Sunday, May 05, 2024

 

The Searchers by Andy Beckett: ‘A vivid profile of left MPs, down but not out’


Andy Beckett’s new book is, he writes in the introduction, “the story of a group of political explorers and of a series of interlocking political journeys which are rarely considered as a whole”. The explorers in question are Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell and Tony Benn.

Beckett’s The Searchers is a group biography-cum-long durée history of Bennism that tracks their political lives through the wilderness and up onto the main stage of British politics with close attention, empathy and verve.

In their time, Beckett’s searchers have been regarded with “fear, contempt or hatred”, but the group – who the author describes as the closest mainstream British politics has to heretics – have also had a complicated, arguably outsize influence on their party and the country’s politics.

Beckett’s subjects came to full political awareness in the same era

Of the five, Benn would seem to be the odd one out; he was first elected to parliament in 1950, long before the others were political, let alone politicians.

Beckett convincingly argues, however, that all of his subjects came to mature political awareness in the late 1960s and early 1970s, influenced by the new left and leftist currents beyond Labour including “anarchism, anti-racism, Marxism, pacifism and identity politics”.

Benn just experienced this awakening at a slightly later stage in his life, while happening to be a cabinet minister. The younger politicians may have been Benn’s “disciples”, but the five’s completely politics-dominated lives shared a common vision.

The drive to fulfil this politics carried Livingstone and McDonnell to innovate at the Greater London Council in the 1980s and on, less fruitfully, into Westminster in the 90s. Abbott started her career at the Home Office before becoming a TV researcher and being elected to parliament in 1987, joining Corbyn, who had become the MP for Islington North in 1983 after some years as a Haringey councillor.

Benn’s later-in-life radicalism led him to contest Labour’s deputy leadership contest in 1981 and lose by a whisper (49.574% to 50.426%). Sitting as an MP until 2010, his long career saw him become, somewhat unwillingly, a national treasure.

Vivid eye for detail meets seemingly effortless narrative pacing

I review a lot of books, and a lot of books about the Labour Party, and the praise one can normally give the prose and writing style of these books is somewhat limited. Beckett’s, in this regard, is a breath of fresh air: a vivid eye for detail meets narrative pacing that seems effortless – but obviously isn’t.

As a character study, and as an evocation of Britain in the last century, it would be worth reading even if you had no particular interest in the subject matter. Beckett takes the reader from the polluted streets of a London quite different to that of today’s to the carpeted quiet of the slightly run-down hotel in Chesterfield where Benn made his constituency home from the mid-80s.

If the latter is channelling Philip Larkin’s Friday Night At The Royal Station Hotel, the book as a whole put me in mind of Sam Knight’s The Premonitions Bureau, making sure – as that book does –  in a sparing, unshowy way, that the reader feels all the distance between the recent past and now and understands that the actions described are products of a particular moment.

These were always people convinced another world was possible; what that other world looked like has changed over time. “This is not the world I would have created,” Livingstone said when he was mayor of London in the 2000s, “but it’s the world I have to live in.”

Beckett gives a carefully observed portrait of Corbyn

Beckett is clearly sympathetic to his subjects, but one of the book’s many commendable features is its focus on how their differing characters factored into both success and failure, effective team-work and devastating fall-outs.

Livingstone was nimble, and a very skilled politician, but inconsistent and self-interested; McDonnell principled and organised but prone to alienate with a “curt” manner; Abbott fiercely self-sufficient but subject to “the double-edged prestige of being a pioneer” and stubborn to a fault. They’re prone to acting in ways unhelpful to themselves, from Livingstone’s GLC-era declaration that “everyone is bisexual” to Abbott’s mid-90s small-scale diplomatic spat with Finland. 

Perhaps the book’s most interesting character study is of Corbyn himself, who it details as hard-working, if not particularly brilliant; intensely personable and genuinely interested with his constituents, collegiate and disengaged from gossip in Westminster. “In a country that often values these qualities,” Beckett writes, “he was seen as reliable, dogged, humble, and seemingly not in any way hypocritical.”

It was this modesty and consistency, delivered by a soft-spoken, middle-class man, that ultimately took Corbyn to the very top of Labour politics – but left him, the author argues, perhaps most ill-prepared for the demands of power, inflexible and considered even by some allies prone to “courting martyrdom” rather than coalition-building.

In Beckett’s carefully observed portrait of Corbyn, the reader sees both all the things that made him so potently appealing to his supporters and the failings that made him profoundly unsuited for leadership.  

The Labour left may be down – but it’s foolish to count it out

Beckett maintains an approach of disciplined sympathy for almost all of the book, but things begin to overbalance in the last section, which concerns Corbyn’s time as leader. The author argues, not unconvincingly, that Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and Livingstone are underrated as electoral politicians, able to marshal broad coalitions within their constituencies and consistently increase majorities.

There’s something in this, I think, but it’s the kind of reasoning that will have you shot on sight by the Labour Party’s more important Irish Morgan – there are few “hero voters” in London, after all – and it has limited wider electoral utility.

Beckett begins to over-egg this kind of argument when discussing Corbyn’s general election campaigns – so what if the campaign-produced ‘Corbyn Run’ game garnered more downloads than there are Tory members?

If the first 400 pages of Beckett’s quite substantial book are a masterclass in teasing out complex stories of simultaneous failure and success, the final chapters are a more standard blow-by-blow strung up between quotes from jostling advisers. Here, he ends up reasoning along the lines of Corbyn’s infamous post-2019 “we won the argument” piece. And argument aside, they very much lost the election.

Beckett is more convincing, however, in his argument that our social politics – how Britain deals with race, or aspires to, how it thinks about gay people, or the role of women – is closer to that presented by Livingstone’s GLC than those professed by the Thatcher government. “We won the argument” is stubbornness and cope rather than actual analysis, but that doesn’t mean that short-term defeat cannot mask longer-term forms of success.

If there is a political lesson from The Searchers, it is that dormancy should not be confused with death, and that the politics Beckett’s protagonists champion may often, as it does now, find itself down, but it is patient over long durations and foolish to ever count totally out.

The Searchers: Five Rebels, Their Dream of a Different Britain, and Their Many Enemies by Andy Beckett will be published by Allen Lane on May 2nd.


