| REUTERS
Sunday, December 08, 2024
I research race in politics – Kemi Badenoch’s views on inequality should worry Black Britons
Kemi Badenoch has become the first Black leader of a UK-wide political party. But her ascent is unlikely to translate into meaningful gains for Black Britons.
Badenoch’s record suggests she is uninterested in tackling the systemic barriers that hold back so many Black people in Britain. Instead, she actively champions the very structures that maintain racial inequality in the name of Britain’s supposed meritocracy.
Badenoch’s rise is partly explained by her positions on cultural issues, which appeal to the right of her party and may resonate with some socially conservative segments of the ethnic minority voter base.
It would be wrong to assume that Badenoch must represent Black voters because she herself is Black. Badenoch herself has said she hates identity politics, and has criticised Labour politicians for what she sees as a view of Black people “as a homogeneous, monolithic bloc.”
Any criticism on this front should focus on the substantive implications of her policies and rhetoric. But these, as I have previously argued, are antithetical to advancing the rights and interests of Black Britons, regardless of their political views.
Badenoch’s brand of Conservatism avoids confronting racial inequality, instead promoting an “anti-woke” ideology. She has celebrated Britain’s supposed racial tolerance while minimising its historical and structural inequalities.
As minister for equalities, she staunchly defended the Sewell report – the controversial government-commissioned review that concluded Britain did not have a problem with institutional racism.
The report concluded that while there are disparities in outcomes between different ethnic groups, there is no evidence of systemic or institutional racism in the UK. This assertion was widely criticised by scholars, activists and organisations. UN human rights experts said the report tried to “normalise white supremacy”.
Critics argued that the report ignored or minimised well-documented instances of racial inequality and discrimination in education, healthcare, employment and criminal justice. And they pointed out that the report selectively used data to support its conclusions, while downplaying or overlooking evidence that highlighted systemic racial disparities.
Badenoch has also dismissed slavery reparations as a “scam”, and argued that the British Empire should be remembered for ending slavery rather than for its role in the transatlantic slave trade. And she has resisted calls to teach more Black history in schools.
After Conservative donor Frank Hester’s comments about Diane Abbott came to light, Badenoch did condemn the comments as racist, going against Downing Street’s initial line. But she then argued that the country needed to “move away” from the issue, downplaying the need to address racism within her party.
Reality for Black Britons
Badenoch’s stance on race relations sits awkwardly with the modern experience of many Black Britons. She has claimed that Britain is the best place to be a Black person – yet systemic racism remains pervasive in the labour market, education and policing.
The ONS found that between 2012 and 2022, Black African, Caribbean or Black British employees were the only ethnicity group to be consistently earning less than white employees. In schools, Black Caribbean pupils are disproportionately excluded, often for minor infractions.
There are stark racial disparities in policing. Black people are seven times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched, and more likely to experience the use of force. Black children are also disproportionately more likely to be strip-searched.
THE CONVERSATION
Michael Bankole , Lecturer in Politics, Royal Holloway University of London
Published: December 5, 2024 Kemi Badenoch has become the first Black leader of a UK-wide political party. But her ascent is unlikely to translate into meaningful gains for Black Britons.
Badenoch’s record suggests she is uninterested in tackling the systemic barriers that hold back so many Black people in Britain. Instead, she actively champions the very structures that maintain racial inequality in the name of Britain’s supposed meritocracy.
Badenoch’s rise is partly explained by her positions on cultural issues, which appeal to the right of her party and may resonate with some socially conservative segments of the ethnic minority voter base.
It would be wrong to assume that Badenoch must represent Black voters because she herself is Black. Badenoch herself has said she hates identity politics, and has criticised Labour politicians for what she sees as a view of Black people “as a homogeneous, monolithic bloc.”
Any criticism on this front should focus on the substantive implications of her policies and rhetoric. But these, as I have previously argued, are antithetical to advancing the rights and interests of Black Britons, regardless of their political views.
Badenoch’s brand of Conservatism avoids confronting racial inequality, instead promoting an “anti-woke” ideology. She has celebrated Britain’s supposed racial tolerance while minimising its historical and structural inequalities.
