Friday, May 24, 2024

Here is how the next UK Government can end the need for food banks

'We urge all political parties to embrace these priorities and commit to a future where everyone has the security for the essentials'



Opinion
23 May, 2024 
Helen Barnard is Director of Policy, Research and Impact at The Trussell Trust

Now that an election has been called, every party should set out its plan to end the need for food banks in the UK and start to reverse the appalling rises in severe hardship and destitution. The public will judge the next government on whether it succeeds in reversing this tide.

Currently 79% of the UK public agree that poverty in the UK is a big problem, and 74% believe that it is the UK government’s responsibility to change this.

In the past year, food banks in the Trussell Trust network distributed more than 3.1 million emergency food parcels – the highest number in our history. This includes more than 1.1 million parcels for children and is almost double the number of parcels distributed five years ago.

These numbers are extremely shocking, and the message is clear, this cannot be allowed to continue. The food banks in our network do an incredible job supporting people facing hardship in their communities, but they are reaching breaking point.

We live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world and yet people who need the most support are being left to struggle on incomes so low they can’t even afford the essentials we all need to survive. This is having devastating consequences on our society, damaging our health, harming the prospects of young people, and holding back our economy. An economy does not thrive while the people who have the least are trapped in poverty and are forced to turn to charities, rather than receiving support from the very systems that were designed to protect them from harm.

We know what’s needed to end the need for food banks, and we know that it is achievable but decisive action is needed. That’s why we launched our manifesto which sets out our priorities for the next UK Government and the actions we urge all political parties to support in order to build a more hopeful future.

The increase in the level of need seen by food banks is largely driven by the fact that people simply don’t have enough money to afford food and other essential living costs. Our social security system is supposed to be there for us when times are tough, but it is currently failing in its most basic duty: to protect people from going without essentials. It is unacceptable that, last year, four in ten families receiving Universal Credit faced hunger, and one in five have been forced to turn to a food bank for help. It is a failing of our society that anyone should be forced to use a food bank because they can’t afford food, clothing, heating or other essentials.

Ensuring the UK’s social security system is fit for purpose and provides enough support for people to afford the essentials is critical for building a future without the need for food banks. We are calling for an Essentials Guarantee, which would embed in legislation the principle that Universal Credit should protect people from going without essentials. Deductions from benefits for debt or caps to benefits for some families should never take their income below this level.

We also need to ensure everyone can get the right support at the right time, to prevent tough times turning into crises and spiralling into longer lasting hardship. When people are unable to access support, their health, employment, and relationships suffer. Our research indicates that people referred to our food banks have often exhausted support networks such as family and friends, or do not have these support networks to turn to at all.

Too many reach a food bank without having received advice or help which could have prevented their situation deteriorating. That’s why we need a long-term approach to local crisis support that prioritises cash grants, money advice and preventative support services. This is particularly urgent given the funding crisis facing so many councils and the end of the Household Support Fund in September this year.

We are also calling for a UK financial inclusion strategy that prioritises people in need by ensuring people on low incomes can access the advice and support they need on money matters, including social security eligibility and debt, and have access to affordable credit to prevent people being pulled further into hardship through unaffordable debt.

Crucially, people should also be supported in a way that reflects the reality of their lives. Parents, carers, and disabled people are disproportionately likely to need the support of food banks. In fact, the majority (69%) of people referred to food banks in the Trussell Trust network are disabled. Therefore, we need swift and accurate decisions about disability social security support for all applicants. In addition, we need to see an overhauled employment support offer, including a rapid expansion of voluntary, specialist employment support, integrated with mental health provision and work with employers to open up more flexible, secure jobs for disabled people and carers.

Finally, everyone should have the security we all need to access opportunities and have hope for the future. Preventing people ever needing to turn to a food bank requires embedding security across people’s lives – in their finances, work and housing. However, the prevalence of insecure, part-time, and poorly paid work, combined with unaffordable and unsafe housing, has created an extremely precarious situation for people.

We can turn this around by embedding new workers’ rights legislation to ensure rights to job security, predictable working hours and flexible working. Alongside this, we’re calling for the investment in building 90,000 new social homes every year in England, to provide the dignity of a safe, secure, and affordable place to live.

These solutions are well within our reach, but we need every part of our society to work in partnership to drive this change – civil society, employers, businesses and all levels of government acting together with people who’ve needed a food bank, individuals and communities. We urge all political parties to embrace these priorities and commit to a future where everyone has the security for the essentials, so we can end the need for food banks for good.

