Tuesday, March 05, 2024

REST IN POWER

Edward Bond, Whose Brazen Work Freed British Drama From Royal Censors, Dies at 89


His first play, “Saved,” though it drew outrage, led to the end of more than 200 years of state control over the theater.


Edward Bond in 1978. The playwright once said that his mission was to confront audiences with “the crisis in the human species.” 
Credit...Chris Ridley/Radio Times, via 


By Benedict Nightingale
March 5, 2024, 10:27 a.m. ET


No modern British dramatist polarized his countrymen as much as Edward Bond, who died on Sunday at age 89.

To some he was an unholy terror, relentless in his doctrinaire socialism and disconcertingly fond of violent theatrical effects. To others he was almost a secular saint, a writer of unflinching integrity in a world of compromise and so sensitive to human frustration that he invariably peopled his plays with characters suffering, often graphically, from extreme forms of oppression and exploitation.

But both parties would agree that his first important play, “Saved,” precipitated the end of theatrical censorship in Britain.

A spokeswoman for Casarotto Ramsay & Associates, Bond’s agent, confirmed his death in a telephone interview, but declined to say how he died.

In 1965, the Royal Court Theater submitted “Saved,” a graphic portrait of mostly young and sometimes violent no-hopers adrift in London’s lower depths, to the Lord Chamberlain, who had held absolute power over British drama since 1737. The response by a functionary was widely thought of as absurdly anachronistic: A scene in which hooligans stone to death a baby in a pram could not be publicly staged.

Mr. Bond refused to alter a line, and the Royal Court supported him by temporarily becoming a private club, and, as the law then stood, no longer needing the Lord Chamberlain’s sanction.

This was a tactic that had been used in London before, notably for Tennessee Williams’s “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” in 1956 and Arthur Miller’s “View from a Bridge” in 1958, both of which hinted at the then-taboo subject of homosexuality.

At first, the play’s only problem seemed to be critical hostility, The Times of London complaining that “it amounts to a systematic degradation of the human animal” and The Sunday Times of London asking: “Was there ever a psychopathic exercise so lovingly dwelt on as this?” There was a riposte in The Observer from Penelope Gilliatt, later a film critic for The New Yorker, who saw the play as a bold and brilliant study of “the bottom end of human possibility.”

A scene from Mr. Bond’s “Saved,” in which hooligans stone a baby in a pram to death, led the play to be rejected by British censors.
Credit...Donald Cooper/Alamy

There were, however, some influential champions, notably Mary McCarthy, who admired the sensitivity with which violence was evoked, and Laurence Olivier, who defended it as “a play for grown-ups” courageous enough to observe ugly events.

Mr. Bond remained defiant. He saw “Saved“ as “almost irresponsibly optimistic,” since its young protagonist resists the engulfing brutality, and the baby’s murder as “a typical English understatement,” a “negligible atrocity beside the ‘strategic’ bombing of German cities and inconsequential beside the cultural and emotional deprivation of most of our children.”

Nevertheless, there were walkouts, cries of “revolting” and occasional fisticuffs between audience members, followed by the arrival of plainclothes policemen posing unchallenged as Royal Court members, thus showing that the theater was not the exclusive club it claimed to be. The result was a prosecution of the Royal Court, which ended with a district magistrate deciding that the theater had indeed flouted the censor. “Saved,” it seemed, would never be publicly seen again.

The controversy, however, led to the creation of a parliamentary committee, whose 1967 report recommended that theatrical productions should no longer need official licensing. The same year, the censor again took aim at Mr. Bond, banning his next play, “Early Morning,” in toto. This was hardly surprising, since the play satirizes royalty with subversive glee, postulating a world in which Queen Victoria rapes Florence Nightingale, then strangles Prince Albert with her garter, before she and her ministers hold a cannibal orgy. “The events of this play are true,” was Mr. Bond’s provocative epigraph. The show was again staged as a members-only event by the Royal Court, though now without legal consequences.

A year later, the Theatres Act liberated British drama from the Lord Chamberlain, and a year later the Royal Court staged a celebratory season comprising “Saved,” “Early Morning” and Mr. Bond’s “Narrow Road to the Deep North,” which involved Asian tyranny and British colonialism. “Saved” itself was widely staged abroad, notably by Peter Stein in Munich. And in 2000 it was proclaimed a modern classic, nearing the top of a National Theater list of significant 20th-century plays.

Bond at a Manhattan rehearsal studio in 2001. American stagings of his plays were relatively rare and seldom successful.
Credit...Sara Krulwich/The New York Times


Edward Bond was born on July 18, 1934, in Holloway, the London district recreated in “Saved.” His parents, both illiterate, had moved to this “brick desert,” as he called it, after his father lost his job as a farm laborer in East Anglia. Though he was twice evacuated to the country during the war, Edward was in London during the Blitz and the later rocket attacks on the city. The experience of the bombing, he said, was formative: “I was born into a society where you didn’t know if you would last the day. When I was young I saw people running for their lives.”

