Why they don’t like us protesting

The Police and Evidence Bill now wending its way through Parliament represents one of the most draconian pieces of legislation introduced by any British government in recent history. Having said that the same was said about the recent Spycops Bill and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. ‘Most draconian’ it seems is relative.

Whilst the stand-out clauses are those which virtually make being Roma illegal and which make demonstrating more or less impossible, nobody is really asking why they need these new powers. As far as I am aware the police have not been begging to be turned into the British version of the Stasi, so what is going on?

A right to protest

Currently your right to protest is enshrined within the Human Rights Act (1998) which made the European Convention on Human Rights law in the U.K. Whilst leaving Europe means that we are no longer covered by European legislation, the HRA is not European but British legislation and therefore remains until it is amended or removed. Recent press speculation about Tories wanting to leave the ECHR should be taken with a generous dose of salt.

The legislation currently being brought before parliament is entirely inflammatory and, under current circumstances, entirely unnecessary. The powers that the Tories are seeking are pretty much what is contained in the Coronavirus Act (2020). The additional powers are being sought with the express intention of limiting our right to protest if the virus is ever suppressed to the level that something resembling normal life returns. Incidentally, the Coronavirus Act was renewed and extended until October this week. The Labour Party, predictably, supported the extension of the Emergency Powers which, if the government is to believed (stop sniggering at the back!) will not be necessary after June 21st.

The Tories have been vexed by the success of both Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter. Interestingly, they seem not at all concerned by gangs of white thugs rampaging through London demanding freedom from the lockdown imposed by the Government. Priti Patel, the vacuous and vicious, Home Secretary called XR “so-called eco-crusaders turned criminals” and used her speech to Conservative Party conference in early October, to accuse Black Lives Matter of being motivated by “hooliganism and thuggery”. The set piece violence in Bristol is, conveniently, at just the right time to allow the Government to claim it needs additional powers. Interestingly, or not, Labour’s response to the violence has been to condemn the protestors and say nothing about the revelation that the police lied about the extent of its officers injuries. What they said was “officers sustained broken bones”. What they meant was “officers inflicted broken bones”. It was an understandable mix up and certainly not the sort of thing you would expect a Labour politician to notice.

Nothing new

None of this is anything new. The Tories have always seen protests as outbreaks of lawlessness. When you control the economy and boardrooms and belong to exclusive clubs where you can vent your prejudices surrounded by those who share all your petty vindictive prejudices, you don’t need to spend time marching and chanting to get your point across. Ironically, one of the most successful British films of the last couple of years was Mike Leigh’s film Peterloo, based on the real events from 1819 where local cavalry charged democracy demonstrators killing at least 18 people. Most people watching that film had no idea the hypocrisy of the ruling class was alive and kicking in the 21st Century.

But, this vindictiveness does not explain why now? The Tories have an 80-seat majority, the weakest opposition in living memory, the country locked down by a pandemic they are mishandling, an obsequious media supporting everything they do and say and a defeated left in absolute disarray. They have a Public Order Act which allows them to prevent demos from marching on any streets they want and to search anybody they suspect may have a concealed weapon. Trade unions have been rendered all but useless by successive Trade Union Acts which make getting a strike nigh on impossible and spreading that strike, by secondary picketing, unlawful. In short, the U.K. already resembles a dystopian novel. Why now?

Perhaps some indication of what is happening can be found in something more mundane than crime and policing. In June 2020 it was reported that the British economy had contracted by 20.4% in a single quarter. This is a phenomenal number and although it was blamed on the lockdown restrictions reveals underlying issues which no amount of wishful thinking can eradicate.

The elephant in the room

According to Forbes, the U.K. economy contracted by 9.9% overall in 2020 the highest fall on record. The slump is twice that of the 2009 financial crisis and is possibly the worst in 300 years. Whilst this is laid firmly at the feet of the pandemic, it is noticeable that the USA which has probably equalled the U.K. in terms of mismanaging the pandemic fell by, a still record but relatively small compared to the U.K., 3.5%.

Is there an elephant lurking in the room? Cast your mind back to 2016 when then Chancellor George Osborne warned that Brexit would: “push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit..” As much as it pains me to admit it, George was right. Of course, most people were not really worrying about the impact of Brexit whilst we were all focussed on the pandemic. The Balance recently did a summary of the impact of Brexit on the U.K. This is what it concluded:

“Uncertainty over Brexit slowed the U.K.'s growth from 2.4% in 2015 to 1.0% in 2019. The U.K. government estimated that Brexit would lower the U.K.’s growth by up to 6.7% over 15 years. It assumed the current terms of free trade but restricted immigration. The British pound fell from $1.48 on the day of the referendum to $1.36 the next day. That helps exports but increases the prices of imports. It has not regained its pre-Brexit high.”

You may wonder what all these boring percentages have got to do with the police attacking demonstrators? If so then it is worth reminding you that you live in a capitalist economy. It did not cease to be capitalist as a result of the pandemic. Even if Chancellor Rishi Sunak borrowed heavily from the social democratic playbook to manage the pandemic economy, effectively nationalising 80% of the economy through the furlough scheme. Despite this, it remains true that capital needs a ‘reserve army of Labour’ so a certain level of unemployment is built into the system. But, if the economy contracts to a level where it is barely moving at all, that unemployment is not seasonal but structural. It is, to put it in simple terms, a sign of a deepening crisis.