As minister for equalities, she staunchly defended the Sewell report – the controversial government-commissioned review that concluded Britain did not have a problem with institutional racism.
The report concluded that while there are disparities in outcomes between different ethnic groups, there is no evidence of systemic or institutional racism in the UK. This assertion was widely criticised by scholars, activists and organisations. UN human rights experts said the report tried to “normalise white supremacy”.
Critics argued that the report ignored or minimised well-documented instances of racial inequality and discrimination in education, healthcare, employment and criminal justice. And they pointed out that the report selectively used data to support its conclusions, while downplaying or overlooking evidence that highlighted systemic racial disparities.
Badenoch has also dismissed slavery reparations as a “scam”, and argued that the British Empire should be remembered for ending slavery rather than for its role in the transatlantic slave trade. And she has resisted calls to teach more Black history in schools.
After Conservative donor Frank Hester’s comments about Diane Abbott came to light, Badenoch did condemn the comments as racist, going against Downing Street’s initial line. But she then argued that the country needed to “move away” from the issue, downplaying the need to address racism within her party.
Reality for Black Britons
Badenoch’s stance on race relations sits awkwardly with the modern experience of many Black Britons. She has claimed that Britain is the best place to be a Black person – yet systemic racism remains pervasive in the labour market, education and policing.
The ONS found that between 2012 and 2022, Black African, Caribbean or Black British employees were the only ethnicity group to be consistently earning less than white employees. In schools, Black Caribbean pupils are disproportionately excluded, often for minor infractions.
There are stark racial disparities in policing. Black people are seven times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched, and more likely to experience the use of force. Black children are also disproportionately more likely to be strip-searched.
Kemi Badenoch reacts as she is elected leader of the Conservative party. Tayfun Salci/Alamy
These persistent disparities across multiple sectors cannot be dismissed as coincidental. They can be linked to institutional practices, historical biases and discriminatory policies that collectively reinforce and perpetuate racial inequality.
According to the Black British Voices Project, 87% of Black Britons distrust the criminal justice system, and 90% of young Black people expect to face racial prejudice as adults. Fewer than 2% believe educational institutions take racism seriously. These figures underline how far Britain still has to go in addressing racial inequality.
The Conservative paradox
Badenoch is a reminder of an interesting paradox for the Conservatives. The party has become more ethnically diverse over the last 14 years. But it has also taken regressive positions on issues of race and racism.
These positions have themselves been championed by ethnic minority politicians, leading some to argue that they are being used as “reputation shields”. This means they enable the party to pursue regressive policies on issues related to race or immigration, while using the fact of increased representation to deflect allegations of intolerance.
Some of the policies advocated for by the last few Conservative governments, particularly those related to immigration, border control and policing, are examples. These were all advanced by successive ethnic minority home secretaries.
As I have explored in my own research, ethnic minority representation does not necessarily translate to racial justice in policy.
Badenoch’s divisive brand, coupled with the Conservative party’s broader struggles, is already materialising in the polls. Her initial approval ratings are already lower than those of her predecessors Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson. The latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows a net approval rating of -5%.
Recovering from political setbacks usually requires an entire electoral cycle. With Donald Trump’s return in the US and Reform UK threatening its base, the Conservatives may feel pressure to lurch further to the right – and may even deepen racial divisions in the process.
These persistent disparities across multiple sectors cannot be dismissed as coincidental. They can be linked to institutional practices, historical biases and discriminatory policies that collectively reinforce and perpetuate racial inequality.
According to the Black British Voices Project, 87% of Black Britons distrust the criminal justice system, and 90% of young Black people expect to face racial prejudice as adults. Fewer than 2% believe educational institutions take racism seriously. These figures underline how far Britain still has to go in addressing racial inequality.
The Conservative paradox
Badenoch is a reminder of an interesting paradox for the Conservatives. The party has become more ethnically diverse over the last 14 years. But it has also taken regressive positions on issues of race and racism.