The Searchers by Andy Beckett review – the leftists who took their lead from Tony Benn


An absorbing study of five Labour radicals – Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, Ken Livingstone, plus Benn himself – makes a convincing case for their cultural victories but romanticises Corbyn’s years as the party’s leader


Jason Cowley
THE OBSERVER
Sun 5 May 2024 

This might seem like an eccentric book. As Labour prepares for power after four consecutive general election defeats, Andy Beckett is interested not in what is to come but what has just been. He is particularly preoccupied by the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, what happened to him as party leader and what his leadership represented. The Searchers is mostly fair-minded, diligently reported and researched, but leaves you in no doubt that Beckett, a Guardian columnist, is a sympathetic Corbynite.

In the long, final section, covering 2015 to the present day, Beckett writes nostalgically about the excitement of the early years of Corbyn’s leadership when the left, for so long ridiculed, traduced and marginalised (Peter Mandelson joked during the era of New Labour dominance that they had been contained in a “sealed tomb”), seized control of the party and unlocked a spirit of radical countercultural optimism, especially among younger voters.


The author misses those days but in seeking to recreate the social atmosphere of the country during that period he is perhaps too forgiving of Corbyn’s failures, anti-Zionist zeal and toxic associations. Not forgetting his crass stupidity. This was demonstrated, most emphatically, by his response to the Novichok nerve agent poisoning of Sergei Skripal, a former Soviet military intelligence officer, and his daughter in Salisbury in 2018 when the Labour leader gave the benefit of the doubt to Putin’s Kremlin.
Tony Benn, inspiration to the other subjects of The Searchers, at the Edinburgh international book festival, Edinburgh, 2003.
 Photograph: Murdo Macleod/The Guardian

In 2023 Beckett attended a Bernie Sanders event at the Royal Festival Hall in London. The cross-class social mix and febrile mood reminded him of old Corbyn rallies. “The audience was multiracial, male and female in roughly equal proportions … It did not look like a Britain whose political time had gone for good.”

But London is not Britain. The Corbyn events that Beckett attended while reporting for the book were invariably in London – or Bristol and Brighton, cities with similar demographics to the vibrant multicultural capital. We never encounter him in those faraway Brexit-supporting former Labour towns in which Corbyn and his movement were loathed.
Livingstone and McDonnell worked together in the 1980s at the GLC, which was widely mocked as “loony left”, but its equity, inclusion and diversity policies are now mainstream

But this is not just a book about Corbyn and Corbynism. The Searchers has larger ambitions and more broadly is an absorbing history of Labour’s radical left from the late 1960s to its present marginalisation. It is also a series of interconnected mini-biographies – of Tony Benn and the four prominent politicians who were inspired by him: Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and Corbyn.

Beckett’s Gang of Four (as I shall call them) were all products of the London left. Livingstone and McDonnell worked together in the 1980s, respectively, as leader and deputy leader of the Greater London Council (GLC), which championed municipal socialism and delighted in tormenting Margaret Thatcher. Her response: she abolished the GLC in 1986.

Abbott, a former TV journalist, reported on the GLC and later worked as a press officer for it. She was encouraged by its embrace of minority rights and identity politics. The GLC back then was widely mocked as “loony left”, but its equity, inclusion and diversity policies are now mainstream.

Corbyn, who later had a relationship with Abbott, moved to London after working with the Voluntary Service Overseas scheme in Jamaica and then travelling through Chile, where he observed the rise of Salvador Allende, the elected socialist president whose Popular Unity government was toppled in a US-backed coup in 1973. (The fall of Allende was a cautionary tale for the internationalist left.)

Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn at the Labour party conference in Brighton, September 2017. 
Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images

On his return to England, Corbyn, who had messed up his A-levels, studied desultorily at North London Polytechnic before working for several trade unions. He became the MP for Islington North in 1983, the same year that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were elected to parliament (Livingstone and Abbott were elected in 1987; McDonnell in 1997).

The Gang of Four shared a politics and were inspired by Benn’s campaign to empower members and activists in pursuit of “change from below” and greater party democracy. They supported Benn’s attempt to win the deputy leadership in 1981, a bitter sectarian struggle against Denis Healey that poisoned Labour for a generation. As a restless, technocratic senior minister in Harold Wilson’s governments, Benn had become disillusioned with the resistance his reforming ideas had encountered, from within the civil service and his own party. Through the 1970s he moved further to the left.

The Gang of Four were “Bennites” but had different styles and methods. Livingstone was the Machiavel of County Hall, a pragmatist and dealmaker. “There’s no permanent friendships [in politics],” he told Beckett. He was ruthless in achieving what he wanted but, in the end, was a local rather than national hero. His rise in the parliamentary party was thwarted by Neil Kinnock. “He hated the London left,” Abbott said of the former party leader.

McDonnell was an uncompromising ideologue and, according to Beckett, a Gramscian. He was an autodidact, having gone to Brunel University as a mature student. He was from an Irish-Catholic Liverpudlian family and considered becoming a priest. He was patient and relentless and would later emerge as the de facto leader of the parliamentary left and chair of the Socialist Campaign Group, which is now a demoralised faction.

McDonnell was the Corbynite who impressed me most when I interviewed him. He was interested in big ideas and political economy. He was a hard worker, shrewd strategist and desperately wanted to win. And he had a theory of history and of how he wanted to transform the state. For McDonnell, Corbynism was a counter-hegemonic project. For Corbyn himself, the accidental leader, not so much.

The young Corbyn was a rabble-rouser and agitator. He was intoxicated by the upheavals and student rebellions of the late 1960s and the world of leftwing politics as he found it in London: the radical magazines, the rallies, the festivals, the demonstrations. He relished protest but was a reluctant frontman and had intellectual insecurities. He agreed only to run for the leadership in 2015 because both McDonnell (twice) and Abbott had tried and failed before him, and the Socialist Campaign Group wanted to be represented in the contest. During a brilliant campaign, he unequivocally rejected austerity and spoke directly in a manner that inspired activists who were weary of the tortured triangulations of senior Labour politicians. Corbyn won convincingly but was overwhelmingly rejected by the parliamentary party. A long civil war had begun.

Ken Livingstone (left) and John McDonnell (second left) with GLC Labour colleagues Ken Little and Lewis Herbert (far right) in 1984. 
Photograph: PA/PA Archive/Press Association Images

Abbott was a true pioneer, a state school Cambridge graduate and the first black female MP. She was an adept media performer as well as being a passionate campaigner for racial, sexual and gender equality. Perhaps no other modern MP has suffered more sustained abuse and vilification and today Abbott is an unhappy exile within the party. She, like Corbyn, is stained by accusations of antisemitism.