(Photo credit: Jess Hurd)
Nigel Farage will not stand in general election, to focus instead on US contest

The former UKIP leader confirms he will not stand as an election candidate, avoiding another humiliating defeat

“He’s off to help Donald Trump. Proper British values. What a patriot.”




Nigel Farage has confirmed he will not stand as an election candidate in the UK general election, having previously hinted at making a political comeback.

The former UKIP has stood unsuccessfully for election seven times, in five general elections and two by-elections, so he may have cut his losses to avoid another humiliating defeat.

In a letter posted on his X account this morning, the honorary president of Reform UK said he had thought “long and hard” about whether to stand but concluded that now was “not the right time”, as he announced he intends to help Donald Trump with his re-election bid.

There was much speculation about whether Farage would return to frontline politics and run for the Reform UK party after hopes that his exposure from appearing on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here! might help him.

Previous rumours also hinted he was considering joining the Tory Party, much to the delight of Tory MPs like Jacob Rees-Mogg. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had suggested that he would be welcomed in the ‘broach church’ of the Conservative Party.

But Farage has been a vocal supporter of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who he has repeatedly praised and interviewed on his GB News show in March.

Writing on X, Farage said: “I have thought long and hard as to whether I should stand in the upcoming general election. As honorary president of Reform UK, I am fully supportive of Richard Tice’s leadership and urge voters to put their trust in him and Lee Anderson. I will do my bit to help in the campaign, but it is not the right time for me to go any further than that.

“Important though the general election is, the contest in the United States of America on November 5 has huge global significance. A strong America as a close ally is vital for our peace and security. I intend to help with the grassroots campaign in the USA in any way that I can. The choice between Labour and the Conservatives is uninspiring, and only Reform have the radical agenda that is needed to end decline in this country.”

Reacting to news of Farage not standing in the upcoming election, one social media user wrote: “Obvious Nigel Farage wouldn’t stand in the forthcoming General Election.

“He’s failed multiple times to be elected so why would he risk the wave he has been riding recently to be humiliated again?

“He’s off to help Donald Trump. Proper British values. What a patriot.”

THE GUARDIAN 2016 QUOTE



UK
Net Zero Minister gets rinsed for attempt to justify Rishi Sunak’s private jet use

'The wealthy don’t have a carbon footprint.'
 Who knew!

Yesterday

TweetShareWhatsAppMail


Claire Coutinho, the Minister for Energy and Net Zero, has been rinsed after attempting to justify Rishi Sunak’s penchant for private jets.

In an interview with Sky News, the Tory MP was asked by presenter Anna Jones whether it was a “good look” that the Prime Minister was travelling around the country for short campaign stops on a private jet.

Coutinho dismissed the concern and claimed it was important for “democracy” that Sunak speak to as many people as possible, while downplaying the impact of private jets on the environment.

The Energy Secretary said: “We need to make sure that we are speaking to people in the country, this is a democracy, I think it’s right that the Prime Minister goes and talks to people as much as possible.”

She then claimed that taking a private jet is, “not going to make a massive difference when it comes to carbon emissions, let’s be serious.”

A private jet flight causes 10 times more CO2 emissions than a regular flight per flight per person, and 50 times more than the average train ride, according to Greenpeace. Environmental campaigners argue that private jets epitomise social and climate injustice, as just 1 percent of the global population is responsible for half of the world’s aviation emissions.

The multi-millionaire Prime Minister has used private jets more than anyone else in Downing Street, racking up £50,000 worth of private jet trips in less than a fortnight in 2022, leading to accusations that he is out of touch and unable to lead of green policy.

One X user said: “So there we have it @ClaireCoutinho the minister for net zero confirms that everyone can do whatever they want because they personally are only a small percentage of the whole. To the bitter end they defend the indefensible. This proves their commitments are a joke.”

Another wrote: “The wealthy don’t have a carbon footprint. Who knew.”

(Image credit: Sky News screenshot)


Hannah Davenport is news reporter at Left Foot Forward
Jeremy Corbyn expelled from Labour after declaring he will stand as independent
Senior Political Correspondent24 May 2024
Jeremy Corbyn to stand as an independent at general election


Yesterday
Left Foot Forward

The former Labour leader has sat in the Islington North seat for over 40 years



Jeremy Corbyn has announced he will run as an independent candidate in Islington North at the general election.

Corbyn has sat in the seat since 1983, most of which was spent as a Labour MP until he had the whip suspended in 2020 over his response to the equalities regulator report into antisemitism in the party. He has therefore sat as an independent since.

He broke the news that he will stand as an independent in an article for the Islington Tribune in which he wrote, “when I was first elected, I made a promise to stand by my constituents no matter what.”