These positions have themselves been championed by ethnic minority politicians, leading some to argue that they are being used as “reputation shields”. This means they enable the party to pursue regressive policies on issues related to race or immigration, while using the fact of increased representation to deflect allegations of intolerance.
Some of the policies advocated for by the last few Conservative governments, particularly those related to immigration, border control and policing, are examples. These were all advanced by successive ethnic minority home secretaries.
As I have explored in my own research, ethnic minority representation does not necessarily translate to racial justice in policy.
Badenoch’s divisive brand, coupled with the Conservative party’s broader struggles, is already materialising in the polls. Her initial approval ratings are already lower than those of her predecessors Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson. The latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows a net approval rating of -5%.
Recovering from political setbacks usually requires an entire electoral cycle. With Donald Trump’s return in the US and Reform UK threatening its base, the Conservatives may feel pressure to lurch further to the right – and may even deepen racial divisions in the process.
British state abandons people to Storm Darragh
The firefighters' union slammed cuts to emergency services
Storms hit Porthcawl
The firefighters' union slammed cuts to emergency services
Storms hit Porthcawl
By Camilla Royle
Saturday 07 December 2024
Saturday 07 December 2024
SOCIALIST WORKER Issue
Millions of people in Britain face life-threatening weather conditions after Storm Darragh hit on Saturday—just two weeks after Storm Bert.
The storm left 130,000 homes and businesses without power overnight and into the morning. A red weather warning was in place in the west of Wales and the Bristol Channel. Millions of people received a phone alert advising them to stay home.
Events ranging from Christmas markets, to flights at Cardiff airport to the Everton vs Liverpool football match have been cancelled or postponed. In Porthcawl, South Wales, a block of flats had its roof ripped off by strong winds.
Disasters are a window into the way society works. The storms this autumn have exposed how unprepared Britain is for extreme weather. When storms hit, the most marginalised in society are often the most vulnerable to devastation.
The government’s advice to people is to stock up on torches and batteries as they face power cuts. They are expected to fend for themselves, especially as fire and rescue services have been stripped back by years of austerity.
If people go out in the storm, the media blames them for not following the warnings.
The storms give a glimpse of the more chaotic world we can expect as climate change worsens.
Climate change fuels more tropical storms. But the Met Office says that autumn storms in Britain could also get more frequent and more intense.
Warming water in the oceans means that storms tend to have more energy, leading to stronger winds. The storms also pick up more water from the oceans leading to more rainfall. And rising sea levels contribute to storm surges in coastal areas.
Firefighters say they know an emergency when they see it.
Matt Wrack FBU firefighters’ union leader, said, “We have had so many warnings now but still our politicians are not taking climate change seriously.
“They’re not accelerating changes to our economy and our society as quickly as they need to. And they’re not investing in a vital piece of climate change adaptation—the fire and rescue service.”
Since 2010, central government funding for the fire service has been cut by 30 percent and 12,000 firefighter jobs have been lost.
The storms in Britain and Valencia in the Spanish state have shown that ordinary people will get together to clean up the damage after a storm hits. Even if the state abandons people, their friends and neighbours don’t.
We need to demand more action to stop the climate emergency, to rapidly cut back fossil fuel use and invest in rescue services to protect more people.
Millions of people in Britain face life-threatening weather conditions after Storm Darragh hit on Saturday—just two weeks after Storm Bert.
The storm left 130,000 homes and businesses without power overnight and into the morning. A red weather warning was in place in the west of Wales and the Bristol Channel. Millions of people received a phone alert advising them to stay home.
Events ranging from Christmas markets, to flights at Cardiff airport to the Everton vs Liverpool football match have been cancelled or postponed. In Porthcawl, South Wales, a block of flats had its roof ripped off by strong winds.
Disasters are a window into the way society works. The storms this autumn have exposed how unprepared Britain is for extreme weather. When storms hit, the most marginalised in society are often the most vulnerable to devastation.
The government’s advice to people is to stock up on torches and batteries as they face power cuts. They are expected to fend for themselves, especially as fire and rescue services have been stripped back by years of austerity.
If people go out in the storm, the media blames them for not following the warnings.