Mr. Bond left school — “secondary modern,” meaning catering for children considered academically inferior — at the age of 15 without any qualifications. However, he displayed a talent for writing and had an apotheosis which encouraged it. “For the first time I found something beautiful and exciting and alive,” he said of a school visit to see “Macbeth.” “I met someone who was talking about my problems, the society around me. Nobody else had said anything about my life to me at all, ever.”

Before and after military service — “very brutal, with people publicly humiliated and degraded, an image of society outside the army” — he worked in factories, warehouses and an insurance office while writing poems, stories and, especially plays. In 1958, he became a member of the Royal Court’s Writers Group, and in 1962 was awarded a Sunday-night performance of his “Pope’s Wedding,” about East Anglians who were as deprived and debased as their urban counterparts in “Saved.”

With his reputation made by “Saved,” the Royal Court staged what are still regarded as his major plays: “Lear,” a radical updating of Shakespeare; “The Sea,” about class divisions in an Edwardian community; “Bingo,” with John Gielgud playing a Shakespeare who commits suicide in despair at the loss of his integrity; and “The Fool,” in which the poet John Clare is driven insane by the contradictions of British society. In 1978, Mr. Bond directed his pacifist take on the Trojan War, “The Woman,” at the National Theater, after which the Royal Shakespeare Company staged his play, “The Bundle,” about serfdom and slavery in medieval Japan.

Judi Dench as Louise Rafi in “The Sea” at the National Theater in London in 1991.
Credit...Donald Cooper/Alamy


Mr. Bond was soon alienated from both organizations, however. He described his experience at the National as “a nightmare” in a building “like a biscuit factory,” later dubbing the theater “a national humiliation.” He began to direct “War Plays,” a trilogy involving future nuclear catastrophe, for the Royal Shakespeare Company, only to walk out of rehearsals and, later, damn the company for its “dalliance with the tourist trade.” He also left revivals of “The Sea,” one directed by Sam Mendes and starring Judi Dench at the National, and one in the West End.

He became regarded as off-puttingly “difficult” by mainstream theaters, even by the Royal Court, where his 1981 production of “Restoration,” his satirical portrait of corruption in 17th-century England, caused in-house tensions. In turn, he decided that the mainstream theater was “infantile.” Dramatic writing, he insisted, should be “about committing yourself to a world in trouble.”

Self-described as “the child of dark times,” he defined his own purpose as “exposing injustice,” “affirming humanness” and “pushing situations to extremes in order to understand what’s happening in our society.” For him, writing about the violence he saw as endemic in a corrupt and corrupting world was “as natural as writing about manners was to Jane Austen.” “If you can’t face Hiroshima in the theater,” he said, “you’ll eventually end up in Hiroshima itself.”

In later years, he was less honored in his own country than abroad, notably in Germany and France, where the Comédie Française staged “The Sea” in 2016. In England, he wrote mainly for the Big Brum, a Birmingham-based theater-in-education company, and for teenagers at a community college in a deprived part of Cambridge, near where he lived.


“The gross injustice, the huge barbarity we’re required to live with, will trouble me on the day I die if I’m still conscious,” he told The New York Times in 2001 before Theater for a New Audience revived “Saved” in one of his relatively rare and seldom successful American stagings. By then he had become the author of over 50 stage, television and radio plays, many unpublished and some unperformed, as well as libretti for ballet and opera, numerous essays and 10 screenplays, including one for Michelangelo Antonioni’s “Blow-Up” in 1966.

His last play for adults that received a British premiere was also his first for 20 years. “Dea,” which was staged in 2016 by Mr. Bond himself in an obscure theater in the outer London borough of Sutton, was an updating of the Medea story. In addition to child-killing, it came with violence, dismemberment, insanity, fellatio and several rapes, with Dea violated by a son who is then blown up by a suicide bomber. Mr. Bond once said that his mission was to confront audiences with “the crisis in the human species.” He meant it to the end.

 UK

The miners’ strike 40 years on

Mike Phipps reflects on the significance of the year-long miners’ strike which began on March 6th 1984 and whose defeat changed the face of Britain.

MARCH 5, 2024

Channel 4’s recent three-part documentary Miners’ Strike 1984: The Battle for Britain revived memories of the National Union of Mineworkers’ historic strike and perhaps brought some of its flashpoints to a new audience. Its strongest segment was the one devoted to the mass picket at Orgreave and how the police meted out unprovoked, deliberate and brutal punishment against NUM pickets.

The Ridley Plan

The third part dwelt at length on the role of David Hart, the businessman and Thatcher advisor who funded various initiatives to break the strike. Perhaps a better focus would have been the Ridley Plan, the strategy devised by the Tories in opposition a decade earlier to ensure that never again would they be humiliated by a miners’ strike, as Ted Heath’s government had been – twice in three years.