In his campaign video, the former Labour leader said he would be an “independent voice for equality, democracy and peace” as he called for “fundamental change” and warned the country “has become more divided than ever”.

He called for a “redistribution of power and wealth”, and for public ownership of the water, mail and energy industries. Laying out his campaign demands and values he listed; a more equal society, housing justice, a fully-public, fully-funded NHS and for an “alternative to endless war”.

Labour’s shortlist for candidates in North Islington were confirmed this week as Hackney councillor Sem Moema and Islington councillor Praful Nargund.

Moema has served as a councillor in Hackney for over eight years and she is a Mayoral Advisor for the Private Rented Sector and Affordability. Nargund is an entrepreneur and campaigner, he works as Chief Executive of abc ivf, a chain of 15 clinics founded by his mother Geeta.

The winner of Labour’s selection process will be announced on June 1.

(Image credit: Flickr / Creative Commons)

Hannah Davenport is news reporter at Left Foot Forward

Jeremy Corbyn will run as an independent in Islington North

 

MAY 24,2024

As the Labour apparatus imposes a shortlist of just two candidates in Islington North, with zero consultation with the local constituency party, Jeremy Corbyn has announced he will fight to retain his seat as an independent.

Kate Dove, Momentum Chair said: “This is an almighty mess for Labour and Keir Starmer alone bears responsibility.

“Jeremy Corbyn has loyally served the people of Islington North as their Labour MP for over 40 years. He wanted to run again as the Labour candidate and the local party backed him too. But Starmer and his Westminster clique again denied local people the chance to choose their own candidate and blocked Jeremy. Starmer has treated the people of Islington with contempt, setting the stage for a divisive and distracting election campaign.

“We urge the Labour Leadership not to repeat this damaging debacle in Hackney with Diane Abbott. Britain’s first black woman MP, who Keir Starmer rightly called a ‘trailblazer’, deserves to run as the Labour candidate, as local members voted.

“Jeremy’s leadership brought positions like public ownership, fairer taxation and opposition to war and austerity back to the mainstream, policies which are more urgent and popular than ever. He turned Labour into a mass membership party once again. In response he was subjected to the most vicious, relentless, and dishonest campaign of character assassination in modern British political history, which he has faced with dignity and decency.

“But where Starmer once decried how the media ‘vilified’ his ‘friend’ and promised to build on his legacy, he has done the exact opposite. Starmer’s attacks on Jeremy were never just about one man – they were about driving out the socialist politics he represented, in favour of elite interests.  We will not allow Labour’s founding socialist values to be driven out of the party. Momentum will continue to stand up for real Labour values within the party, while campaigning for socialist and trade unionist Labour candidates in the coming election.”

As some on the right of the Party try to falsify history by claiming Jeremy Corbyn was blocked from being a Labour candidate because of “anti-Semitism”, it’s worth recalling that the motion Keir Starmer got passed at the National Executive Committee last year did not mention the issue.

Many socialists will feel highly conflicted about this turn of events. Supporters of Jeremy Corbyn are calling for volunteers to sign up in large numbers to back his campaign.

Momentum are warning, however, that Party activists should be aware that Labour officials are likely to seek the expulsion of members who advocate support for Jeremy – even retweets, reposts or likes on a post.

A spokesperson said: “Momentum won’t let Labour’s founding socialist values be driven out of our Party. We will stay in Labour, the political home of the trade union movement, and keep fighting for real Labour values and a democratic party.

Labour Hub – http://www.threads.net/@labour_hub

Corbyn and Webbe run as independents as Starmer grilled on Abbott suspension


© Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock.com

Jeremy Corbyn will run as an independent candidate at the general election, the former party leader has confirmed, with Labour moving quickly to expel him.

Labour leader Keir Starmer said Corbyn’s announcement was a “decision for him”, but told the BBC the party would have an “excellent candidate” and the choice in Islington North and elsewhere was Tory chaos and division or “turning the page” with Labour.

Meanwhile another once-Labour, now-independent MP Claudia Webbe also confirmed on Friday she would stand as an independent in Leicester East.

A Labour source told LabourList “we’re focused on returning as many Labour MPs as possible” after Corbyn’s announcement.

LabourList understands Corbyn is no longer a member of the party, with Labour rules stating members can’t run for rival parties. Corbyn was blocked from standing for Labour last year.

READ MORE: Labour picks two councillors for Islington North shortlist

It comes just after the Labour party shortlisted two candidates to run for the party in the north London seat, north London councillors Praful Nagrund and Sem Moema.