It’s the economy, stupid

Advocates of ‘modern monetary theory’ suggest that all the government has to do is print more money but it is not quite that simple. In reality, that is what the Government have done. The fact is that capitalism is predicated on a system where some people have capital (what you might call money) to invest and the vast majority have nothing to invest but their labour power. This remains the case today. In this sense nothing has changed since the days of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. 

But, and this is probably the most important insight from Marx, capitalists don’t invest to produce things that are useful. Very few capitalists have any genuine passion for their products. Capitalists invest to obtain a return on their capital. Broadly speaking they want to make a profit. Investment decisions are not made on what is best for society but on what is best for individual investors. And, here’s the rub, investors get used to a certain rate of return. When that rate of return starts to fall, then they don’t invest. In theory, governments could invest in their stead. In reality printing money in order to prop up the economy has only ever been a short term solution. 

The calculation for the rate of profit is very technical and I won’t bore you with it, but the idea that it is declining is monitored by the American economist Michael Roberts who has tracked the rate of profit in America from 1945-2019 and this is his conclusion:  “But over the whole post-war period up to 2019, there was a .. fall in the US rate of profit ..of 31%!” To be clear Roberts does not say, neither did Marx for that matter, that the rate of profit will fall uniformly or will end up at zero or below. There are still profits to be made but the point is that as they get harder to find so investors lose that all important factor: confidence; and that means that they hang onto their wealth rather than risk it in productive enterprises that provide those all important jobs for the rest of us.

Confidence trick

It’s important to note here that business confidence, a measure of whether businesses think they will do well in the coming months and investment confidence, a measure of whether people are prepared to invest in that confidence are not necessarily the same thing. In 2015, for example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales reported that “it isn’t businesses lack of funds causing the downturn in investment, rather confidence in the economic environment in which they’re operating in is the problem.”  By 2019 the same organisation was reporting that “Confidence across all sectors are in negative territory apart from IT & Communications.”

What we are witnessing is an economy in a spiral of decline. Confidence is low. That feeds into a very real lack of investment. As the U.K. has committed the double self inflicted misery of Brexit and mishandling the pandemic, so what investment there is has moved to other locations. What this means is that jobs and pay rises are going to be hard to come by. What this means is that people’s anger and frustration will be expressed in the only way it can: in more and more demonstrations. 

For the Tories (in both the Conservatives and Labour) demonstrations are only permissible if they can have no impact whatsoever and cause no disruption to anybody else. Whilst you would expect the Conservative Party to be hostile to ordinary people taking to the streets, it probably shouldn’t be too much of a surprise when Shadow Housing Secretary Thangam Debbonaire and Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds faced with scenes of police and protestors clashing immediately condemn the protestors. Of course, violent scenes are not desirable but from Peterloo onwards the first recourse of beleaguered governments is to strike out first and ask questions later.

For the left a real dilemma now opens up. Demonstrating during a pandemic, with all the risks that entails to our our health and safety, safe in the knowledge that if there is violence it will be blamed unilaterally on the protestors, or sit back and watch a Bill be enacted that will make every demonstration, by default, unlawful. The Bill is motivated partially by the petty vindictiveness of a party gifted an election by MPs and full-time employees of their supposed opponents and partly by their fear that the economic catastrophe they have manufactured will result in large and uncontrollable forces being unleashed onto the streets. In the same way that they used the miners strike to undermine trade unionism they are now planning to use the pandemic to ensure that grassroots movements cannot take hold in communities throughout the country. For the purposes of the coming battles Labour must be considered as on the side of the government and should be treated accordingly. Most socialists would under no circumstances vote Conservative it really is time we realised that that means no conservative vote regardless of which party they are in.

Collateral damage: how Labour destroys its own members

“The closest thing to it was a bereavement” former Labour MP Chris Williamson told The Socialist Hour this week talking about the period during which he was suspended from the Labour Party.

What is often forgotten by those piling on people on social media and spreading lies about them in the press is that they are humans with human emotions.

Labour purge

The Labour Party is now in full purge mode, suspending ordinary members for the heinous crime of continuing to support the former leader of the Party Jeremy Corbyn. Chris Williamson, like Jackie Walker whose interview will be in the next edition of The Socialist Hour are high profile cases, but there are plenty of others (upwards of 400 allegedly) that have been caught up in the maelstrom.

Politically, it is very clear what is happening. As Chris tells The Socialist Hour “the anti-Semitism allegations were a pure concoction”. Jackie, herself of Jewish origin, tells us “I had never seen a case of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party”. Chris continued “People like me were collateral damage, the target was Jeremy Corbyn and the socialist project.” 

The allegations, based on the flimsiest of evidence, and with evidence of AS among around 0.3% of a party of over half a million which were seized upon by the right wing of the Labour Party and amplified by the Tory-supporting press, had a clear aim: to mislead the British public that the Labour Party was over-run by anti-semites to make them appear unfit to govern. That undoubtedly worked and delivered the Muslim-hating, racist, sexist Tories to what most of the Parliamentary Labour Party clearly thought was their rightful position in Number 10.

EHRC stitch up

Having won that battle and derailed the socialist project the attention of the establishment turned to ensuring that the Palestine supporting left should never get anywhere near power again. The Tory dominated Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) rode in stage right to deliver the damning verdict that the leaders office of the Labour Party had intervened in disciplinary cases to speed them up. Think about this: Labour’s right-wing seized upon that report, describing it as “Labour’s day of shame” when the only concrete evidence presented was that a beleaguered Jeremy Corbyn was leaning on the Governance Unit to expel those accused of anti-Semitism faster.

