans and Muslim countries.”

As Kerrie Holloway and Christopher Smart of the Overseas Development Institute pointed out in a briefing paper last year: “Many people overestimate the number of immigrants in the UK and underestimate their economic contribution: respondents in a 2018 poll believed that 27% of the population is foreign-born, when the actual number is closer to 13.5%.” This is not an accident. In the same way that the media have convinced the public that the Labour Party has a significant anti-Semitism problem, it has, over the years, created what can only be described as a ‘hostile environment’ for people from overseas by a concerted campaign of partial and wrong information.

This is all important in the context of foreign aid for if the public want to keep refugees out of the U.K. the best way to do so is to support programmes that encourage them to stay in their countries of origin. As the International Food Policy Research Institute have pointed out: “..aid can help address the issue of migration: It can promote long-term development that improves living conditions for those that would otherwise migrate.” But, of course, the racist mindset that dislikes foreign aid is mostly concerned with it being foreign, and no national newspaper is going to sell copies on the basis of supporting refugees, immigration or doing anything as, dare I say, “Christian” as supporting our neighbours.

Socialism and foreign aid

What of a socialist perspective on foreign aid? There are some who regard themselves as ‘on the left’ who if not in total agreement with the xenophobia certainly do not support foreign aid vocally. One reason for this might be that socialists need to be where the class is, and that means accepting some of their racism. But, if socialists need to be talking to the working class they should not merely be nodding along in agreement. Neither should they treat them as children to be chided. We need to engage the arguments with alternative arguments. To argue against foreign aid is to forget two of the central tenets of socialism: internationalism and solidarity.

In comparing aid to charity in this article I have perhaps added to the illusion that we are always the givers in a global charitable movement of resources. This allows us a moral superiority and puts the receivers in our debt. Charity, as we all know, is voluntary. You can choose whether to give, how much and what to. Aid has the same sense. Those who are more able give aid to those unable, for whatever reason, to help themselves. It is, though, in the givers gift. But, the history of exploitation of the parts of the planet where aid is now directed suggests that what is needed is not charity nor aid but rather reparations. 

Britain was undoubtedly a net beneficiary of years of Empire which raped and plundered other parts of the World. Their poverty was our doing. As socialists we should stand in solidarity with those who have been oppressed, even where we are, collectively if not individually, part of the oppressor group. Marx and Engels did not end The Communist Manifesto with the cry “Workers of the rich parts of the World give charity to workers in the poor part, whilst stopping them from leaving their country to better themselves.” Rather they issued the simple battle cry “Workers of the World unite!” 

Most socialist thinkers throughout the years have seen that cry as relating to trade union and revolutionary struggles where workers in the U.K. or USA have more in common with other workers in Afghanistan, Nicaragua or Rwanda than they do with the ruling class of their own country. As Rosa Luxemburg wrote many years ago: “..I feel as close to the wretched victims of the rubber plantations in Putamayo and the blacks of Africa with whose bodies the Europeans play ball..”  But workers in those other parts of the World need clean water, homes, and education in order to join the global struggle. Defending foreign aid in that sense is not defending capitalism but preparing the ground for workers to develop their own socialist organisations.

In an age of a global pandemic there might be another unintended consequence of a cut to foreign aid. As the U.K. rushes to get the Pfizer vaccine to its population and as other countries queue up to buy the coveted drugs, poorer countries may, once again, be left behind unable to afford to vaccinate their own populations. As we emerge from the darkness of the Covid pandemic it is more important than ever that we remind ourselves that the virus did not affect only rich or poor countries, it affected everywhere. If we deprive poorer nations of the ability to vaccinate against the virus then we do not protect home first but rather leave a dangerous virus to continue to mutate in ways that might later be uncontainable. Foreign aid is necessary to repair the damage ‘we’ did, it is necessary as a sign of solidarity with struggling human beings with whom we have more in common than we might realise, it is necessary because it’s existence challenges racism, xenophobia and bigotry and, in the final analysis, it is necessary because levelling up is a prerequisite for socialist transformation.

Whilst you’re here. If you like what you’ve read please subscribe by using the widget at the top left.

If you are still hanging in the Labour Party, don’t forget to sign the petition to have the whip restored to Jeremy Corbyn. It’s here: https://www.change.org/p/restore-the-whip-to-jeremy-corbyn