This proposed that a series of measures be put in place to minimise the impact of a future strike, including building up coal stocks in advance of any dispute; laying plans to import coal from non-union foreign ports; using non-union lorry drivers to transport coal rather than relying on unionised rail workers; installing dual coal-oil firing generators; training a large, mobile squad of police, ready to employ riot tactics against striking miners; and ending state benefits to strikers.

This last point was amplified in BBC2’s recent Miners’ Strike: A Frontline Story. A striking miner recalls how his newborn boy died at just one week old. Striking workers weren’t eligible for funeral grants, so the man, penniless after two months without pay, was unable to bury his child.

I remember the Daily Telegraph, the day the strike ended, featuring a large spread on how the Ridley Plan, not widely known about at the time, had been successfully implemented. The implication was that the events in the dispute had never really slipped out of the government’s control. However, this was very far from the truth.

Of course, at the time Thatcher claimed not to be intervening directly in the conflict. Few believed it then and the much later release of Cabinet papers revealed quite the opposite: Thatcher was involved in the detailed calculation of contingency plans to move more coal by road, including using British troops.

These papers also highlighted two moments during the struggle when the government “stared into the abyss”, in July and October 1984. Neither of these episodes were really dwelt on in Miners’ Strike 1984: The Battle for Britain, yet thy were critical turning points in the dispute, which deserve further consideration.

Solidarity action

The Channel 4 series was happy to magnify the many supposed errors of the leadership of Arthur Scargill in the strike, but failed to address the more interesting question: could the strike have been won? In particular, it paid little attention to the one thing that could have made the strike successful: solidarity action.

‘Unity is strength’ has long been a key watchword of the labour movement. But achieving it has proved notoriously difficult. On paper, there was a Triple Alliance between the mining, rail and steel unions. In practice, it was never activated during the 1984-5 strike and attempts at rank and file level to forge unity in action were quickly stamped out by moderate trade union leaders.

On May 9th Arthur Scargill appealed to railworkers, then due to start an overtime ban on May 30th: “If ever there was a time to join with this union, to come out on strike… now is the time.”

In the event the rail union leaders settled for a 4.9% rise. Paul Foot later published documents in the Daily Mirror showing that Thatcher had instructed British Rail bosses to make whatever concessions were necessary to avoid a “second front” with the railworkers.

There were real attempts at solidarity action at the grassroots. Some rank and file railworkers who refused to transport coal were sent home by the employers while union leaders stood by. Thousands of lorry drivers who supported the miners risked being laid off if they refused to move coal. Their union  – the Transport and General Workers Union – could have issued an instruction to boycott coal. They refused.

The TUC could have coordinated solidary action, but worked instead to keep the miners isolated. They argued that such action had been made unlawful by the Thatcher government, which was true. Yet by the summer of 1984, most anti-union legislation had yet to be deployed. Only when it was clear that the TUC would not act and solidarity action would not be called did a legal action start that would mobilise these laws and lead to the NUM’s funds being sequestrated.

There were moments when real cross-union solidarity became a reality. In the summer of 1984, there were two dockers’ strikes within six weeks of each other. Some 25,000 dockers took part in the first stoppage. A second front had opened, around the same issue of job security.

This was the first moment of panic for the Tory government. It takes only a few weeks for a dock strike’s effect to be felt in terms of shortages of basic goods. What then? For ministers to deploy soldiers to unload ships would constitute a major escalation of the dispute and could lead to widespread generalised action. The alternative was surrender.

No wonder the government was keen to settle as quickly as possible to keep the miners isolated. Dockers’ leaders were compliant in this too, emphasising that their dispute was quite separate from the miners’. This suited Thatcher: the dockers could be beaten into submission later, once the miners were defeated – which is exactly what happened.

Then in September, NACODS, the pit deputies’ union, voted overwhelmingly to strike. This threatened to make those pits where miners were still going to work entirely inoperable. A total shutdown of the industry loomed.

Senior civil servants drew up a secret list of “worst case” options which included power cuts and even putting British industry on a ‘three-day week’ as Edward Heath’s government had in 1974. Being reminded of his humiliating defeat in that battle would indeed have meant “staring into the abyss”.

But NACODS too settled their claim with the government, when as Dennis Skinner said at the time, “they should have doubled the number they first thought of.” Ministers made concessions over the review procedure for unprofitable pits, which was enough to persuade the union’s leaders to call off the strike – even though the review was not binding and later the National Coal Board would overrule it and close reprieved pits. But at the time, it was enough to get the pit deputies back to work and keep the NUM isolated. TUC leaders even suggested the NUM should accept this rotten deal, but no miner wanted to touch it.

General strike?

These actions alongside the miners raised the issue of a general strike. True, few called for one, but it was increasingly clear that the miners on their own could not win. On that basis, a general strike was objectively necessary – and not only for the miners. For, if they lost, who could win? Nobody, as subsequent events proved.