Meanwhile the new manager of the Party, sorry leader, and his Deputy turncoat prostrated themselves before the Jewish Labour Movement promising to use the EHRC report to “expel thousands of members”. Jeremy Corbyn, singled out by the EHRC, took to social media to ‘defend’ himself. He made the entirely justifiable statement: “One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.”

In video footage that now appears to have disappeared Angela Rayner said that although what Jeremy said was true, he shouldn’t have said it because it might upset some Jews. Apparently nothing upsets right wingers more than hearing the truth. The EHRC report gave wind to the anti-democratic notion that if somebody denies anti-Semitism the only reason can be because they, themselves, are anti-Semitic. Since the publication of the report Labour has been plunged into a very one-sided civil war in which support for Jeremy Corbyn has been defined as anti-Semitic and therefore cause for suspension. This, on the basis, that an unknown Jewish member might be uncomfortable if his suspension was lifted. Not an actual person sitting in a particular meeting but David Evans imaginary Jewish friend. Meanwhile, the damage done to the mental health and emotional well-being of real people being hounded out of a party they had often given their lives to was seen as entirely justifiable.

Suspended for mentioning Jeremy Corbyn

The Socialist Hour has also spoken to ordinary members caught up in this. Long-standing activist Lee Rock told us how he was suspended in November for submitting a motion calling for Jeremy to have the whip restored and is still suspended some four months later. We should hear this piece of information alongside our memory that the right-wing of Labour, particularly the witch-finder general Margaret Hodge, continually complained at the lack of speed of expulsions of those she deemed anti-Semitic. And, that fact should also be taken with the EHRC’s finding that the leaders office was trying to speed the process up but was being frustrated in those attempts by full-time officials working to prevent a Labour election victory led by Jeremy Corbyn.

The fact is that the Labour Party has shown zero concern for its members as the right have trampled roughshod over their rights and their reputations. If you listen to Lee carefully you will realise it is still not clear exactly what he has been suspended for. Most of these “crimes” fall under the rubric of what activist Penny Owen was told was “not competent business” based on a memo initially issued by Jennie Formby and adopted enthusiastically by her successor David Evans. 

The only way to make sense of this is that the very mention of Jeremy Corbyn’s name, a man never actually found to have said or done anything anti-Semitic despite a 6 month EHRC investigation,  is so abhorrent to Labour Party members that it’s very utterance causes them distress. The problem is that were this the case the motions that led to the suspensions would not all have passed, often more than once. There are two possible conclusions: Labour is a nest of anti-Semitism; or anti-Semitism is a convenient stick with which SirKeith and his allies are able to beat their political opponents. The EHRC report itself, the justification for these attacks on freedom of speech, it should be noted is painfully short of any concrete evidence of widespread anti-Semitism in the Party. The examples listed are either lists compiled by those hostile to the party or the left of the party or matters of some political interpretation. It all rests of course on the idea that criticism of Israel is itself anti-Semitic, a definition which makes the United Nations anti-Semitic.

Shifting attention

I rather suspect that as the right completes its purge of the left, or the left inside Labour start to self-censor to avoid suspension the issue of anti-Semitism will quietly fade. Even now it is raised in the mainstream media only if Jeremy raises his head above the parapet. Although it has returned to its earlier location: academia. Where philosopher David Miller is currently being singled out.  Meanwhile, the real anti-semites continue to daub Nazi insignia on Jewish cemeteries and fill social media with their hate filled, Holocaust denying bile still being challenged and confronted by the very people the Board of Deputies have vowed to hound out of public life.

It is difficult to imagine what it is like to be at the centre of one of these storms. Jackie Walker tells The Socialist Hour that she received death and rape threats as she was targeted as a prominent black woman as she dared to question the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of AS. The comment which caused the furore was spoken at a private training event supposedly run under Chatham House rules (which means people are free to say things safe in the knowledge it would stay in the meeting). Unbeknown to her one of the Zionists present released video footage of her to the Jewish Chronicle which spent two and a half years accusing her of being both an anti-Semite, and possibly more pertinently, a Corbyn ally. 

The IHRA  definition was foisted on the Labour Party by the Zionist lobby for the precise purpose it was eventually used for: hounding out those who regard a state with an apartheid clause enshrined in law as an apartheid state. Kenneth Stern who drafted the definition had this to say about it: “rightwing Jewish groups took the “working definition”, which had some examples about Israel (such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel, and denying Jews the right to self-determination), and decided to weaponize it.” The conclusion is clear debates around the definition are profoundly political in nature and should be treated as such.

No dialogue

States like Israel can only be made to change by international pressure but if the very mention of the name brings death threats then what chance a dialogue? No country should be beyond the rule of law (and that includes America, Russia, Saudi Arabia and China) but if a powerful lobby is preventing the ‘international community’ from even discussing their internal politics then it is a green light for despotism. We see this also in the treatment of Saudi Arabia who are able to wage a war on Yemen virtually unnoticed by the rest of the World despite our selling them the weapons that rain down daily on defenceless women and children.

Both Jackie Walker and Chris Williamson, both hounded out of Labour whilst Jeremy Corbyn was still leader incidentally, describe the affects on their personal health of being subjected to the abuse they had to endure because of their beliefs. Many others have also suffered personal hardships for simply stating an opinion. Although those who think otherwise will not be convinced it is obvious if you spend any time with Jackie or Chris that they are not anti-Semitic. They are both campaigners of long-standing against racism in all its forms which make the allegations even more hurtful.