The storms give a glimpse of the more chaotic world we can expect as climate change worsens.
Climate change fuels more tropical storms. But the Met Office says that autumn storms in Britain could also get more frequent and more intense.
Warming water in the oceans means that storms tend to have more energy, leading to stronger winds. The storms also pick up more water from the oceans leading to more rainfall. And rising sea levels contribute to storm surges in coastal areas.
Firefighters say they know an emergency when they see it.
Matt Wrack FBU firefighters’ union leader, said, “We have had so many warnings now but still our politicians are not taking climate change seriously.
“They’re not accelerating changes to our economy and our society as quickly as they need to. And they’re not investing in a vital piece of climate change adaptation—the fire and rescue service.”
Since 2010, central government funding for the fire service has been cut by 30 percent and 12,000 firefighter jobs have been lost.
The storms in Britain and Valencia in the Spanish state have shown that ordinary people will get together to clean up the damage after a storm hits. Even if the state abandons people, their friends and neighbours don’t.
We need to demand more action to stop the climate emergency, to rapidly cut back fossil fuel use and invest in rescue services to protect more people.
Trinidad and Tobago ‘at boiling point’ says trade union leader
Ozzi Warwick, the head of the Joint Trade Union Movement, spoke to Socialist Worker
A Joint Trade Union Movement press conference in Trinidad and Tobago
By Yuri Prasad
Friday 06 December 2024
SOCIALIST WOREKER Issue
A huge wave of anger is gripping workers in the Caribbean state of Trinidad and Tobago. Unions are expecting thousands of people to join a mass demonstration outside prime minister Keith Rowley’s official residence on Saturday.
Fury at years of price rises, government-blocked pay increases and job cuts has exploded in a wave of strikes, picket lines and protests.
Dockers, and workers in the refinery, electricity, higher education and postal industries are all involved in battles over pay that in some cases date back almost ten years.
Workers’ anger only increased last week as the state awarded Rowley a 47.2 percent rise and over £115,000 backpay—100 times the monthly salary of a new teacher in the country.
“Things are at boiling point here,” Ozzi Warwick, the head of the Joint Trade Union Movement, told Socialist Worker. “The government is trying to drive the unions out while pursuing the worst neoliberal measures.
Ozzi described the way the government and employers have repeatedly used court injunctions to stop strikes and derail the unions. And, he says, the government is rolling back on its previous agreements with the unions.
But, he says, the threat of action has terrified the bosses. “All the employers are frightened,” he said. “All the different chambers of commerce have pressurised the government to put a stop to the strikes.
“Those court orders have had an effect. They stopped the docks strike, for example. But the anger remains. The dockers were angry at the decision and decided to press on with their work to rule action. And that has severely affected the port operation.”
Ozzi says news of the prime minister’s personal pay deal has galvanised people beyond the unions too. “This neoliberal government is headed by Trinidad’s equivalent of Margaret Thatcher,” he said, mocking Britain’s former Tory prime minister.
“Rowley has cut domestic fuel subsidies and increased electricity and water rates. That in turn has led to sharp increases in the prices of food, basic services and transport.
“At the same time, the country’s social support infrastructure is falling apart.”
The union leader points out that pharmacists no longer accept government medicine prescriptions because the state no longer pays them for dispensing them.
That means workers needing medicines have to pay privately—which can be incredibly expensive. Thousands of workers have been thrown out of their jobs, while Rowley has handed whole industries to the private sector.
“That’s why the demonstration on Saturday is going to be massive. There is so much anger from so many sections of society.”
And Ozzi says that the courts, by repeatedly ordering a halt to strikes, are pushing workers to take “matters into their own hands”.
Asked whether this could mean unofficial strikes, Ozzi replied, “Yes, we are coming to that point. Something has to give.”
A huge wave of anger is gripping workers in the Caribbean state of Trinidad and Tobago. Unions are expecting thousands of people to join a mass demonstration outside prime minister Keith Rowley’s official residence on Saturday.
Fury at years of price rises, government-blocked pay increases and job cuts has exploded in a wave of strikes, picket lines and protests.