As one Kent miner told a socialist newspaper in early 1985, “If railway workers, the T&G and the power workers got together and said ‘enough is enough’, that would sort out the government within a month.”

The lesson from recent history was still fresh. When the miners managed to force the closure of Saltley Gates coking depot in 1972 – a historic moment in that year’s strike – it was because they had been joined by 10,000 engineering workers from across the Midlands. The Tories understood the need to stop secondary picketing  and passed laws against it. They went further, using the police to greatly curtail freedom of movement, setting up roadblocks and forcing cars that were taking striking miners to picket lines to turn back under threat of arrest.

The aim at all times was to keep the miners isolated. The TUC, the Labour leadership of Neil Kinnock and other union leaders all helped in that respect. Later some of those who could have made common cause with the miners would be picked off one by one.

What of international solidarity? The Channel 4 programme made much of the NUM leadership’s links with the Gaddafi regime in Libya. A bigger issue, not touched upon, was the problem of  imported coal – particularly from the ‘Communist’ bloc. Yet calls for the so-called ‘socialist states’ in Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe to solidarise with the miners did not get far. The Morning Star refused an advert by some Labour MPs that contained a public request to the government of Poland to place an embargo on coal exports to the UK.

Contrast that with the miners’ section of the independent Polish trade union Solidarność which supported the NUM unreservedly and called for an embargo of Polish coal bound for Britain. The NUM issued an explosive statement expressing its “absolute disgust” at the Polish government’s refusal to do this. Worse, the regime had increased its coal exports to the UK by 60% since the start of the strike.

Defeat and repercussions

The defeat of the miners’ strike was a bitter pill for the entire labour movement. Despite all the talk about the miners returning to work with their heads held high, it was an historic defeat. Within the decade, the industry would be privatised and over the next twenty years, deep coal mining would disappear entirely from Britian’s industrial landscape.

The jubilation among the ruling elite was palpable. Privatisation and the destruction of workers’ rights accelerated and the government moved on to intensify its attacks on local government and later public education and health. The ‘new realism’ among trade union leaders that traditional strike action was now largely unwinnable became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Labour Party too used the defeat of the miners to make an ideological turn away from solidarity and collectivism towards egotistical individualism that would infect its policy platforms for the next thirty years.

Through broader union action, local miners’ strike support committees, Women Against Pit Closures, Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners and a wide range of other activities, millions of people, sometimes indirectly,  had taken part in this dispute. Its defeat was theirs too and the broader left is still suffering the consequences of that. It’s scant consolation that a great deal  of what we said at the time about government interference, police violence and the sectional short-sightedness of other union leaders has been proved to be true.

More positively, there has been a huge cultural output over the last forty years – from films like Billy Elliot and Pride to musicals, songs and fiction – that have established the justice of the miners’ cause in our collective memory and challenged the pernicious role of the state in crushing the workers who championed it. We will not forget the miners, nor their historic stand.

Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.

Image: Author: Jamain, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

 UK

Rochdale: the lessons for Labour

Carol Turner argues Labour just doesn’t get it. It’s not Islamic extremists endangering Britain, but the collapse of faith in Westminster parties.

MARCH 5, 2024

The results of the Rochdale by-election left Labour and Tories on the back foot. George Galloway won only because Labour didn’t stand a candidate, according to Keir Starmer and Labour’s Deputy Campaign Coordinator Ellie Reeves. The Tories responded with more rhetoric about Islamist extremist running wild on the streets of Britain – and Labour agreed.

Labour List was beyond unprepared for the outcome. On the morning polling stations opened, it led with an article by an obscure think tank: “If George Galloway wins it will be on the back of a low turnout vote. If Azhar Ali – the former Labour candidate – wins, it will likely be on the back of the strong brand of the Labour party logo.”

The morning after brought no sober reflection. Labour List reported the result with another quote from the same think tank. It was far more likely the lesson of Rochdale was “about candidate selection and due diligence than public opinion.” Oh yeah?

Voters had expressed their preference – not for one, but for two alternatives to the Westminster parties. The real news of the by-election, as a few commentators pointed out, was that neither Labour nor Tory candidates got a look-in. The Conservative came third, with a vote that dropped by 19.2% on the 2019 result, while Azhar Ali, the candidate Labour withdrew support from after the list had closed, came fourth – a massive 43.9% down.

As Sir John Curtice told BBC Breakfast on Friday morning, the Labour result was its worst ever in any post war by-election. The most prominent feature of the results, he said, was that a local candidate pipped both of the main parties to second place.

Particular aspects of the Rochdale campaign mean these results are not a reliable foretaste of the general election. Not only did Labour withdraw support from Azhar Ali – who didn’t even turn up to the count – the Green Party similarly withdrew support from their candidate after the list was published. Simon Danczuk standing for the Reform Party was a former Labour MP for Rochdale (2010-2017) blocked by Labour from standing after a scandal over explicit text messages to a 17-year-old young woman. The winner himself was a one-off who turned the story of the campaign into the story of Gaza.