The book shares a title with John Ford’s great western, from 1956, starring John Wayne as a Confederate veteran of the American civil war. He embarks on a quest, in the desert landscape of west Texas, to find his niece whom he believes has been kidnapped by members of the Comanche Native American tribe. What were the searchers of Andy Beckett’s book looking for?

They were looking for a lot of things but most strikingly for an enduring socialist alternative. They were opposed to rampant capitalism, entrenched privilege, social conservatism and American hegemony. They were economically statist and socially ultra-liberal. On social and cultural matters, Beckett writes, “the left has won so many battles that its victory has become invisible”.

So why the ultimate disappointment, why the sense of lost opportunity that flows like an underground stream through the book? The answer, I think, is that when it mattered most, when they had the opportunity to lead the Labour party to power and effect the political and economic transformation for which they had long campaigned, Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott were abjectly defeated by Boris Johnson, the clown prince of Tory politics. They told the people who they were and what they wanted and the message in return was: “Enough. No more!” The tomb had been resealed. It is now left for Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to lead Labour into a new era of government.

Jason Cowley is editor of the New Statesman

The Searchers: Five Rebels, Their Dream of a Different Britain, and Their Many Enemies by Andy Beckett is published by Allen Lane (£30). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
Giorgia Meloni and Ursula von der Leyen, the double act that is steering the EU ever rightwards

As elections loom across the continent, Italy’s prime minister and the commission’s president are in a dubious alliance

Italy's prime minister Giorgia Meloni, right, speaks with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen during a round table meeting at an EU summit in Brussels,  April 17, 2024.
 Photograph: Omar Havana/AP

Sat 4 May 2024 


It’s rare that an Italian prime minister tops the table in Europe. But with Germany’s Olaf Scholz and France’s Emmanuel Macron facing red cards at home, Spain’s Pedro Sánchez briefly stretchered off, and relegated Rishi Sunak sulking on the bench like Liverpool’s Mo Salah, Giorgia Meloni – post-fascist poster girl turned star centre-forward of the new right – is shooting at an open goal.

It’s Meloni’s moment. In the words of one conservative commentator, she has become “Europe’s essential leader”. And her influence is set to expand next month when up to 450 million eligible voters in 27 countries pick a new EU parliament. Hard-right and far-right nationalist-populist parties, including Meloni’s Brothers of Italy, are poised for sweeping gains at the expense of the left and the greens.

Meloni has surprised opponents since promotion to prime minister in 2022. Rather than disrupt or desert the EU, she seems keen to run it. Most telling is her co-opting of Ursula von der Leyen, the less than stellar European Commission president who covets an undeserved second five-year term. Von der Leyen has taken to following Meloni around, often visiting Italy to curry favour.

That’s because Meloni’s support could be decisive when national leaders (not voters) pick the next commission chief. It’s also because Meloni has become pivotal in shaping Europe’s agenda – notably on migration and climate – and managing trouble-makers such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. Her growing influence is helping to move the EU’s centre of gravity ever rightwards.

Speaking at last week’s candidates’ debate, von der Leyen castigated parliament’s far-right Identity and Democracy group, which includes Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), France’s National Rally (RN) (formerly the National Front) and Italy’s League. Marine Le Pen, National Rally’s leader, has accused Meloni and von der Leyen of conspiring to secure the latter’s reappointment.

Bad blood was evident as the commission president claimed the far-right parties were acting as “proxies” for Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, by parroting his “lies and propaganda”. Yet she opened the door to future cooperation with a rival hard-right grouping that includes Meloni’s Brothers.

The phenomenon of two empowered women directing European affairs (it used to be only one, Angela Merkel) was on display last year when Meloni helped von der Leyen cut a controversial migration deal with Tunisia. She was on hand again in March when the EU gave €7.4bn (£6.3bn) to Egypt’s abusive dictator, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, partly to curb migrant flows. Meloni’s idea, adopted by von der Leyen, is to keep migrants far away from Europe’s borders – a radical break with previous EU asylum and refugee settlement policies.

Meloni has also successfully lobbied in Brussels to water down the EU’s green deal. Like migration, climate is a bogey issue across the denialist right. Unsurprisingly, given recent Tory backsliding, Meloni received a warm welcome from Sunak in Downing Street last year.

Europe’s political establishment looks set for a right kicking next month. In France, Le Pen’s RN, spearheaded by Jordan Bardella, a handsome smooth-talker like Macron, only younger, has a huge lead. Germany’s AfD, bucking scandal, is on a roll – and stumbling Scholz and his Social Democrats are hopelessly off the pace. If he were a horse, not a chancellor, Scholz would be humanely put to sleep.
The combination of ambitious, slippery Meloni and a dependent, needy von der Leyen is potentially dangerous for Europe

Little wonder that von der Leyen is tacking to the right. The German conservative has the support, albeit lukewarm, of parliament’s dominant, centre-right European People’s party. Critics accuse her of serious missteps over the pandemic, the Gaza war, alleged cronyism, – and of having a high-handed manner. While tipped to win in a thin field, she needs the impetus that Meloni, cresting a rightwing wave, can provide.

Meloni herself comes with considerable baggage, not least her once fierce euroscepticism. In office, she has sought constitutional changes to boost her executive powers and led assaults on migrant rescue organisations, LGBTQ+ groups and media freedom. The Brothers adore Donald Trump.

Add to that Italy’s relative economic weakness and notorious political instability, and Meloni is plainly punching above her weight. Observers suggest she has been “normalised” within Europe’s mainstream by distancing herself from Moscow and supporting Nato and EU aid for Ukraine. She has reduced Italy’s dealings with China, too – and helped mend fences with Orbán.

Yet questions persist over Meloni’s direction of travel – and trustworthiness. In one scenario, she becomes a unifying standard-bearer of the right, embracing parties across the spectrum from Germany’s staid Christian Democrats to the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders and the crazier Finnish fringes. Yet what if Trump, pro-Russia and anti-Europe, wins? What if Putin does? Might she shift her ground again?

An alternative scenario, which could boost the beleaguered social democratic and socialist left, has Meloni definitively breaking with the ultra-nationalist, populist far-right, principally over attitudes to the EU.

Her relationship with von der Leyen suggests it’s already happening. That’s the view of her conflicted deputy and League party leader, Matteo Salvini, and Le Pen.