It is possible for people to genuinely believe that people such as Chris Williamson, or Jackie Walker or David Miller are wrong about the state of Israel. The Jewish Chronicle clearly and unambiguously believes that Israel is a democratic state and a shining beacon of all that is good in the World. There was a time when Communists used to say the same about Russia. The fact is that they are entitled to believe that if they so wish. What they are not entitled to do is to hound ordinary citizens out of public life for disagreeing with them. All the people mentioned in this article live in the United Kingdom and are subject to its laws. None of them have been charged with hate crime, the evidence would simply not stand up in a court of law. Chris Williamson indeed won his court case against the Labour Party for which they spent at least £200,000 of members fees. 

Freedom of speech and thought under attack

One of our most cherished freedoms, currently coming under increasing threat, is that of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. There is a thin line between hate crime and thought crime. Personally I support a robust system to deal with physical attacks motivated by racism. I happen to believe that racism, whether directed at black people, brown people, Jews, yellow people or Roma, is morally repugnant and should have no place in our society. But, I do not want the law to involve itself with what people think. What you think, and to a large extent what you believe may be wrong, immoral or just plain fanciful, that is entirely your affair. The line gets crossed when people who think that a certain group of people should be treated differently because of the way they look, or their religious customs or other arbitrary characteristic, act on those beliefs.

There are plenty of things people do of which I disapprove. But, if they are doing them in the privacy of their homes and nobody is forced to take part or being hurt as a result, frankly I don’t so much tolerate their behaviour as just ignore it. But, when a group of people collude together with the express intention of “destroying a person as a person” (I paraphrase a well known Labour MP) they can’t at the same time claim the moral high ground. Simply shouting insults at each other does not lead to resolution. With the entire AS furore the weight of evidence points to mass, illegal activity being undertaken in the illegally occupied territories of the West Bank. At the same time the weight of evidence, including the EHRC report, points to the fact that Labour was not institutionally anti-Semitic (the EHRC were careful to avoid saying they were). 

What is left is a divergence of opinion over whether Israel should be given a green light to continue its illegal activities. Put like that, there should only be one answer. But that answer cannot possibly be found whilst the debate is framed as one of AS. Far from helping bring peace to the Middle East the Zionists, by their dogmatic refusal to even consider the other side may have a point, appear to be ensuring that many more lives will be lost and many more ruined in what Chris Williamson calls ‘collateral damage’. Surely, we can all do better.

Chris Williamson is interviewed in this week’s The Socialist Hour. 

Jackie Walker’s interview will appear on Friday April 2nd.

One year on: lessons of the pandemic

It has been almost exactly one year since the U.K. went into its first nationwide lockdown. In the 26 days following the first recorded death in the U.K. there were 1,789 deaths and approximately 25,000 reported cases. In the 368 days since (as of Thursday March 10th 2021) there had been 124,987 deaths and 4,234,924 known cases. Despite the roll out of the vaccine and the Government repeatedly congratulating itself on what a great job it has done both deaths and infections continue to rise in ways which other countries are not experiencing. That said, the toll on human life from Covid 19 has been huge. Worldwide, 2.6 million people have died. A staggering 118 million people have been infected.

Lesson 1: commuting is unnecessary

There have been a number of lessons to be drawn from a year of lockdown. Although not the lesson that will jump to most people’s minds it strikes me that in terms of how we organise the economy finding out that the daily commute was not really necessary could well herald a significant change in working practices post-pandemic. In 2011 it was estimated that the average commuter travelled 1,266 miles in a year. I think it’s safe to say that in the past year the amount of miles was considerably less as employers discovered that rather than drag people halfway across the country to sit at a computer screen, they could allow them to log on from the comfort of their own homes. Of course, not everybody likes working from home, but I can’t think anybody enjoys sitting in a car on a motorway crawling along at 5 miles per hour or crammed into a railway carriage designed for half the number of passengers. 

Two-thirds of commuting trips are car journeys in cars occupied by just the driver. This is bad not just for the driver but also the environment. It is estimated that around three-quarters of greenhouse emissions are transport related. Not all of that is made by commuters, of course. But, the average petrol car produces the equivalent of 180g of CO2 every kilometre, compared to a bus which produces 82g of CO2 per kilometre. During the first lockdown, at a time when most of the World was locked down and international air travel was suspended CO2 emissions for the planet dropped 17%, the biggest drop on record. We may have all felt trapped in our own homes but when we did venture out the air was cleaner, and instead of the constant hum of traffic you could hear birds singing even in city centres. To be fair, most people failed to notice these desirable effects because they were worried about the virus or more concerned to return to normalcy. 

Lesson 2: there is no such thing as British spirit

Lockdown has certainly been traumatic but rather than show the best of what Johnson called “the indomitable British spirit” what we learned was that when it comes down to it a significant proportion of the population were more than happy to engage in an orgy of aggressive individualism as the fittest rushed to strip supermarkets of essential goods leaving very little for the vulnerable and needy. Not everybody joined in this plunder of the country’s resources but a first wave of the greedy and selfish was followed by a second wave of the anxious and desperate. And, it was entirely unnecessary. If credit has to be given anywhere it was in the ability of food producers to keep the supply lines moving. Toilet rolls did not run out, neither did pasta, biscuits or indeed most foodstuffs. There was never a shortage of food and undoubtedly much of the excess produce has ended up on rubbish tips. 