While Labour was in denial, the Tories tried to turn Rochdale into the latest result of allowing Islamic extremists onto the streets of Britain. This media understood that this was the reason for Rishi Sunak’s bizarre Prime Ministerial non-statement from the steps of No 10. Labour did not. Starmer echoed Sunak.

The focus on Labour and Tory responses to Rochdale, mean two important lessons have gone largely unremarked.

The first, and most obvious: Rochdale confirms how out of touch Labour and Tories really are about the public’s feelings on Gaza. Rochdale’s Muslim communities were not the only ones to express their concern at the ballot box. The size of Galloway’s result strongly suggests a section of non-Muslim voters did too. Successive opinion polls and high mobilisations on Gaza demonstrations back this up.

We may anticipate that this same concern can make itself felt countrywide in the general election. Day after day, for four months solid, agonizing images of death and destruction have chased each other across our screens. Does anyone really doubt the feeble response of government and opposition will linger in public consciousness? A point of comparison, perhaps, is the distrust of Tony Blair in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, which still clings to him today.

The second lesson of Rochdale, which is largely missing from the media, is recognition that Galloway won and a local candidate came second by appealing to the disaffection felt by Rochdale voters. Galloway’s campaign referenced a number of Rochdale-specific issues – restoring maternity and A&E services, getting Primark to open a store in Rochdale, reopening the open-air market.

Galloway is a populist. He even doffed his fedora to Trump, saying his job as MP would be to “make Rochdale great again”. Like Trump he draws on ‘anti-woke’ sentiments about women and the LGBT+ community. Galloway understands what Labour refuses to acknowledge: the roiling dissatisfaction with political parties who duck the issues – inflation and the high cost of living, low wages, poor health care, inadequate housing and lack of local authority services – the list is long.

In 2022 Greater Manchester Poverty Action identified a child poverty rate of 28% in Rochdale. Later that year, a study by Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) put Rochdale 25th of a list of the 30 most deprived areas in Britain. Like Rochdale, many of these have disproportionately high non-white populations; Muslims are disproportionately represented amongst Britain’s worst off.

The biggest lesson of the Rochdale by-election is, indeed, the strength of dissatisfaction with government and opposition parties alike. It is not – as Sunak claims and Starmer echoes – the problem of Islamic extremism that is threatening parliamentary democracy. It’s the unwillingness of government to tackle impoverishment, and the lack of real alternatives from Labour.

Labour’s reliance on an electoral strategy of harvesting the votes of alienated Tories suggests that keeping heads down and waiting for the breaks might not be the winning strategy Labour imagines. Rochdale suggests the electorate is tired of broken promises and ditched policies. Voters are smarter than Labour or Tories give them credit for. Faith in Westminster is rapidly collapsing.

Carol Turner is Labour CND Chair.

Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/52452516527. Creator: Number 10 | Credit: Lauren Hurley / No10 Downing Str Copyright: Crown Copyright CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

 

Ireland must be a voice for the Palestinian people – Declan Kearney MLA

“Sinn Féin believes that our own freedom will ultimately be incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

Declan Kearney MLA

By Declan Kearney MLA

Israel’s war in Gaza has now entered its fifth month. 

During this week 52 states and three international organisations have engaged directly with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the illegality of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. Their actions are without parallel and follow South Africa’s unprecedented legal action against Israel due to its genocidal war in Gaza. 

26 member states of the EU and 13 members of the UN Security Council are now calling for an immediate ceasefire. This is not a war of defence. It is being executed as a war of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people, not only in Gaza, but across the West Bank.

A war of genocide which has been broadcast and recorded in real time by the victims of that same genocide. Gaza is now a graveyard for children. A cemetery for international law. It will forever be remembered as the place when so-called western democracies acted in complicity with an attempt to annihilate the Palestinian people, their society, and culture. 

Gaza and the West Bank; and the occupation of Palestine is the most defining moral and humanitarian issue of our time.  The daily atrocities, massacres and carnage are mind numbing and soul destroying. From a population of 2.3 million in the Gaza strip, more than 37,000 Palestinians are now confirmed dead, or lost in the rubble. Over 70,000 people have been injured. Thousands of others have been maimed for life. Damaged limbs are being amputated without anesthetics because there are none.

It is clear that the Israeli onslaught is attempting to completely destroy all of Gaza’s hospital, medical and health care infrastructure in total violation of the rules of war. There is no other rational explanation for the invasions and destruction of Al-Shifa and Nasser hospitals.

The forced displacement of the Gaza Strip’s population means that 1.5 million people have been pushed into Rafah; a space normally home to just 250,000. If the Israeli government proceeds with its threatened ground invasion into Rafah, the consequences will be apocalyptic. 

At the same time, in the West Bank, 400 men and women, and dozens of children, have been executed by Israeli undercover death squads; ground forces; illegal settlers; and; missile and drone strikes.