Speaking via video to a Rome conference organised by Salvini in March, Le Pen asked: “Giorgia… will you support a second von der Leyen term or not? I believe so. And so you will contribute to worsening the policies that the people of Europe are suffering from so much.” It was a pointed dig. But Le Pen has a problem. After Brexit, she no longer talks about quitting the EU. As for Salvini, he’s increasingly eclipsed by Meloni.

Potentially beneficial rightwing schisms aside, the long-term combination of an ambitious, slippery Meloni and a dependent, needy von der Leyen is potentially dangerous for Europe. This opportunistic double act could drag the EU deep into an ideological swamp while lacking practical, consensual answers to urgent challenges.

Ursula and Giorgia: it has a familiar ring. Like Thelma and Louise, driving off a cliff.



Simon Tisdall is the Observer’s Foreign Affairs Commentator



\

EU at risk of ‘implosion’ as far-right seeks scapegoats, minister warns


Centre-right politicians must resist urge to copy or work with far right, Spain’s environment minister says


Sam Jones in Madrid
Sun 5 May 2024 

The future of the EU is being jeopardised by people stirring up social tensions for short-term political gain, Spain’s environment minister has said ahead of next month’s European parliamentary elections.

Teresa Ribera, who is heading the list for the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers’ party in June’s poll, said the European project is at risk of “an implosion”.

She told the Guardian: “When you have people asking themselves what scapegoats they can use for their problems – rather than correctly identifying the causes of their problems and addressing them – the search for scapegoats ratchets up.

“And that breaks coexistence in a society. I think that’s the riskiest point we’re facing right now – the risk of an implosion of a European project that’s probably one of the most successful projects in history, and of course in recent European history.”

Ribera said that Europe, already struggling with “traditional, violent, enormously bloody and painful wars in both Ukraine and Gaza”, also faced threats from those who use energy, food, disinformation and social media manipulation as the tools of modern warfare.

At a time of such global upheaval and uncertainty, she added, centre-right politicians must resist the urge to ape the far right or to enter into alliances with it.

“I think it’s been shown that it’s a huge error – and historically always has been – to think that looking for common territory with the far right is a way to pacify the far right,” she said. “That never works. The French know that very well; I think the republican principle of a cordon sanitaire against things that aren’t tolerable is still the best answer.”

Ribera said she had been deeply troubled by the moderate right’s increasing embrace of the far right and its tactics and language. Although the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, recently criticised some on the far right for being “Putin’s proxies”, she refused to rule out working with the hardline European Conservatives and Reformists Group, which includes Spain’s far-right Vox party, Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party and Poland’s Law and Justice party.


“I think that’s very worrying and, up to a certain point, it was a betrayal,” said Ribera.

“When [European People’s party leader Manfred] Weber questioned the restoration of ecosystems, or in the words Von der Leyen has used in these pre-electoral moments, I didn’t see the classic Christian democracy that was at the fore of the construction of the European project, along with social democracy and the liberals. I think that’s very worrying and that we should avoid those kinds of temptations.”

The climate emergency is too pressing to fall victim to culture wars, Teresa Ribera says. Photograph: Carlos Lujan/Europa Press/Getty Images

Ribera, who has led Spain’s environmental agenda for the past six years, pointed to the recent neo-fascist rallies in Italy as proof that Europe’s authoritarian past was intruding on its democratic present.

“That is what’s at stake right now,” she said. “That’s being normalised. Does anyone really think that recognising this kind of behaviour as legitimate is going to make it disappear? Quite the opposite. It will just grow and become seen as just another sign of institutional and public life.”

Ribera described von der Leyen’s words as “enormously unfortunate” but insisted they showed the importance of people turning out to vote in June.

“Participation in European elections is usually lower than in local or national elections because people think that all this stuff just goes on working alongside our daily reality,” she said. “But that’s a lie: whoever’s in Brussels will end up defending policies in all our member states but also our capacity to react to any crisis.”

Ribera said Spain was all too familiar with pacts between the centre right and the far right since the conservative People’s party and Vox began teaming up to form regional coalition governments. She noted that three UN experts had recently warned that new laws proposed by three such regional governments – which have been criticised as attempts to “whitewash” the Franco dictatorship – could contravene international human rights standards.


The minister also said the climate emergency was too pressing and too critical to be used as part of culture wars and partisan politics.

“From a physical point of view, it’s obviously impossible to ask nature or the climate system to give us more time,” she said. “The dynamics have been evolving and will continue evolving whether we pay attention to them or not. But it’s more than that – if we don’t pay attention then we’ll accelerate that deterioration.”

The choice, she added, was between reacting as soon as possible to mitigate the effects of the emergency, reduce costs and generate opportunities, or waiting “for those dynamics themselves to hit us in the form of floods, terrible heatwaves and the collapse of our industrial infrastructure”.

Ribera stressed the importance of engaging the public in the fight against apathy, despair, and active disinformation.

“The far right – and the right has seconded them on this – has sought to portray this agenda as a kind of cultural agenda to be fought against,” she said. “It’s distorted reality as if by questioning the messenger and the message it’ll avoid the problems we’re having.”

She said she would do everything in her power to save the beleaguered European Green Deal, which aims to restore biodiversity, clean up the environment, and mitigate climate breakdown. The EU has already diluted a series of proposed laws including the nature restoration law, which is on the verge of collapse, and scrapped other plans including new rules on pesticides.

“I will do everything in my power to stop the Green Deal failing and to make sure that it’s viable, agile and just,” said Ribera.

“I think that’s the most important political message of this campaign. I think the failure of the Green Deal wouldn’t just be a failure for Europe; it would be a failure for Europe’s citizens and for their opportunities.”
UK
Unfair jail sentences – one more example of demonising society’s ‘morally unfit’

The IPP scandal should not be seen in isolation. It is all part of today’s politics by vilification


According to UNGRIPP, 287 people who received IPPs have died in prison, 90 having taken their own life. 
Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA

Kenan Malik
THE OBSERVER
Sun 5 May 2024 


David Blunkett acknowledged last week that it was the “biggest regret” of his political life. As home secretary under Tony Blair in 2001, Blunkett was the architect of the “imprisonment for public protection” scheme, or IPP.

Under the IPP system, offenders were given a sentence (or “tariff”) proportionate to the offence committed. Once that sentence was completed, the offender was not released but remained imprisoned for as long as the Parole Board deemed them a “risk to society”. And when finally released, they remained on licence, meaning they could be recalled to prison at any time for minor breaches of regulation, or even because, as MPs discovered, of a “lack of… suitable accommodation”.