Dockers, and workers in the refinery, electricity, higher education and postal industries are all involved in battles over pay that in some cases date back almost ten years.
Workers’ anger only increased last week as the state awarded Rowley a 47.2 percent rise and over £115,000 backpay—100 times the monthly salary of a new teacher in the country.
“Things are at boiling point here,” Ozzi Warwick, the head of the Joint Trade Union Movement, told Socialist Worker. “The government is trying to drive the unions out while pursuing the worst neoliberal measures.
Ozzi described the way the government and employers have repeatedly used court injunctions to stop strikes and derail the unions. And, he says, the government is rolling back on its previous agreements with the unions.
But, he says, the threat of action has terrified the bosses. “All the employers are frightened,” he said. “All the different chambers of commerce have pressurised the government to put a stop to the strikes.
“Those court orders have had an effect. They stopped the docks strike, for example. But the anger remains. The dockers were angry at the decision and decided to press on with their work to rule action. And that has severely affected the port operation.”
Ozzi says news of the prime minister’s personal pay deal has galvanised people beyond the unions too. “This neoliberal government is headed by Trinidad’s equivalent of Margaret Thatcher,” he said, mocking Britain’s former Tory prime minister.
“Rowley has cut domestic fuel subsidies and increased electricity and water rates. That in turn has led to sharp increases in the prices of food, basic services and transport.
“At the same time, the country’s social support infrastructure is falling apart.”
The union leader points out that pharmacists no longer accept government medicine prescriptions because the state no longer pays them for dispensing them.
That means workers needing medicines have to pay privately—which can be incredibly expensive. Thousands of workers have been thrown out of their jobs, while Rowley has handed whole industries to the private sector.
“That’s why the demonstration on Saturday is going to be massive. There is so much anger from so many sections of society.”
And Ozzi says that the courts, by repeatedly ordering a halt to strikes, are pushing workers to take “matters into their own hands”.
Asked whether this could mean unofficial strikes, Ozzi replied, “Yes, we are coming to that point. Something has to give.”
At last! Eric Williams’ classic book Capitalism and Slavery republished
Penguin has brought out Eric Williams’ Capitalism and Slavery for the first time in Britain in almost 40 years
Penguin has brought out Eric Williams’ Capitalism and Slavery for the first time in Britain in almost 40 years
Eric Williams wrote the classic study Capitalism and Slavery in 1944. He also became prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago
In this classic book Caribbean historian Eric Williams details how capitalism—and particularly British capitalism—could not have developed without the brutality of the Atlantic slave trade.
First published in 1944, Capitalism and Slavery has been unjustly neglected and the new edition from Penguin is the first in Britain for nearly 40 years. It is doubly welcome at a time when the government attacks Black Lives Matter for reminding us of Britain’s role in the slave trade.
Williams explains the centuries‑long battle for supremacy in the Caribbean between Spain, Portugal, France and Britain. He describes the different kinds of colonies, either based on small farmer-holdings or on plantations—in which case “land and capital were both useless unless labour could be commanded”.
It is very good on the different kinds of unfree labour used, the planters’ indifference to their workers’ suffering and why slavery became economically dominant. He argues that “Slavery was not born of racism—rather racism was the consequence of slavery”.
Slavery developed for economic reasons but was justified by turning to a new idea of races. “Here then is the origin of Negro slavery. The reason was economic, not racial; it had to do not with the colour of the labourer, but the cheapness of the labour. As compared with Indian and white labour, Negro slavery was eminently superior.”
As the great historian of race WEB Du Bois put it in 1947, it was Marx who “made the great unanswerable charge to the sources of capitalism in African slavery”. Williams called the book “strictly an economic study” of how profits from the slave trade funded the development of industrial capitalism, but it teems with moral outrage.
Bristol became Britain’s second city because the slave trade brought in twice as much profit as all other trade combined. An observer wrote, “There is not a brick in the city but what is cemented with the blood of a slave”.
In this classic book Caribbean historian Eric Williams details how capitalism—and particularly British capitalism—could not have developed without the brutality of the Atlantic slave trade.