Australian psychologists Melissa Norbert and Derek Rucker explain that: “Seeing empty shelves can trigger an urge to snatch what is left. Research on the “scarcity heuristic” suggests we assume items are more valuable if they are in low supply.” And, as they point out in developed economies food waste is commonplace anyway. From that perspective the “irrational” behaviour was simply normal behaviour but exaggerated. The lesson here perhaps is to educate people to respect the fact that all the earth’s resources are finite. But, why would a social system dependent on consumerism, want to draw that lesson? 

Lesson 3: a crisis is the perfect opportunity for a conspiracy theory

Initially, people’s reaction to the pandemic was one of fear which was supported by a media narrative that talked of a ‘killer virus’. Over time this fear has been replaced by cynicism and frustration, although fear still exists. Cynicism fuelled by a range of conspiracy theories and frustration at being ‘forced’ to alter normal lives in order to ensure that others could be safe. Conspiracy theories are nothing new but as a novel coronavirus was ravaging almost every country of the World they gained currency. The first reported such theory was probably from Francis Boyle, a Harvard trained law professor, who according to Al-Jazeera claimed on 21st January 2020 that the virus was a manufactured bio-weapon which had escaped from a high level lab in Wuhan. The claim has been dismissed both by an independent team of virologists who examined the virus DNA and concluded that it was most likely it had entered humans via bats or pangolins; and by the World Health Authority who concluded, after a fairly extensive investigation that it was extremely unlikely that the virus had “escaped” from a lab. 

But, as the pandemic has developed and stayed with us many people have abandoned science in favour of sensationalist and false narratives. What has given these theories a veneer of respectability has been that very often they are supported by scientists, though rarely it has to be said by virologists. But, it is not those propagating these theories that should worry us. But those who believe them. “People who feel powerless are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories,” the psychologist Jan-Willem van Prooijen says, and conspiracy theories can help rectify that feeling of powerlessness. Conspiracy theories, then, give those for whom society gives no control the illusion of power by providing a rationale for events that seem beyond their control. The Covid19 virus and the lockdowns which have accompanied it have provided fertile ground for such theories. 

Lesson 4: the education system is failing

Whilst we may think that what we have learned is that people are extremely gullible, that is too harsh a judgement. If people are gullible it is not a failing on their part but a society that provides very little certainty in many people’s lives. It is a society that does not provide ordinary people with the tools to sift through the array of information on offer. It is a society that encourages a kind of dull groupthink in which requiring evidence for your beliefs is actually undermining your freedom to choose for yourself what to believe. If there has been one massive lesson to be drawn from the pandemic it is that what we regard as education is singularly failing to create active, thoughtful and questioning citizens but rather churns out alienated workers with little control over their lives who justify their lack of knowledge by believing only that which supports their prejudice. 

Conspiracy theories have occupied the space which ought to be reserved for political decision-making. However, one of the major lessons of the pandemic has to be the abject failure of the political class to make decisions. Of course in some countries, New Zealand springs to mind, political leaders have shown, well, leadership. But in others, Britain and America in particular, politicians have been caught between wanting to stay in control and not having a clue what they were talking about. The sensible option in such a scenario is to take the Jacinda Aderne route and look at the science and make a decision based on that. But, to do that requires an intelligence that is sadly lacking in many politicians who when their knowledge is found wanting resort to bluster and meaningless rhetoric. It is not that many politicians lack formal qualifications. Most possess at least a degree, and even Johnson has a writing proficiency certificate, but that that too often passing exams is seen as a sign of intelligence when in fact it is a sign that you can pass exams. The way to political success in our current system is not through being innovative or standing out from the crowd, but rather by fitting in, being liked and gathering around you people that tell you exactly what you want to hear. Most politicians are not gifted orators, nor particularly innovative thinkers, nor (and this is the important bit) great problem solvers. What they are is motivated by an egotistical desire for success. 

Lesson 5: Politicians are inadequate

As Gelman et al discuss success is achieved not so much by ability as by a desire to be successful. Politicians are particularly prone to see failure as a weakness. Boris Johnson, for example, constantly talks of how successful the government are never acknowledging their mistakes. SirKeith has the same tendency. This is partly related to the way in which politics has shifted from being a vocation to a career. Every day of a politicians life is like an extended interview for the next stage of their career and you don’t go into an interview and announce that you are ill qualified to do the job with a litany of errors behind you to prove it. In normal times this is bad enough but in extraordinary times such as this the failure of politicians to accept their own weaknesses is catastrophic for those who rely on their judgement. 

This needs repeating: since March last year the Government has been responsible for almost 125,000 deaths. Saying they are responsible is not saying they have killed them, but that they are responsible for policies that have ultimately seen 125,000 British citizens die. But, here’s the lesson.The British death toll is 4.7% of all the deaths due to Covid 19 in the World. To put this into perspective the U.K. contains 0.09% of the World’s population. In other words, the death rate is fifty-two times what might reasonably have been expected had all governments acted the same. These deaths are not a tragic accident they are the result of the cumulative failure of government to make the correct decisions. Whether that was by refusing to lockdown early enough, coming out of lockdown too early, not preparing for a pandemic by having PPE or proper procedures, failing to test and trace, giving out inconsistent and often contradictory messages on what was and what was not safe behaviour, covering up or excusing the lockdown breaches of their friends whilst at the same time promoting common sense as the answer to a lack of regulatory guidance. 