Journalist and activist Paul Mason also stood, but did not make the shortlist. The selection will be wrapped up within the next few days.

 

It comes as pressure grows on Starmer to restore the whip to Diane Abbott, suspended last year for suggesting Irish people, Jews and Travellers do not experience racism all their lives.

Her long suspension has faced criticism even from some of her critics who do not share the veteran left-winger’s politics, and Starmer faced questions in broadcast interviews on Friday about whether she would stand as a Labour candidate – and why she was excluded while Natalie Elphicke was in the party.

Starmer said the disciplinary process was independent, but that it should be wrapped up very soon given deadlines for confirming electoral candidates.

Kate Dove, co-chair of Momentum, the Labour left campaign group launched to support Corbyn before and when he led the party, said: “Starmer and his Westminster clique again denied local people the chance to choose their own candidate and blocked Jeremy. Starmer has treated the people of Islington with contempt, setting the stage for a divisive and distracting election campaign.

“We urge the Labour Leadership not to repeat this damaging debacle in Hackney with Diane Abbott. Britain’s first black woman MP, who Keir Starmer rightly called a ‘trailblazer’, deserves to run as the Labour candidate, as local members voted.”

Meet Labour Islington North candidate fighting Corbyn as NEC denies CLP vote


© Twitter/@jeremycorbyn


Labour has confirmed Praful Nargund will stand as its candidate in Islington North, just hours after Jeremy Corbyn announced he will run as an independent in the constituency.

The announcement by London Labour comes in spite of a ballot of members originally being planned over the next week, choosing between Nargund and another candidate, Hackney councillor and London Assembly Member Sem Moema.

LabourList understands the National Executive Committee stepped in to accelerate the process though with the election weeks away, and selected Nargund over Moema.

Moema said: “Congratulations  – you will be a fantastic Labour MP for Islington North, and I can’t wait to join you on the doorstep to help get you elected!”

The NEC decision to deprive members of a vote is likely to be controversial, with anger among Corbyn’s supporters in the CLP already that he is not on the ballot.

READ MORE: Watch as Jeremy Corbyn launches independent campaign

The Islington councillor will face a tough campaign against the veteran former party leader in the north London seat he has held for four decades.

Nargund had been widely seen as a likely contender in the lead-up to the selection. He describes himself on his website as an “entrepreneur and campaigner”, who has spent a decade “using innovation to tackle inequalities in fertility treatment.”

He is on Islington council’s health, wellbeing and adult social care scrutiny committee, and his website says he has campaigned on issues including skills, home insulation and fuel poverty.

Praful Nagrund

His website states too that he grew up “in an NHS family”.

Nargund has remained tight-lipped during the campaign so far in recent days, however.

“Hellooo, is Praful there? It’s total silence from the Labour hopeful eyeing up seat,” ran the headline in local paper the Islington Tribune this morning.

Nargund has not responded to LabourList requests for comment previously about his campaign, either.


Islington North: Two councillors make shortlist as Paul Mason misses out


© Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock.com

Labour’s shortlist for its candidate in Jeremy Corbyn’s seat of Islington North has been announced, with two London councillors still in the running to be selected while journalist Paul Mason has missed out.

The shortlist of two was confirmed as London Assembly member and Hackney councillor Sem Moema and Islington councillor Praful Nargund, as Labour looks to get candidates in place in its unfilled seats following Rishi Sunak’s surprise announcement of a general election on July 4th.

Mason – who has stood for selection as a Labour candidate on a number of occasions in this election cycle – confirmed in a post on X this morning that he had not made the shortlist and thanked those who had backed his campaign.

The former BBC and Channel 4 journalist wrote: “It’s vital that we get out the vote [for] the selected candidate, and keep Islington North red!”

The selection process has attracted criticism from within the party over Corbyn’s exclusion and central party control over the process, with MPs on the left of the party including John McDonnell, Mick Whitley and Beth Winter saying members should be able to choose, with the former party leader on the ballot.

The local Constituency Labour Party’s (CLP) officers also called for “local democracy [to] be respected” and the local party to be allowed to choose its candidate “from amongst any Labour Party member in good standing”.

Corbyn remains a member of the party but has had the party whip suspended since October 2020 following his response to a report into allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party. The party’s governing national executive committee (NEC) last year voted to block him standing as a Labour candidate at the coming election.

Islington North CLP’s general committee almost unanimously passed a motion in support of Corbyn and its “democratic right” to choose its candidate shortly after the NEC barred him.

Corbyn has not made his intentions explicitly clear about whether he will stand as an independent. But he said last year after members passed the motion backing him: “I have spent the past 40 years campaigning alongside my community for a mass redistribution of wealth, ownership and power. That is what I’ll continue to do.”