In 2006, Martin Myers threatened a man as he tried to cadge a cigarette. He was given an IPP sentence with a tariff of 19 months and 27 days. Eighteen years later, he is still in prison. Last October, he was finally released, but recalled to prison 10 weeks later – for taking Valium to ease anxiety. “I couldn’t believe it,” wrote Simon Hattenstone, the Guardian journalist who told his story. “But it was true.” It is the sheer arbitrary viciousness of the IPP regime that takes one aback.


In 2007, Wayne Bell was given an IPP sentence for punching a man and stealing his bike. He is still in prison. As is Aaron Graham, who in 2005 was given an IPP sentence with a tariff of two years and 124 days. Almost 20 years later, he is the longest serving IPP prisoner.


Martin Myers tried and failed to steal a cigarette. Why has he spent 18 years in prison for it?


According to the campaigning organisation United Group for Reform of IPP (UNGRIPP), 287 people who received an IPP sentence have died in prison, 90 having taken their own life. IPP prisoners are almost three times as likely to self-harm as prisoners with determinate sentences and even those serving life. So egregiously cruel was the IPP regime that the coalition government abolished it in 2012. The law, however, was not made retrospective; those already convicted remained in jail. In 2012, there were around 6,000 IPP prisoners. Today there are still almost 3,000, of whom more than a thousand have never been released, the remainder having been recalled to prison.

Last December, more than 1,600 IPP prisoners had served at least 10 years beyond their tariff. Of these, 193 had originally been given a tariff of less than two years; they had spent at least 12 years behind bars .

Everyone agrees that IPP sentences are a disgrace. Yet, since their abolition, policy to remedy the continuing injustice has been at best begrudging. In 2022, the Commons justice select committee recommended new legislation to allow all IPP prisoners still in jail to be “resentenced”. This, it observed, “is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence and its subsequent administration, and to restore proportionality to the original sentences that were given”.
The IPP regime is a morbid illustration of how the moralising of social problems can lead politicians to leverage cruelty as a social good


The government rejected the recommendation. Instead, last November it introduced a scheme whereby IPP prisoners who have already been released will have their period of licence – when they can be recalled to prison – cut to three years if the Parole Board agrees, or five years irrespective of the board’s verdict. The scheme will not, however, change the status of IPP prisoners still in jail. Martin Myers, Wayne Bell, Aaron Graham, and the almost 3,000 other IPP prisoners who remain behind bars will continue to be left to rot.

In rejecting the justice committee’s recommendation, the then justice secretary Dominic Raab claimed it “could lead to the immediate release of many offenders who have been assessed as unsafe”. Introducing the new half-hearted remedy, current justice secretary Alex Chalk insisted that it was preferable to the select committee suggestion because it would “make sure the public are protected from the most serious offenders”. These are the same kind of fearmongering claims that brought IPPs into being in the first place.


Tommy Nicol was kind and friendly – a beloved brother. Why did he die in prison on a ‘99-year’ sentence?

Read more


The IPP regime was introduced as part of New Labour’s “respect” agenda, to help to restore, in Blair’s words to the 2005 Labour party conference, “the loss of a value which is a necessary part of any strong community; proper behaviour; good conduct; the unselfish notion that the other person matters”. But, like the Windrush scandal the following decade, it was also the product of a deliberately engineered “hostile environment”, this one directed not against black Britons deemed not British enough, but against working-class people judged not to be sufficiently morally fit.

The policies of the respect agenda, such as the introduction in 1998 of “antisocial behaviour orders”, or asbos, singled out certain social groups, from “problem families” to benefit scroungers, as moral obstacles. In so doing, they helped reduce respect for certain groups of people and thereby erode our sense of mutual obligation – the very themes that Blair sought to restore in his 2005 speech.

Blair claimed these policies drew on the work of sociologist Richard Sennett and his ideas of social solidarity. “A chill came over me,” Sennett shuddered on hearing that.

In presenting social problems as the product of the moral failure of certain individuals and groups, Labour sought to foster respect by disrespecting the rights and needs of targeted groups. The consequence was that working-class communities were disproportionately affected not only by the breakdown of social bonds, but also by the policies aimed at addressing that breakdown, from harsher policing to stricter benefits regimes.

The top-down attempt to reform social behaviour, Sennett observed, was a betrayal of working-class people, “the manufacture of policy becoming a smokescreen hiding just how difficult society’s problems have become”.

The IPP regime provides a morbid illustration of how the moralising of social problems can lead politicians to leverage cruelty as a social good. The current Tory government, faced with electoral oblivion, has come to rely on little more than such performative cruelty, displayed in policies from the Rwanda deportation scheme to the two-child benefit cap to the latest assault on “sicknote culture”.


The continuing reluctance to properly remedy the injustices of IPPs is scandalous. The IPP story should not, though, be seen in isolation. It exposes most brutally the consequences of politics by demonisation.

We need a final reckoning with the continuing distressing legacy of IPPs. We need a reckoning, too, with the politics of vilification, in whatever form it arises.

Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

With a bit of Saudi topspin, tennis fans can overlook its brutal repression of women

The WTA finals host revealed its commitment to women’s rights by jailing a female activist

Catherine Bennett
Sun 5 May 2024 


If a record of sexual apartheid is not the ideal look for a nation that must still, occasionally, placate progressives, news of an extreme example – the lengthy imprisonment of Manahel al-Otaibi, a 29-year-old fitness instructor and women’s rights activist – has at least arrived too late to tarnish Saudi Arabia’s latest sporting triumph: buying up the Women’s Tennis Association finals.

In fact, given that country’s hectic promotional schedule, there could hardly have been a more convenient time for human rights organisations to report, as they did last week, that al-Otaibi whose circumstances were for months unknown, is serving 11 years in prison for the “terrorist” offences of wearing “indecent clothes” (ie, not an abaya) and supporting women’s rights. Her sister, Fouz al-Otaibi, fled the country in 2022 to avoid similar persecution. Fouz tweeted last week: “Why have my rights become terrorism, and why is the world silent?”