Lesson 6: Profits are more important than people

The lesson is that poor politicians make poor decisions and ordinary people suffer. But it is not just poor decision-making, but the lesson we need to repeat is that our political establishment has not just put profit before people, but has put lining the pockets of their friends before protecting the health of their citizens. An extraordinary amount of money has been spent throughout this pandemic. But, has it been value for money? The New York Times did a special investigation in December and concluded: “Taken together, about half of that $22 billion went to companies with political connections, no prior experience or histories of controversy.” This was in December and it was an outrage that has not stopped the Tories from continuing to trawl ever more corrupt practices. Matt Hancock was taken to the High Court by the Good Law Project and the judge ruled: “The Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the Transparency Policy” Despite this it never occurred to him that he should resign and when SirKeith was questioned on the Sophy Ridge Show he never considered ‘stealing’ £11 billion of public money and handing it to his friends a resigning issue. The lesson here is not that we can rely on the courts, though the scale of corruption was so great that even a High Court judge could not ignore it, but that the political establishment consider this level of corruption perfectly acceptable. Let’s be honest if a few corners had been cut to procure PPE or ensure that there was a proper test and trace system nobody would have minded. But, this was breaking the rules out of pure greed, and although it has been covered in the press, the outrage is far less than that which has accompanied the Harry and Meghan interview. 

Lesson 7: The media are just Government cheerleaders

Which leads nicely into the final lesson we might draw from a year of a pandemic. If the political system is broken one of the reasons it is allowed to get away with it is the failure of the media to hold it to account. Socialists have long recognised the mass media as a hostile force pursuing an agenda that is determined to support the status quo. But this pandemic has seen the media as cheerleaders for the government even as the death toll has risen due to government incompetence. From the lionizing of Captain Tom to the failure to question the government adequately over its repeated failures the mass media’s role in the pandemic has been to push a particular narrative. That is that what matters most is the economy. The narrative blamed ordinary people for spreading the disease through their failure to stay home whilst at the same time criticising workers who wanted their workplaces to be safe. Teachers in particular were told to ‘step up’ just like the heroes in the NHS. In other words, as far as the tabloids were concerned if a few hundred teachers died that was a price worth paying. 

Prior to the vaccines becoming available much of the media rallied behind the right-wing scientists pursuing the so-called Great Barrington Declaration. In October BBC News reported: “Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies. Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.“ At the same time the Telegraph printed an opinion piece by one of the signatories which declared: “Protect the elderly, but let’s see life back to normal for those at low risk” Whilst the Daily Mail reported: “Now more than 12,000 scientists and medics have signed a petition calling on the Government to abandon damaging lockdown restrictions - as it attracts an ever-growing list of supporters. ” The tone of these reports was consistent with the view being widely spread by the media that lockdowns were an unnecessary interference with our “freedom”. Furthermore, that since most of the victims were elderly that it was unfair to prevent younger people from going about their day-to-day lives. Remember, at this time there was no viable vaccine. The “experts” who were being quoted were either pursuing a right-wing libertarian agenda (which was never mentioned) or despite their impressive titles (Professor or Doctor) had no background in virology, epidemiology or anything that could be seen as remotely related to Covid 19. I am not saying these people were not entitled to an opinion, but to describe them as “experts” was both misleading and dangerous. They may well have been expert on something but it was not anything that gave them a privileged view of how viruses work. So, this was dangerous for at a time when people wanted restrictions lifted for Christmas, this narrative provided a rationale for doing so. The result of this was another major spike in infection rates and deaths. The media then conveniently dropped these so-called “experts” as they shifted their attention to other issues. The lesson: the mass media are an arm of the establishment and cannot be trusted any more than politicians. 

Lesson 8: Capitalism is broken

It may well be that within the next 12 months Covid 19 will seem like a bad dream with just regular vaccinations as the only memory of the lockdown. At the beginning there was much talk of a ‘new normal’ now it is just a return to ‘old normal’ with all the inequalities not just intact but exacerbated. Society as a whole will not learn lessons from the past 12 months because most of those lessons would interfere with the ability of the elite to continue to hoard unimaginable amounts of wealth. Which makes it more important than ever that we build new types of organisation capable of taking on an entrenched establishment whose downfall may well be caused by their own system rather than our actions but whose continued existence calls upon all those who believe they are progressive to prepare for the very distinct possibility that capitalism will collapse due to its own inherent contradictions. But that is a conversation for another day.

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

Can I encourage you to listen to The Socialist Hour podcast. Episode 3, featuring discussions on the budget, Liverpool, Osime Brown, EndSARS, and creating socialism. Listen here

And for a great listen, I recommend Project Coups latest show on Incapable Staircase: Listen here

Avoid the MSM and support left wing sources instead. In particular, check out:
Dangerous Globe: https://dangerousglobe.com

How to vote in May

With local, Welsh and Scottish elections on the horizon it is inevitable that people will start to think about who to vote for. If you are a member of the Labour Party then, presumably, you are expected to vote Labour. But, things might not be that simple.

Who to support rouses anger and bitterness amongst people who otherwise nod along together in agreement. For some people the ultimate goal is to get the Tories out. But, what are we getting them out of exactly. In England the elections are for local councils which the Tories don’t actually dominate in quite the way they do Westminster. In Wales the Government is actually Labour. And, of course in Scotland the government is SNP and probably likely to remain so.