He then told The Observer“40 years ago, I made a promise to my constituents that I would always stand up for democracy and justice on their behalf. In Islington North, we keep our promises.”

ITV News’ political editor Robert Peston said in a post on X today that he ‘understands’ the former Labour leader will confirm today that he will be standing as an independent candidate.

Moema was reelected as the London Assembly member for the North East earlier this month, with her constituency covering the areas of Hackney, Islington and Waltham Forest. She also currently serves as a councillor on Hackney council, representing Hackney Downs ward.

Nargund has been a councillor in Islington since 2022, representing Barnsbury ward. He is the founder and director of Create Impact Ventures, an early-stage investor.

The Labour candidate is expected to be in place by June 1st. The head of one Labour affiliate told LabourList before the shortlisted names were confirmed: “The party has a real duty of care to candidates it puts on that shortlist.

“The campaign will be utterly toxic and there will be a real half life to that, following the general election even if we win, with a big effort to rebuild the local party. I wouldn’t want to see a friend go through that campaign.”

UK
Keir Starmer’s Election Pitch: Change You Can’t Believe In
May 24, 2024
Source: Jacobin

Image by Rwendland, Creative Commons 4.0

Seven years ago, a Conservative prime minister called a snap general election at a time when the polls showed a persistently large double-digit gap between Britain’s two major parties. By the time the election was held, it was almost a dead heat. The party that expected to win by a landslide margin ended up without a parliamentary majority.

This time, nobody expects Rishi Sunak to emulate the surprising achievement of Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. When the Conservative leader announced yesterday that there will be an election at the start of July, several months ahead of schedule, his performance bore all the hallmarks of a man who has already given up.

Tory MPs are reported to be furious with the sudden move. A premature end to Sunak’s government will hopefully limit his opportunities for devising new ways of harassing immigrants, trans people, or other vulnerable groups.

The Labour leader Keir Starmer responded to Sunak’s announcement by presenting the election as a chance for the people of Britain to “stop the chaos” and “change our country” after fourteen disastrous years of Conservative rule. But the change Starmer is offering doesn’t extend much further than changing the personnel at the top of the British state.
Pledging Fealty

Two episodes in the past few weeks showed how little we should expect of Starmer’s party in government. The first concerned its approach to world affairs.

On May 8, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary David Lammy made an appearance at an event organized by the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington. The main purpose of Lammy’s intervention was to show that Labour will have no problem working with Donald Trump if he wins the election this November. Lammy, who once described Trump as a “racist Ku Klux Klan and Nazi sympathizer,” now shrugged off his previous comments as a youthful misadventure: “You are going to struggle to find any politician in the western world who has not had things to say about Donald Trump.”

As he stooped to pay homage to Trump and the Republican Party, Lammy denounced the US student protests against Israel’s genocidal massacre in Gaza: “There is a difference between peaceful protest of the kind [Nelson] Mandela would have advocated, and violence and rioting.” These comments were morally repugnant in two different ways.

First of all, Nelson Mandela was no pacifist: in fact, he took the initiative to launch a campaign of armed struggle against the apartheid regime. He was also a strong supporter of the Palestinian people, and the South African case against Israel at the International Court of Justice carries on the best side of his political legacy. Mandela’s grandson Nkosi Zwelivelile Mandela rebuked Lammy for invoking his grandfather’s name and branded the Labour politician as an “apologist for genocide.”

Secondly, there was no “rioting” at the student encampments, with the exception of the violent onslaught that a pro-Israel mob launched against the protesters at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) with the complicity of the local police force. By lying about the nature of the protests, Lammy indicated his wholehearted approval of their violent suppression.

Lammy also claimed that it was

. . . one of the lowest periods of my political life standing outside of Parliament, protesting against what had happened to the Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and saying, enough is enough because of the antisemitism that had grown up in that period.

The charges of antisemitism against Corbyn and his supporters had precisely the same factual content as the charges of antisemitism we have seen leveled against all those who have opposed the Gaza genocide, from politicians like Rashida Tlaib and Jamaal Bowman to the student protesters at Columbia or New York University, not to mention bodies like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the International Criminal Court.

What Lammy really means is that Labour previously had a leader who, unlike Starmer, considered Palestinians to be full-fledged human beings. Corbyn would never have given his explicit approval to war crimes, as Starmer did. He would have used his position to condemn the atrocities Israel is committing against the Palestinian people in clear, unambiguous language.