Had the scale of this injustice emerged earlier it could have cast a shadow over the unopposed election in March of a Saudi, Dr Abdulaziz Alwasil, as chair of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, a title reflecting his country’s attractive new image as a champion of women’s rights. Although it may be optimistic, given the already abundant evidence of sexist brutality before Alwasil’s promotion, to think that the imprisonment of another woman would have penetrated UN torpor about one of the world’s most misogynistic countries leading a global body “dedicated to the promotion of gender equality”. “Is the international community’s commitment so shallow that no better champion could be found,” the academic Maryam Aldossari wrote at the time, “or was Mullah Haibatullah Akhunzada, the Taliban’s leader, simply unavailable for the role?”

Ideally, revelations about al-Otaibi’s sentence would have appeared still earlier, in response to a UN special rapporteur’s inquiry as to her treatment. Since it appears that al-Otaibi would only recently have been convicted by a secret court, in January, when the Saudi ambassador to the US, Princess Reema bint Bandar al-Saud, in a widely reported statement, said it was “beyond disappointing” that critics of a mooted WTA deal were resorting to “outdated stereotypes and western-centric views of our culture”. To put it another way: were they suggesting it was the kind of hell where mutinous women could be sent down for 11 years for wearing dungarees?

The tennis deal is designed to obscure not alleviate the oppression of Saudi women living under male guardianship law

article (“We did not help build women’s tennis for it to be exploited by Saudi Arabia”) for the Washington Post, the tennis champions Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova had indeed argued that the Saudi deal negotiated by WTA’s leader, Steve Simon, would represent a “significant regression”. The WTA’s values, they explained, “sit in stark contrast to those of the proposed host”.

Defending her country, Princess Reema took the opportunity to reproach Evert and Navratilova for deficient feminism. Women astronauts were mentioned. “This not only undermines the progress of women in sports, it sadly undermines women’s progress as a whole”.

After the WTA deal was signed, in April, Navratilova commented, it was “about as big a change as you can make except for maybe going to North Korea”. Which is definitely something for the WTA to consider when the three-year Saudi deal comes up for renewal. Why not? None of the main criteria the WTA applied to the Saudi proposal featured human rights. And when these unsporting irritants do arise, a mention of wholesome legacies plus some inspirational allusions to world peace, usually – witness this year’s intensely undiscriminating Olympics – offer relief.

The lesson of Saudi sportswashing is that what might sound unthinkable can rapidly, given resourceful sports officials and complaisant players, be realised in exactly the way the sponsoring country intended. The WTA deal being concluded, Simon offered, by way of positives, both “significant change being made within the region” and what would prevent it, “different cultures and systems”.

In practice, as human rights organisations explain, the tennis deal is designed to obscure not alleviate the oppression of Saudi women living under male guardianship law. This, Human Rights Watch says, “sets out the order of who can act as a woman’s male guardian, starting with her father, then moving along the patriarchal line to her grandfather, brother, uncles, male cousins, and finally, a male judge to decide who she can marry.”
View image in fullscreenRussian player Daria Kasatkina has batted away last year’s doubts about Saudi Arabia hosting the WTA finals. Photograph: Ella Ling/REX/Shutterstock

But already the BBC can be seen getting behind a more progressive fiction. Days before Amnesty called for the release of al-Otaibi, a sports correspondent reported that the Russian player, Daria Kasatkina, who is a lesbian, will not risk the vicious punishments applicable to gay Saudi nationals: such as prison sentences or lashes: “I’ve been given guarantees that I’m going to be fine”.

Last year, Kasatkina had her doubts, according to the BBC; now she applauds the Saudi venture. “As long as it gives the opportunity to the people there, and the young kids and the women to actually see the sport – so that they can watch it, they can play it, they can participate in this, I think it’s great.”


As with Saudi football and golfing acquisitions, the latest sportswashing confirms that you can’t overestimate the willingness of humane people who love sport not to hold evidence of savage repression against a truly generous despot. All the more so in female sport given extensive male readiness – as witnessed with David Cameron’s business overtures in Saudi Arabia, Tobias Elwood’s enthusiasm for the Taliban – to exclude the theocratic oppression of entire female populations from the category of serious human rights abuse.

Meaning that, as regrettable as it is that news about al-Otaibi’s treatment emerged only after Saudi Arabia bought a women’s sport event founded on the principle of equality, tennis fans may require only minimal assurances and a few news cycles to forget all about it. Credit where it’s due: Mohammed bin Salman doesn’t just threaten his female subjects into submission, he’s made the entire audience of the WTA finals complicit.

Catherine Bennett is an Observer columnist

‘I’m in awe of our young people’: Gen Z take the initiative as Georgia protesters face down government

The Georgian government’s bid to pass Russia-style law has met spirited opposition, mostly from young people keen to lean towards Europe

Protesters outisde the Georgian Parliament in Tbilisi, last week. 
Photograph: Nicholas Muller/Shutterstock

The Observer Georgia
Natia Koberidze in Tblisi
Sun 5 May 2024


The finale of Beethoven’s “revolutionary” fifth symphony was met with deafening applause at the National Opera and Ballet Theatre in Tbilisi last Thursday night. The cheers grew into a powerful expression of solidarity with the protests outside on Rustaveli Avenue.

The Observer view on Georgia protests: as police fire teargas in Tbilisi, 

People hung EU flags from the theatre’s balconies and shouted, “No to the Russian Law! Europe! Georgia [Sa-kar-tve-lo]!”

They were responding to the Georgian parliament’s decision the previous day to push ahead with a second reading for a controversial bill that would oblige NGOs, civil rights groups and media organisations to register as “foreign agents” if more than 20% of their funding comes from abroad. Protesters say the law is inspired by Russian authoritarian legislation and could be used to crush opposition ahead of an election later this year. The ruling party, Georgian Dream (GD), says the “foreign influence” law is needed to “boost transparency”.

Thousands have been protesting in Tblisi in the past few days, with dozens arrested. I was out on the streets too. I am a Georgian journalist and have spent my life resisting Soviet or Russian oppression. I believe sovereignty, freedom and democracy are the most important values for my country.

I joined these protests when they started about three weeks ago, and will be part of them until the end. I don’t want to feel compelled to leave my homeland because of this authoritarian legislation.
Natia Koberidze (on the right) with her daughter Ana Maisuradze demonstrating in Tblisi. Photograph: Natia Koberidze/the Observer

On Thursday, Tbilisi’s opera house was filled with the country’s intellectual and business elite. But the people rallying on the streets against the foreign influence law are mostly young. My daughter, Ana, who is 23, joined me.