There are 343 local authorities in England with roughly 20,000 local councillors. In the 2019 local council elections 248 councils in England were contested. Of which 93 (37.5%) ended up controlled by the Conservatives. Labour controlled 60 (24%) and 73 (29%) were under no control. Both the Cons and Labour lost councillors in 2019 (1,330 Tories and 84 for Labour). Labour currently has 2,021 councillors in England. Keep those figures in mind, because for sure if Labour increases the number of councillors by even one it will be heralded as a major achievement for SirKeith, who despite fanciful rumours should still be Labour leader come 2024 and the next General Election.

Beware of independents

The Conservatives currently have overall control in 133 councils in Britain, and a total of 7,060 councillors. Labour controls 95 councils with 6,044 councillors. Eleven councils are controlled by Independents who have a total of 2,619 councillors. It is worth pointing out that whilst many independents are genuinely interested in their locality a good number are disillusioned members of other parties, very often Lib Dems or Conservatives. Beware of candidates claiming to have no agenda, for that is usually code for supporting the status quo.

There are a range of different elections taking place on the same day, though most voters will only get to take part in one or two elections. In many places only one-third of the council seats are being contested. All of this makes the task of understanding what is going on in these elections very difficult. Although, the major news outlets like to project the results on to a national election, the truth is that this makes no real sense at all. For starters, the turnout is much lower than in general elections. Average turnout in local elections is around 35%, although it varies across different authorities with some boroughs reaching 39%. By comparison the turnout in the 2019 General Election was 67%. Given the low turnout and the congruence of local elections it is difficult to extrapolate much to General Elections.

Local elections do give an opportunity to send a message to the main parties but in truth they are often fought on local issues which is why independents, who have virtually no chance of being elected to Westminster, often get elected at local level.  Having said that, if a party is out of favour nationally it is likely to be reflected in its local election results. For Labour this does not bode well. With the Tories riding high on the “success” of “their” vaccination programme and Labour anonymous as they chase the Tory vote it is likely that the Tories will increase their number of councillors whilst Labour will consider they have done well to lose less than 10% of theirs. Given that my predictions are usually wrong take this with a pinch of salt. But, I expect the Conservatives to make gains, turnout to be low and Labour to lose councillors if not councils.

Vote Labour or else

All of which makes me wonder why people are having disagreements on social media over whether to support Labour or not. Unless you are in Scotland or Wales you are not electing a government. Only the committed turn out to vote in what political scientists describe as “second order elections” and although many remain deeply tribal a good number will register a protest vote or support a local issue. There will be a time when who you support on the national stage will be important. This is not that time. Any party can do badly at local elections, it makes hardly a dent in their governmental ambitions.

What is happening, however, is that the left in the UK is realigning and often doing so along narrow party lines. For some, and I count myself in this camp, Labour as a vehicle for progressive social change is dead. That is not to say that everybody associated with the Labour Party is now a conservative. What it means is that Labour, as it always has, exists to be a parliamentary party in a parliamentary system which has its unspoken assumption that protecting capitalism is its foremost duty. No Labour government, and I suspect this would have remained the case even if Jeremy had won in 2019, has ever seriously challenged capitalism as a system. What Labour does is what the old Liberal Party used to do and that is offer a softer, more benign version of capitalism. This is not just my opinion (although it is that) it is borne out by an analysis of Labour since it came into being in 1903 and particularly by studying the actions of Labour when in government.

None of this, of course, matters a jot to those who say that if you do not vote for the Labour Party then you are betraying the public services, and particularly you are betraying the NHS which is held up as the epitome of socialist achievement. Which is fine, except it is not true. None of it. Not voting Labour is not betraying anything, voting for a party you do not believe in is. A friend of mine who stood as a Green candidate a few years back and who I sponsored was keen on saying “The only wasted vote is one which you don’t believe in.” That is absolutely true. Those peddling the line that by not voting Labour we are betraying health workers would be wise to consider that it was Labour who first introduced private provision into the NHS, it was Labour who introduced dental charges and it was Labour who saddled the NHS with debts it is still struggling to repay when it decided that borrowing money at inflated rates from the private sector was better than raising taxation or simply printing more money. If anybody has betrayed the NHS it is the Labour Party and it has done it not once but on numerous occasions.

Saving the NHS

But, of course, I can hear the retort, look at what the Tories are doing? And, that is a valid point. The Tories have never been anything but hostile to public provision. They are not friends of the NHS, of health workers or basically of anybody who is not rich. But, you don’t get betrayed by your enemies you get betrayed by your friends. And the left have promoted an idea that Labour is the friend of the NHS in a way which successive Labour politicians (some sincere, many not) have exploited. The betrayal is the act of a friend who stabs you in the back, not of an enemy who was always out to get you. But, there is another reason why pointing the finger at those of us who do not intend to vote Labour is misguided. The Tories are hostile to public services. No surprise there. But, had it not been for the collective action of a large part of the Parliamentary Labour Party, aided by the permanent bureaucracy and cheered on by a socialist hating media, we would now have a socialist Prime Minister. Please don’t tell me that my one vote if not used for Labour is a betrayal of the Party  when those who now control that party did so by enabling a Tory victory because they hate people like me more than they hate people who have an inherent hatred of the public sector. 