Israel’s war is also being used to mask a massive upsurge of Palestinian home demolitions, land theft, illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank and Gaza. Since 7 October, over 7000 residents of the West Bank, and 2,500 from Gaza, have been arrested and interned. In reports emerging, which are reminiscent of British torture techniques in Ireland, these detainees are being subjected to physical torture, sensory deprivation, and systematic humiliation.

Ethnic cleansing and genocide is being implemented across Palestine by this Israeli government with total impunity. There is no coming back from this. The actions of the aggressors have crossed every conceivable legal, diplomatic and political boundary. Israel’s war in Gaza screams a question for the international community; and at us all: ‘What side are we on?’

The choice is between international law and humanity, or genocidal barbarity. There are no grey areas. All right minded people stand with the oppressed and dispossessed of Palestine: With every sister, brother and child in Gaza, and the occupied West Bank.

We must not stop talking about Palestine. We must be outraged by every atrocity being committed. But the people of Palestine need more than that. Irish anger is not a political strategy.

Palestinians need our activism and our leverage. They expect Ireland to be their voice. Palestinian leaders have made clear they want the combined political and civic pressure of Ireland to be used at home, and internationally on their behalf. 

Our responsibility to the Palestinian people must be to build a global anti-apartheid movement with the momentum of the campaign which helped end the horror of apartheid in South Africa.

That can only be done by creating and maintaining maximum unity across Irish society. The absolute focus must be on securing a permanent, unconditional ceasefire: A withdrawal of all Israeli forces from both Gaza and the West Bank: And, an end to the human suffering of every Palestinian by using every form of influence. These priorities should take primacy over all domestic political differences. 

In July 1984, the decision of two young Dublin trade unionists by refusing to handle South African fruit became the catalyst for the iconic Dunnes Stores Strike. The strike maintained by Mary Manning and Karen Gearon, and eight other workers, for two years and nine months, eventually changed Irish government policy towards the South Africa apartheid regime. This example can be repeated by every individual Irish person today.

We can refuse to do business with companies which invest in, or profit from, Israeli state apartheid in Palestine. We should withdraw our own business from those who profit from apartheid practices, and the occupation in Palestine. 

Across Ireland, Sinn Féin is now introducing motions in councils which will require the compliance with ethical investment and purchasing practices. In Dáil Éireann our party has called on the Irish government to join South Africa’s legal case against Israeli genocide at the ICJ.

In a failure of leadership, the government parties refused to do so. That was the wrong decision. The Irish state should change its position and do much more. Without further equivocation it should listen to the leaders of the Palestinian struggle, and immediately recognise the state of Palestine.

Every single opportunity must be used demand an end to Israel’s genocidal war and occupation of Palestinian. Following restoration of power sharing in the north, Uachtarán Shinn Féin Mary Lou McDonald directly challenged British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak over his government’s support for Israel’s war. 

Last weekend Michelle O’Neill urged US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to support a ceasefire position. In recent days I have called on both the EU and US Ambassadors to Britain to intervene and demand that Israel’s aggression in both Gaza and the West Bank is ended immediately. 

While Sinn Féin promotes the case for Irish unity, and support for the peace process abroad, we will be a voice for Palestine. We will seize every political and diplomatic opportunity to call for an end to the genocide and ethnic cleansing, and demand an end to the war, and occupation of Palestine. 

This March we will use the access created in Washington, through promotion of our peace process, with White House, State Department National Security officials, and on Capitol Hill, to demand an end to Israel’s war and promote Palestinian national freedom.  

Sinn Féin has told the political and civic leaderships across the full spectrum of the Palestinian struggle, that we will categorically do so.  We will not hold back from using all available leverage on behalf of our Palestinian sisters and brothers. And the Irish government, and all Irish politicians who travel abroad this St Patrick’s Day period, should do the same.

Whether at home or abroad, all Irish influence must be mobilised on behalf of Palestine. We must ensure the plight of the Palestinian people is spoken of and heard everywhere.  Ireland must refuse to stop talking about Palestine. 

Irish republicans are proud of our history in struggle with the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Palestinian people. The bonds between our national struggles have existed for many decades and they are unbreakable. 

While we are closer now than at any time in history to the achievement of Irish self-determination and independence, Sinn Féin believes that our own freedom will ultimately be incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians. 

This new phase of Israel’s intensified occupation and aggression has placed renewed global focus upon Palestinian sovereignty and statehood; the right of Palestinian people to return to their homeland; and, the imperative of releasing all political prisoners. This is a watershed moment. The future of Palestine demands that the democratic world finally acts decisively in support of the Palestinian people’s fundamental, national and human rights.


  • This was originally published in the (London) Sinn Fein e-newsletter.
  • If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.

 UK

Break up the establishment’s ‘permanent austerity’ consensus

“What is becoming clearer by the week is that the whole political establishment seems intent on never-ending austerity.”