For Lammy, a man who traded his backbone for a seat on the political gravy train many years ago, the prospect of a Labour government that didn’t fall in line behind the US power elite over the Gaza massacre is too horrifying to contemplate. Along with his colleagues, he was willing to burn everything to the ground to make sure that didn’t happen. This is the ethical spirit that he will bring with him if and when he takes up residence at the Foreign Office.

Pillars of Principle

Labour’s readiness to pledge fealty to Trump is matched by its embrace of Trump-style figures on the domestic scene. While Lammy was delivering his remarks at the Hudson Institute, his leader proudly announced the defection of Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke to Labour.

The Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley, one of the most dependable Blairites in the British commentariat, accurately described Elphicke as “a woman with a reputation for being as rabidly rightwing as they come,” not to mention a record of Trumpian outbursts about immigrants and refugees. Elphicke specifically cited the question of border security to explain her break with the Tories: “Rishi Sunak’s government is failing to keep our borders safe and secure.”

Along with her political outlook, Elphicke brought some personal baggage worthy of Trump himself. She staunchly defended her sex-offender husband before and after his conviction for assaulting two women, claiming that he was “an easy target for dirty politics and false allegations.”

This blend of political and personal toxicity prompted Rawnsley to warn that Elphicke’s defection was more trouble than it was worth for Labour:

It feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. It is also worth asking whether this defection is more harm than help to the advancement of the Labour cause. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

The Party of Order

In truth, Starmer and his team are not appealing to ordinary voters with moves like this — not even the ones who share Elphicke’s worldview. They have been making a concerted effort to win over wealthy businessmen who formerly supported the Conservative Party, and with considerable success.

Jim Ratcliffe is one of Britain’s richest men, although he relocated to Monaco to avoid paying billions in tax. He supported the Leave campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum and received a knighthood from the Conservative government in 2018. Now he reckons a Starmer government is what Britain needs: “I’m sure Keir will do a very good job at running the country — I have no questions about that.”

Ratcliffe hasn’t changed his political outlook one iota in the course of embracing Starmer. Although he criticizes the Tories for their handling of Brexit, he does so on the grounds that they still haven’t done enough to limit immigration, even though this was the main priority for Boris Johnson in drawing up his Brexit deal. Ratcliffe blames immigrants for the breakdown of public services in Britain but says nothing about the massive public spending cuts rammed through by the party that gave him his knighthood.

To appease men like Ratcliffe, Labour has already watered down its popular commitments to strengthen workers’ rights. For example, the vast majority of Conservative voters support a ban on zero-hours contracts as well as the right to switch off (meaning that employers can’t insist on contacting workers outside of their paid hours). However, Labour has dropped those proposals from its blueprint in response to lobbying from business figures.

Labour’s determination to offer as little as possible at a time when the post-Thatcher economic model is visibly falling apart helps explain a seeming paradox. Even though the party enjoys a big polling lead, its leader and his top team are neither liked nor trusted by the majority of voters. Tony Blair cruised to victory in 1997 with a cheesy pop tune called “Things Can Only Get Better” as his campaign song, but there is little sense now that a Labour government will result in tangible improvements.

This probably won’t stop Labour from winning by a comfortable margin on July 4. The Tories are in a dreadful state after more than a decade of relentless social vandalism, and Sunak has shown no evidence thus far that he is the man who can rescue their fortunes. Yet the main priority of a Starmer government will be to lock in the consequences of that vandalism at a time when progressive social reforms are urgently needed.
The Resistible Rise of the Far Right in Europe

May 24, 2024
Source: International Viewpoint


Image by Elekes Andor, Creative Commons 4.0

In Italy, the far right, with Giorgia Meloni’s Fratelli d’Italia party and the Lega (formerly the Northern League), have together led the government since the parliamentary elections of 25 September 2022, in addition to the right-wing Forza Italia party of the late Silvio Berlusconi.

In Sweden, two weeks earlier, the Sweden Democrats (SD) were among the winners of the parliamentary elections of 11 September 2022. [1] Winning 20.5%, the SD became the country’s second largest political force in terms of votes, behind the Social Democratic Party (30.3%), now in opposition. The Moderate party (classic right, 19.1%) then succeeded in forming a coalition with the Christian Democrats, the Liberals and the SDs. Although the latter party did not hold any ministries, it did have a governmental parliamentary majority dependent on it and a seat on the “coordination” committee of the coalition parties. The governmental agreement largely bears its signature on immigration and security.