But, I’m straying from the real point which is that in England the future of the NHS is not being decided in May. The funding of the NHS is a national not local matter, and therefore the local elections which represent our next chance to vote, have nothing to do with the NHS. They have everything to do with what kind of local services you want, but in all honesty far too many Labour councillors (though by no means all) are more interested in the illusion of power than in actually using that power for the people who elect them. In place after place Labour controlled local councils implement, with regret, Tory cuts forced upon them by cutbacks to local finance. It is now obvious that the Tories have been manipulating the payments to favour their own councils and disadvantage Labour councils, often councils in the most deprived parts of the country. But don’t worry those councils will be sending a strongly worded memo to the government. Whilst their supporters will be pointing the finger at those of us who question the credentials of anybody who wears a Labour rosette.

In Scotland and Wales things are different. In May the elections are for national governments. Clearly in Scotland it is an uphill task for Labour to restore their dominance. In 1966 Labour commanded 49% of the vote in Scotland, by 2019 that had collapsed to 18.9%. This is what happens when you take a vote for granted and do not listen to voters. Labour is still failing to listen to Scottish voters who are drifting inexorably toward backing independence whilst the English dominated Labour Party arrogantly tell them what is best for them. Dragged out of Europe against the will of the Scottish people, it is unlikely that Scottish voters will return to Labour anytime soon.

Scottish independence

The rise of the independence movement should not be discounted as the rationale behind the current campaign being waged against Nicola Sturgeon. The manifest reason for this campaign is that she held on to information about Alec Salmond which she should have made public. For this she is expected to resign. But, Boris Johnson has broken the law repeatedly and nobody seems to think he should resign. Matt Hancock was found to have acted illegally in handing out £21 billion of contracts without proper transparency and not even the “leader” of the opposition thinks he should resign. I don’t want to plough into the Salmond case, I’m sure all is not as it seems, but it does strike me that as the Scottish Parliamentary elections approach and as the Scots, quite sensibly, are beginning to back independence in larger and larger numbers, a campaign to undermine the SNP might be exactly what the establishment ordered. Who knows? It is usually 25 years before we find out the truth of these matters. Put a note in your diary for 2046 to see those redacted documents.

In Wales things are slightly different. No scandal around Mark Drakeford, though that might be because most people don’t actually know who he is. And, the independence movement such as it is, remains confined to a few Facebook pages and some rather colourful graffiti along the Taff Trail. More importantly, the Labour Party has never been out of Government in Cardiff Bay, albeit requiring coalitions from time to time. In some ways this makes Welsh Labour the poster girl of Labour politics over the past few years. For all this a recent YouGov poll predicted some major losses at the May elections. Turnout might well prove to be crucial here. Lower turnout is going to favour non-governmental parties. It is not that Welsh Labour have made an awful fist of governing under Mark Drakeford, but that they have been forced to adopt policies imposed on them by an unfavourable financial settlement. 

Whilst Welsh Labour tried during the Corbyn era to brand themselves as separate from the UK Labour Party, the fact is that their fortunes are tied to those of their English parent. And, I do know that Welsh Labour activists will hate me for that last sentence. During the 2017 and 2019 General Elections the Labour Party in Wales did all it could to avoid being “tainted” by the Corbyn brand refusing to put his picture on their election posters and mailings. When Jeremy was suspended from the Party not one Welsh MP or Senedd member attempted to defend him. Indeed, Welsh Labour used the EHRC report as a means to stifle debate on the issue, suspending any officers of the party who dared to raise the unfairness of Labour’s position. At least two long-standing comrades on the left have left the party following their suspensions and they are only the ones I know of. 

Playing politics with people's lives

When a party at its institutional level acts so undemocratically and conducts what can only be called a purge of its own members it is clearly not fit to hold public office.  A party that can treat its own members so abominably has to be suspect. How would they treat ordinary people who get on the wrong side of them? Almost the last act of Labour members of the Senedd before it was prorogued was to vote down a motion from Plaid Cymru calling for the extension of free school meals for under-privileged children. People who have supposedly been on the left and indeed have gained their positions by exploiting the support of left-wing members were happy to put their hands up to keep children hungry rather than allow Plaid Cymru to claim credit. These are the same people who consistently tell us not to play politics with people’s lives.

Whilst Mark Drakeford appears scandal free his predecessor Carwyn Jones is far from clean. He was responsible for suspending his “friend” Carl Sergeant over allegations of sexual impropriety. These allegations were never made clear to Carl who subsequently took his own life as a result of the stress he was placed under. As details have dripped out Carwyn Jones role in this affair has begun to look less and less like the actions of a friend and more like the actions of a man rather too enamoured of his own position and power. But none of this will bother Carwyn too much as the Keir Starmer supporting AM has now turned his back on politics and walked into high paying jobs he would never have been considered for without his access to information that makes him worth employing.

So, I get to vote for a government as do other comrades in Scotland and Wales, and I can promise you that I will not vote Labour and if asked to explain to NHS workers why I will point them to this post. As for those in England I can only offer you this. You have been voting Labour for a number of years, you have seen MPs come and go, and councillors too. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that the effort you have put into getting them elected has truly been worth it? Has their election taken forward the struggle for socialism? If the answer to those two questions is yes, then carry on, but if your honest answer is anything but yes then have a serious think about whether this strategy of providing Labour with left cover is actually working.

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

Can I encourage you to listen to The Socialist Hour podcast. Episode 3, featuring discussions on the budget, Liverpool, Osime Brown, EndSARS, and creating socialism.