Matt Willgress, LAAA

By Matt Willgress

We’re in the middle of the deepest cost-of-living crisis in generations, which has become a permanent cost-of-living emergency for millions.

Councils are going bust. Poverty and inequality are spiralling. Homelessness is out of control. Unemployment could be set to jump dramatically. People’s living costs just keep going up and up while wages and benefits fail to follow.

In this increasingly desperate context, it has been widely realised by millions in recent years that the Tories are more interested in doing the bidding of their rich backers than securing our jobs and livelihoods – but what is becoming clearer by the week is also that the whole political establishment seems intent on never-ending austerity.

On the Labour side of Parliament, this is reflected by Rachel Reeves’ increasingly conservative ‘fiscal framework,’ which is working through to the abandonment or watering-down of policy after policy that could start tackling the cost-of-living crisis, from public ownership of energy and water to the ditching of popular green investment policies, and much more besides.

On the left, we can’t let a new consensus for ‘permanent austerity’ be formed by the ruling class. It is the route to economic and social catastrophe, and to a further rise of far right politics in the years to come.

We therefore need urgently to put forward – and mobilise now for – policies that could both actually address the depth of the crises we face, and provide the basis for action in our workplaces and communities in the months and years ahead.

As part of this effort, and as a contribution to discussion across the left, labour and social movements on the programme we need – we are renewing efforts to get further support for the Workers Can’t Wait demands online, including these 10 measures:

  • Britain needs a pay rise – National Minimum Wage raised to at least £15 an hour for all; the pay rise public sector workers are asking for; increase Statutory Sick Pay to a real living wage for all from day one.
  • A social security system to end poverty – scrap the two child benefit cap, reverse the Universal Credit cut and extend the uplift to legacy benefits; boost and inflation-proof benefits; for a minimum income guarantee.
  • Control costs – energy price freezes now at April 2022 rates, cap rents and basic food costs.
  • Stop the corporate rip-off – public ownership of energy, water, transport, broadband and mail to bring bills down and end fuel poverty. Lower public transport costs. Higher taxes on profits and the super-rich. Open the books – back the workers’ commission on profiteering.
  • Extra resources to create universal, comprehensive public services – stop cuts and privatisation; Save our NHS – for a national care service; properly fund local government. Tax wealth to fund our public services.
  • Homes for all – no evictions or repossessions; tackle the homelessness emergency; fix the housing crisis with a mass council house building programme.
  • For the right to food – enshrine the right to food in law; universal free school meals all year; for a National Food Service.
  • Decent jobs for all – for full employment; end insecure working and ban zero-hours contracts; for the right to flexible work on workers’ not bosses’ terms.
  • Defend and extend our right to organise – reverse anti-trade union laws and repeal the draconian anti-protest laws; ban fire-and-rehire; for full union rights to bargain for better pay and conditions.
  • End austerity for good – invest in our future with a Green New Deal – end the dependency on fossil fuels and soaring oil and gas prices; for a massive investment in renewables, green infrastructure and jobs; insulate buildings to bring bills down.

Moving forward, we also need a new and urgent discussion on how to co-ordinate, renew and strengthen all those initiatives that seek to address the cost-of-living emergency and support struggles for an end to austerity.

Please add your name, take the policies to labour movement and community groups for endorsement and discussion, and keep mobilising against austerity – and for investment, not cuts.


  • Matt Willgress is the National Organiser for the Labour Assembly Against Austerity. This article was originally published by LabourHub here.
  • Join over 20,000 others and add you name in support to these demands here
  • No cuts – Tax the Rich – Invest in our Future! Online event. Mon. Mar. 4, 18.30. Register here With John McDonnell MP // Richard Burgon MP // Sarah Woolley (BFAWU) // ZIta Holbourne (BARAC) // Jess Barnard, Labour NEC.  Just before Sunak & Hunt’s 2024 Budget, join us to discuss how we renew resistance to austerity and popularise left economic alternatives to never-ending cuts. 

 UK

Welfare not warfare! Budget is a chance to set out a vision for a better world

“Arms races fuel insecurity and increase the risk of war. We need to put the brakes on. Instead, we need to redirect spending to tackling the roots of insecurity.”

Colin Archer

By Colin Archer

When the Chancellor Jeremy Hunt stands up in Parliament tomorrow he will deliver what could be the last set-piece financial announcement before the General Election. These events are not only great parliamentary theatre but also give a chance for politicians on all sides to show the voters what kind of society we want to build for the future. In the face of the many challenges our country faces, bold thinking is needed.

We don’t have to look far to see these challenges: public services are suffering after 14 years of chronic under-investment; schools are crumbling; hospital waiting lists are at an all-time high; food bank use is shockingly common; and the climate crisis is worsening by the year. Taken alongside pressures on public finances after 14 years of austerity and government economic mismanagement, something surely has to give.