In Finland, following the parliamentary elections of 2 April 2023, the True Finns party became the second political force with 20.1% of the vote, nipping at the heels of the traditional right-wing party, the National Coalition Party (20.8%). Here, the far right has entered the government of the conservative Petteri Orpo, occupying ministries alongside the main right-wing party as well as the Christian Democrats and the Swedish minority party. The True Finns hold the ministries of Economy, Finance, Interior, Justice and Social Affairs. Remarkably, since the summer of 2023, Finland has been gripped by a succession of strikes and university protests against the anti-social “reforms” implemented by this government, the latest of which was a strike described as political (even though a draft law is intended to ban so-called political strikes) lasting fifteen days from 11 March 2024, against new employment legislation.

In other European countries, the far right is in a strong position. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, founder in 2008 (and legally the only member to date) of the Party for Freedom (PVV), emerged as the leader of the leading electoral force in the last parliamentary elections on 22 November 2023, with 23.49% of the vote, after having obtained 10.79% in 2021. Although the PVV subsequently failed to form a government with Wilders as Prime Minister due to a lack of parliamentary support, the Netherlands appears to be moving towards a coalition government with the PVV as the leading force. In addition to the PVV, a future coalition is expected to bring together a farmers’ party that protests against environmental standards (the BBB), a right-wing liberal party (the VVD) and a split from the Christian Democratic Party.

In Austria, the fragile federal government has brought together the conservative right (ÖVP) and the Greens since January 2020. But the far-right FPÖ party is expected to win the forthcoming general election in autumn 2024, where it is projected to receive around 30% of the vote. [2] In the meantime, the FPÖ is currently in government in three of the country’s eight regions.

In Eastern Europe, while the national-conservative PIS party lost the parliamentary elections in Poland on 15 October 2023, Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Hungarian Fidesz party, in power since 2010, still governs in Budapest. The two parties cover a spectrum that, in France, would encompass both the right and part of the far right. In Hungary, they are joined by a far-right party that is not part of the government, Jobbik (“The Best”); this party has tried to refocus in the most recent period, but at the risk of splitting off from a harder, more extremist current that gave rise in 2018 to the Mi Hazank (“At Home””) movement. The polls currently forecast Jobbik’s share of the vote to fall to less than 3%, compared with 6.34% in 2019 and 14.67% in 2014, but the new Mi Hazank formation is expected to break through with more than 8%.

TWO GROUPS IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

The far right in the European Parliament is represented mainly in two separate groups. On the one hand, the Identity and Democracy (ID) group, created in 2019, which includes the French Rassemblement national (RN), the Italian Lega, the Dutch PVV, the Austrian FPÖ and the German AfD party. [3] On the other, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, whose backbone was initially made up of the British Conservatives until they left the European Parliament following Brexit, which includes Fratelli d’Italia, the Swedish Democrats, the True Finns and the Spanish party VOX. The Polish PIS is now the largest force.

However, in March 2021, Fidesz left the European People’s Party (EPP, which brings together the classic bourgeois right) and is negotiating to join other groups, including the ECR and ID. The Hungarian party could play a pivotal role, bringing these two groups closer together. Although there are noticeable divisions between the ID and ECR, particularly on economic issues, the majority of ECR members are more or less neoliberal on economic issues, even if part of the ID group emphasizes populist social demagoguery like the French RN – at least as long as these parties are in opposition in their respective countries.

Lastly, the French Reconquête party, which is also presenting a list for the European elections but is not guaranteed to pass the 5% vote threshold required to enter parliament, currently sits in the ECR group with its only outgoing MEP, Nicolas Bay, elected in 2019 on the RN list. However, in addition to belonging to different parliamentary groupings, there are deep divisions – apparent or real – running through the far right “family”.

CLEAVAGE OVER RUSSIA

The majority of these parties in the European Union, especially in the western part and in Germany, were historically very supportive of, and even explicitly linked to, the Russian regime in the years after 2000. But this position has become much more difficult to assume publicly since the start of the war against Ukraine.

The French RN is currently one of the most outspoken critics of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The reason is simple: France’s main far-right party believes it is so close to coming to power nationally that it cannot afford to adopt a stance that would put it at odds with majority opinion. As during the 2022 presidential election campaign, when, after the announcement of the start of the war in Ukraine, the RN was forced to throw out 1.2 million copies of an eight-page leaflet because it was illustrated with a photo showing Marine Le Pen with Vladimir Putin to demonstrate her qualities as a “stateswoman”. In the days that followed, Marine Le Pen claimed that Ukraine was a positive illustration of a “national liberation struggle”, claiming that her party was following the same logic.