Since the first attempt to impose the law last year, Gen Z have taken the initiative in resisting it. For over a month, university and high school students have marched vigorously, singing, dancing and expressing themselves freely and creatively. Much better informed, connected and digitally knowledgable than their elders, these young people have demonstrated unbelievable organising skills.

With no formal leadership, these diverse groups of young people have formed broad and efficient volunteer movements. They distribute water, food, emergency supplies, and first aid. They also create groups on social media, conduct advisory campaigns on how to stay safe during the police crackdown, and help protesters from outside the city with travel and accommodation.

They do all this with ready hugs, smiles and offers of help. At first glance, it looks like a youth festival is happening on the streets of Georgia. But each night their peaceful parties turn into an authoritarian nightmare of arrests and tussles with government forces using teargas and rubber bullets.

Civil society and free media provide the checks and balances in the Georgian state system, and western-funded institutions are effective remedies against the consolidation of authoritarianism. Thanks to the media and NGOs, Georgian society is well aware of the dark sides of the governing system – full-scale oligarchic crony capitalism, corruption, and “state capture”.
Most citizens want to join the EU and Nato. For Georgia, turning its back on the west would mean returning to Russian domination

Every day, high-ranking western officials call on the ruling party not to resort to these severe mechanisms for controlling society and the media, not to jeopardise Georgia’s fragile democracy. The EU has warned the government that if it adopts the foreign influence bill, negotiations on Georgia joining the EU will be at risk. John Kirby of the US national security council said the White House was “deeply concerned” at the bill because of “what it could do in terms of stifling dissent and free speech”.

GD officials continue to ignore these concerns. Protesters believe the party is a puppet in the hands of its founder, oligarch and former prime minister Bidzina Ivanishvili.

Since Georgia won independence, its EU ambitions have grown steadily. Most citizens want their country to join the EU and Nato. For Georgia, turning its back on the west would mean returning to Russian domination. Russia can use its significantly bigger military and economic potential against the sovereignty of Georgia, and still effectively occupies 20% of our territory.

Civil society and independent journalism died out in Russia after it introduced a “foreign agent” law in 2012. This is why protesters are calling the Georgian bill “Russian”.

In the opera house the seats reserved for government officials were empty. Many politicians are reluctant to appear in public, as they are highly unpopular.

Spring 2024 has been marked by an unprecedented outcry. Given that our population is less than 4 million (a million Georgians have emigrated, mainly to western countries), the sight of thousands of protesters on the streets of several cities must be alarming for the government.

But while it continues pursuing controversial laws, we will continue to put on gas masks and goggles and stand with family and friends for freedom and democracy.

What can the left learn from the Thatcher years?

On the forty-fifth anniversary of the election of Margaret Thatcher, the Labour Left Podcast interviews Jeremy Gilbert.

The Guardian front page on Friday 4th May 1979 announces the election of Margaret Thatcher.

Forty-five years ago, on 3rd May 1979 Margaret Thatcher was elected.  To mark the anniversary of the birth of Thatcherism, Bryn Griffiths, the presenter of the Labour Left Podcast, sat down with Jeremy Gilbert to consider Thatcher’s legacy.

You can watch the Thatcherism Podcast on You Tube here  or go to your favourite Podcast provider and search for Labour Left Podcast.  

Jeremy Gilbert is a Professor of Cultural and Political Theory at the University of East London and a prolific podcaster currently hosting Culture Power and PoliticsMany of you will know him because of  his work with Momentum, Novara and The World Transformed, so you’ll realise that he was the ideal guest to help us consider why Thatcherism was important, still casts a dark shadow over British politics today and needs to be understood so we can learn from history to be stronger as a Labour left.

Recently the anniversary of the Great Miners’ Strike has got us all talking about Thatcher again.  Starmer and Reeves have also got on the bandwagon as well, with Sir Keir controversially suggesting she brought about “meaningful change” and was responsible for “setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism.”

In the podcast we consider what happened at the end of the seventies that triggered such an aggressive assault on the post-war consensus of full employment, a mixed economy including a role for nationalisation, the creation of the National Health Service, universal welfare provision and education reform.

To equip us with the tools to understand and learn from the Thatcherite period, we delve deep into the ideas of Stuart Hall and his seminal essay The Great Moving Right Show which introduced Antonio Gramsci to a British audience. We don’t just dwell on what Thatcher did: we look at the Labour left’s efforts throughout the 1980s to build a broad enough coalition to defeat her.  Why were the Benn for Deputy Campaign, the Miners’ Strike and the municipal left all defeated? 

Francis Fukuyama declared that the end of the Cold War signalled the “end of history.” We were told there is no alternative and Thatcher, when asked what she considered to be her greatest achievement answered “Tony Blair and New Labour.” The podcast considers the question: was Thatcher right and did the neo-liberals win forever?

The whole point of reconsidering Thatcherism is to ask what we can learn from it for today.  Moving right up to the present, we consider the possibility of the reconstitution of the Conservatives as a Thatcherite or even a Powellite populist right wing around the forces of Popular and National Conservativism.  Will Liz Truss turn out to be a mere dress rehearsal for something much worse when Starmer inevitably stumbles? Could Starmer’s legacy turn out to be a new ‘great moving right show’ like we have never seen before in Britain?

Finally, with the left in Britain in a period of enforced retreat, Jeremy considers what we can learn from our battle with Thatcher to help us rebuild mass engagement in left politics? 

We think the Jeremy Gilbert interview  is an important contribution to the Labour left’s thinking, going forward.  If you enjoy the podcast, please give it a like and a follow.  Please, please share it with your friends as it really helps promote the podcast to a wider audience. Hit subscribe to make sure you never miss an episode.

You can watch the podcast on YouTube here , Apple podcasts here, Audible here  and listen to it on Spotify here  If your favourite podcast site isn’t listed, just search for the Labour Left Podcast. 

Bryn Griffiths is the host of Labour Hub’s spin off the Labour Left Podcast.  He is an activist in the labour movement, Momentum and The World Transformed in North Essex. You can find all the episodes of the Labour left Podcast here  or if you prefer audio platforms (for example, Amazon, Audible Spotify, Apple, etc.,) just search for Labour Left Podcast.

Bryn Griffiths is standing for the National Policy Forum CLP Representatives,  Eastern Region Division 1.  He is standing as part of the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance team and you can find all your left candidates across the country here.