Last year’s Autumn Statement showed an increase in the UK core military spending which reached £53.1 billion in 2022-23, an increase of more than 15% on the previous year, well above inflation. This means that the UK was spending £100,000 on the military every minute of every day. This figure doesn’t even cover all spending associated with the military, including the military aid to Ukraine, which has been increased to £2.5bn for the coming year.

Politicians often talk about ‘difficult decisions’ when they are talking about cutting public spending in the context of public services or welfare provisions. But with the Ministry of Defence struggling to fund its own equipment plans, now is the time to start talking about reducing the amount of money we are spending on military.

The target of spending 0.7% of our national income on overseas development was dropped because some labelled this UN aim as ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unaffordable’. Yet the UK remains committed to the NATO target of 2% of GDP spending on its military – which has been criticised even by some security analysts as arbitrary.

Figures from the MoD indicate a shortfall of £16.9 billion in funding for the latest 10-year equipment spending plans, with the ever-expensive nuclear-weapons programme continuing to prove to be a money pit. Do we really need to spend around £200 billion on a new generation of nuclear weapons, when the deterrence doctrine this system is based upon is so flawed? Do we need to retain such a heavily armed military with ‘global reach’ for the foreseeable future? Can we afford to keep spending so much on our armed forces when tackling poverty, ill-health and the climate crisis are so urgent? These are the difficult questions it is time to ask as a country.

Nearly ten years ago, the nations of the world set 17 targets – the UN Sustainable Development Goals – including the elimination of poverty and hunger, and urgent action on climate change. Progress on these targets is faltering – and in some cases being reversed – due to a lack of resources. Meanwhile, global military spending is spiraling and is now comparable with that during the worst periods of the Cold War. Arms races fuel insecurity and increase the risk of war. We need to put the brakes on. Instead, we need to redirect spending to tackling the roots of insecurity – like poverty and ecological damage. We need to defuse international tensions, by focusing more on diplomacy, arms control, and disarmament. Britain can play a leading role in bringing about a positive future – or it can continue down the road of militarism and war. It’s time to choose.


UK

School energy bills rise by nearly half in Devon – as inefficient school buildings shown to be wasting energy

School energy costs have risen by nearly half in Devon over the past academic year, new figures show.

By Will Grimond
Tuesday 5th March 2024 


School energy costs have risen by nearly half in Devon over the past academic year, new figures show.

Amid last year's soaring gas and electricity prices, separate analysis suggests a significant proportion of school buildings across the country are suffering from poor energy efficiency, despite some improvement in recent years.

Figures from the Department for Education show £4.53 million was spent on energy for local authority-run schools in Devon in the 2022-23 academic year – up 50% from the £3.02 million spent the year before.

This was the highest figure since at least 2015-16, when records are first available.

Across England, expenditure on energy for local authority-maintained schools hit £485 million in 2022-23 – a 61% increase on the year before, when £302 million was spent.


Almost every local authority saw a rise, with 74% recording their highest spending on record. One local authority, Bolton, saw expenditure nearly triple compared to the year before.


The Local Government Association – a membership body for local authorities – said many schools have been voicing concerns about their financial stability.


Louise Gittins, chair of the LGA’s Children and Young People’s Board, said schools are facing higher costs from "fuel, energy and food for school meals, alongside the need to fund agreed staff pay rises, and support for a growing number of pupils experiencing disadvantage."

Schools in Devon spent £120 per pupil on energy in 2022-23, up from £79 the year before.

The LGA urged further Government support for schools in the upcoming Spring Budget.

Separate analysis of energy efficiency ratings suggests many English school buildings are underperforming.

Across England, a fifth of all school buildings receiving display energy certificates last year were in the lowest, most polluting categories (E to G) – meaning they are not up to standard. However, this does represent an improvement – in 2018, around a third of ratings were in these categories.

DECs are designed to show the energy performance of public buildings, using a scale from ‘A’ to ‘G’ - ‘A’ being the most efficient and ‘G’ being the least.

Of the 16,700 buildings receiving a certificate, just 55 were rated A, and 831 received a B.

Across the South West, 12% of the 1,474 school buildings rated last year were in the worst categories – emitting the most carbon dioxide and wasting more energy.

An estimated 43% of schools in the region had a building evaluated last year.

These figures include academies and independent schools. Larger buildings require energy certificates more regularly, so bigger schools may be overrepresented in the figures.

Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union said schools have been left to their own devices to deal with "leaky, draughty, energy inefficient buildings" and higher bills.

He said: "In the medium term we need a massive retrofit programme to make school buildings fit for the future – safe, energy efficient and able to play their part in creating a safe climate future for children.

"For many schools, however, the problems are such that rebuilding is the only answer, but the Government's record on this is woeful."

A Department for Education spokesperson said: "We know that schools have faced increased energy bills. We took account of this and made additional investment in total school funding to cover costs – a £4 billion increase in 2022-23, and a further £3.9 billion this year.

"School funding is rising to more than £59.6 billion next year – the highest ever level in real terms per pupil."