Other parties, structurally allied to the French RN, are not taking the same position. This is the case of the FPÖ, which has also had a formal cooperation agreement with Putin’s United Russia party since 2016. Some of its representatives now claim that the agreement was “only formal”. However, Karin Kneissl, the foreign minister appointed at the end of 2017 at the suggestion of the FPÖ (although she does not hold a party card), invited Vladimir Putin to her wedding in August 2018. In September 2023, Kneissl announced that she was moving to St Petersburg. Moreover, since the arrest on 29 March 2024 of a former agent of the Austrian National Security and Intelligence Directorate for spying for Russia, the Austrian state apparatus has been rocked by revelations of pro-Russian activities.

At no time has the French RN questioned its alliance with the FPÖ, which is a pillar of its policy of European alliances. Worse for the RN’s current official position, their parliamentary group (ID) expanded its ranks at the end of February 2024 to include the Bulgarian party Vazradjane (“Renaissance”) and the Slovak National Party (SNS). Both are close allies of Vladimir Putin’s regime within the European Union. As far as the Bulgarian party is concerned, three of its deputies took part in a United Russia meeting in Moscow on 16 February 2024. As for the SNS, in Bratislava it is part of a coalition government which, along with Fidesz in Hungary, has the most pro-Russian foreign policy of all the member countries of the European Union.

PSEUDO-CLEAVAGE ON “REMIGRATION”

Another, largely artificial, divide emerged in February 2024. Since mid-January 2024, there had been massive demonstrations against the German AfD party, with over a million people taking part in various German cities. The motive was the publication on 10 January 2024 of a report shot on hidden camera about a meeting held behind closed doors between AfD party executives, members of the identitarian movement, representatives of the most right-wing wing of the CDU (Christian Democratic Union, classical right-wing) and a section of the employers’ association. At the conference, the Austrian identitarian activist Martin Sellner – who has since been banned from entering Germany – spoke out on the subject of “remigration”. [4] Sellner had fantasized about deporting two million people, including German nationals who were “poorly integrated” or “complicit in mass immigration”, to an unidentified model state in North Africa that would take them in.

Marine Le Pen then distanced herself from the German party, publicly questioning whether she should continue to work with it in the European Parliament. The co-president of the AfD party, Alice Weidel, wrote her a public letter, citing translation errors and claiming that her party was only calling for convicted foreign criminals to be deported “in accordance with the law”.

The fact remains that this divide is largely imaginary, with Marine Le Pen’s public stance due solely to her desire to put on a good show in the eyes of public opinion, wishing to avoid any “extremist” appearance. However, one of the pillars of the ID group in the European Parliament, the FPÖ, and in particular its president Herbert Kickl – who was Austrian Minister of the Interior from 2017 to 2019 – has been shamelessly using the term “remigration” for years, without Marine Le Pen having found fault with it, until now.

ANOTHER EUROPE, FREE OF FASCISM


The real divisions are not within the far right, whose positions can be very elastic, but between the far right and its opponents. European leaders need to revive and reorientate their national economies (budget cuts; increased exploitation; “structural” unemployment), against a backdrop of a race to war. In the face of popular discontent, reactionary, patriarchal and xenophobic demagoguery, combined with the repression of mobilizations, leaves plenty of room for the far right, which often appears to be the only real opposition party. In this sense, the necessarily neoliberal policies of the European Union are a stepping stone for European fascism.

It is up to us to fight on the basis of fundamental positions, rejecting their ideas, which remain unacceptable in all forms. We demand open borders and a Europe-wide redistribution of wealth. Immediately, we are in favour of a European minimum wage and equal social rights for all. This means breaking out of the shackles imposed by the EU, and will require major victorious mobilizations across the continent.

April 2024

FOOTNOTES


[1] Founded in 1988, the Sweden Democrats were initially an openly neo-Nazi party, which has now “normalized”.

[2] The FPÖ, the Freedom Party of Austria, was created in 1955 from the rubble of Nazism by transforming the “League of Independents”, itself created in 1949. Austria’s political life was controlled by the Allies during the Second World War until 1955, when the Treaty of Neutrality was signed, restoring full sovereignty to the Austrian Republic. Until 1955, it was impossible to reconstitute a party that was too close to historical Nazism. As soon as the obstacle was removed, the FPÖ was set up, its first president Anton Reinthaller (who died in 1958) having been Secretary of State for Agriculture under Adolf Hitler.

[3] Founded in 2013, the AfD (Alternative for Germany) is a far-right party expected to win around 18% of the vote in the coming European elections.

[4] “Remigration” is a concept coined by Renaud Camus, a French far-right writer.

Translated by International Viewpoint from Revue l’Anticapitaliste.