UK

 

Mick Lynch responds to news that Labour’s New Deal being diluted

“Working people need a Labour government that will protect them from the excesses of business, not one that kowtows to the vested interests of the super-rich.”
Mick Lynch, RMT General Secretary

By the RMT

Reacting to media reports that suggest there could be attempts to water down the New Deal for workers to ease business concerns, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said:

“Any dilution of the New Deal for workers is wholly unacceptable.

“Labour must not bend the knee to corporate greed and instead find its voice and values by representing the interests of working people in government.

“The New Deal for workers is popular amongst trades unionists and is an asset at the ballot box.

“Working people need a Labour government that will protect them from the excesses of business, not one that kowtows to the vested interests of the super-rich.

“Any attempt to water down this popular policy will be met with a robust response from the entire trade union movement.”


Union leaders blast any watering down of Labour’s New Deal for workers

'Choosing May Day to give notice of watering down your promise to overhaul one of the worst sets of employment rights in Europe is beyond irony'

2 May, 2024 
Left Foot Forward


Union leaders have issued strong warnings to the Labour Party against watering down its New Deal for Working People which would trigger a “robust response” from the trade union movement.

The leader of Labour’s biggest trade union donor, Unite, has blasted Labour after it was reported on Wednesday that the party was planning to revise its landmark package for workers.

The Unite leader Sharon Graham said notice of a rowback of workers’ rights coming out on May Day was “beyond irony” and warned “a red line will be crossed” if Labour fails to recommit to its pledges in the New Deal for Working People.

“Choosing May Day to give notice of watering down your promise to overhaul one of the worst sets of employment rights in Europe is beyond irony,” Graham said.

“If Labour do not explicitly recommit to what they have already pledged, namely that the New Deal for Workers will be delivered in full within the first 100 days of office, then a red line will be crossed.

“Labour’s vow to delivering a straightforward right of access for trade unions, and a much-simplified route to recognition and therefore the right to negotiate, is the litmus test for Unite. It’s a political non-negotiable”.

Any dilution of the New Deal would be “wholly unacceptable” said General Secretary of the RMT union Mick Lynch, as he warned Labour “not to bend the knee to corporate greed”.

Lynch added: “Any attempt to water down this popular policy will be met with a robust response from the entire trade union movement.”

Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union also said there should be “no rolling back” of Labour’s New Deal as he told the Financial Times (FT) that Labour will face a “hostile reaction” from unions if any further dilutions are announced.

It follows reports in the FT that Labour was set to unveil a weakened package for workers in the coming weeks, following increased pressure from big business to waterdown its proposals.

However a Labour Party spokesperson said nothing had changed since the National Policy Forum last year, LabourList reported. During the policy-making forum, changes were made to the wording of a series of commitments in the New Deal, which included not commiting to a full ban on zero-hour contracts and no longer committed to increase sick pay or extend it to the self-employed.

These changes were reported on at the time but have come under further scrutiny this week.

Hannah Davenport is news reporter at Left Foot Forward


Are Labour’s leaders about to further dilute workers’ rights pledges?



“Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour party is set to unveil a weakened package of workers’ rights in the coming weeks in its latest softening of radical policies ahead of the upcoming general election, according to people familiar with the matter,” reported the Financial Times.

“The package, first outlined in 2021, has been billed by Starmer as the biggest increase in workers’ rights for decades,” it continues. “But behind the scenes, shadow ministers have been discussing how to tone down some of the pledges to ease employer misgivings as the party tries to boost its pro-business credentials, the people familiar with the matter said.”

The repeated “people familiar with the matter” is a conveniently vague attribution. But it presumably means someone closer to the policymaking process than the widely disparaged Lord Mandelson who has been running a personal campaign against Labour’s workplace reforms for some time. Just last month, he warned that Labour should not “betray business”.

The vague attribution allowed a Party spokesperson officially to  dismiss the reports, saying merely that work was ongoing to present the New Deal measures in “a form that our candidates can campaign on.”

The report, which appeared on May 1st, International Workers’ Day, drew an immediate reaction from trade union leaders.  Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham demanded Labour “explicitly recommit to what they have already pledged, namely that the New Deal for Workers will be delivered in full within the first 100 days of office” and warned that a “red line will be crossed” if the Party does not do so.

TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak weighed in, saying: “We expect Labour to deliver it with an employment bill in the first 100 days.” FBU leader Matt Wrack warned that any dilution of the policy would provoke a “hostile reaction”. And a Unison spokesperson said: “Consolidating the promised measures is fine, but any watering-down of the contents won’t be.”

Yet it’s clear that the promise to ban zero-hours has already been diluted. Under the Party’s revised plans, although employers would be required to offer a contract based on regular hours worked, workers could opt to stay on zero hours if they chose.

But the IWGB union, which represents gig economy workers, said they feared anything less than an outright ban on the practice would leave precarious workers facing huge pressure to accept exploitative contracts.

A Momentum spokesperson said: “”For fourteen years the Tories have taken a sledgehammer to workers’ rights, while enriching a few at the very top. The New Deal for Working People announced by Labour in 2021 would start rebalancing the scales back towards ordinary people, and is both popular and urgently needed. So it’s beyond disappointing to see Starmer and Reeves capitulate to corporate interests and massively water it down, in yet another major U-turn. Once again, the labour movement and the public are united behind a desire for transformative change, but they are being let down by a Labour Leadership more interested in pleasing big business.”

The group points to how the original New Deal for Working People, unanimously passed by Labour’s 2023 Conference, has been repeatedly watered down. The idea of a single tier of workforce has been put into a ‘consultation process’; full employment rights from one’s first day of work have been weakened. Other commitments, such as collective fair pay agreements across the economy, have also been reduced in scope.

The introduction of these key reforms within 100 days has also been thrown into doubt. A detailed twitter thread by Momentum spokesperson Angus Satow spells this out item by item.

Yet the New Deal for Working People remains highly popular with the public. Polling by Opinium for the Trades Union Congress last September found strong support for its core proposals, even among Conservative voters. Two-thirds of those polled support all workers having a day one right to protection from unfair dismissal, and the same number back a ban on fire and rehire. The same proportion of 2019 Conservative voters polled also backed these reforms.

Image: https://www.picpedia.org/legal-17/w/workers-rights.html. License: Creative Commons 3 – CC BY-SA 3.0 Attribution Link: Pix4free.org – link to – https://pix4free.org/ Original Author: Nick Youngson – link to – ttp://www.nyphotographic.com/ Original Image: https://www.picpedia.org/legal-17/w/workers-rights.html