First published in 1944, Capitalism and Slavery has been unjustly neglected and the new edition from Penguin is the first in Britain for nearly 40 years. It is doubly welcome at a time when the government attacks Black Lives Matter for reminding us of Britain’s role in the slave trade.
Williams explains the centuries‑long battle for supremacy in the Caribbean between Spain, Portugal, France and Britain. He describes the different kinds of colonies, either based on small farmer-holdings or on plantations—in which case “land and capital were both useless unless labour could be commanded”.
It is very good on the different kinds of unfree labour used, the planters’ indifference to their workers’ suffering and why slavery became economically dominant. He argues that “Slavery was not born of racism—rather racism was the consequence of slavery”.
Slavery developed for economic reasons but was justified by turning to a new idea of races. “Here then is the origin of Negro slavery. The reason was economic, not racial; it had to do not with the colour of the labourer, but the cheapness of the labour. As compared with Indian and white labour, Negro slavery was eminently superior.”
As the great historian of race WEB Du Bois put it in 1947, it was Marx who “made the great unanswerable charge to the sources of capitalism in African slavery”. Williams called the book “strictly an economic study” of how profits from the slave trade funded the development of industrial capitalism, but it teems with moral outrage.
Bristol became Britain’s second city because the slave trade brought in twice as much profit as all other trade combined. An observer wrote, “There is not a brick in the city but what is cemented with the blood of a slave”.
CLR James —‘The coming revolution will be black and white’
Williams attacks the slaveholders’ hypocrisy, including that of the churches, commenting, “The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel prohibited Christian instruction to is slaves in Barbados”.
He points out that plantation slavery was as ecologically destructive as it was morally repugnant since it exhausts the soil.
His broadly Marxist argument concludes that social relations link to economic development. “Even the great mass movements… show a curious affinity with the rise and development of new interests.”
However, Williams disagreed with many Marxists that argued that capitalism pre-dated the use of slavery and unfree labour. Williams was greatly influenced by the great Caribbean Marxist CLR James. They were Trinidadian and James had taught him at school. In Britain in the 1930s Williams helped research The Black Jacobins—James’s masterpiece on race, class and the Haitian revolution.
Williams states that this had already explained Capitalism and Slavery’s central theory “clearly and concisely”. But Williams’ book provides far more extensive facts. These ideas developed from comments by Marx on race and slavery, particularly around the US Civil War in the 1860s.
James was himself influenced by Du Bois’s Black Reconstruction, which examined how a Northern victory was far from inevitable, despite its economic superiority over the Confederacy. The active role of the enslaved made a decisive difference.
Williams returned to Trinidad where he came to lead the nationalist movement and after independence became prime minister. He invited James to come and edit his party’s paper, but the two fell out over the government’s lack of radicalism. James was an increasingly vocal critic and was even kept under house arrest for a while.
None of this detracts from the importance of Capitalism and Slavery in cementing the idea that there is no capitalism without racism.
Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams. Published by Penguin, £9.99
UK
Travellers protest against police repression in Manchester
Greater Manchester Police forced Traveller children onto trains to carry them away from the city centre last month
Anger and determination on the protest in Manchester
By Thomas Foster in Manchester
Friday 06 December 2024
Around 250 Travellers and their supporters took to the streets of Manchester on Friday to rage against police repression and racism.
It came after Greater Manchester Police (GMP) stopped Traveller children from attending the Christmas markets and forced them onto trains out of the city at the end of last month.
At one point, there was a police line next to the shopping centre by the Christmas market.
The police then forced Traveller children onto different trains, with many children unsure of where they were going. One 13 year-old girl was sent to Grimsby in the north east of England. She was distraught and her parents had to travel to the town to pick her up.
Rupert, a Traveller, said, “My kids were here two weeks ago at the train station. They rang me up crying their eyes out. The next day my daughter was full of bruises. That’s the perfect definition of the police bullying children.
“There needs to be a stand from all of us as a community. That’s what today is—I reckon this is the start of something great. Unless we stand up, nothing will change.”
Tommy, one of the organisers of the protest, told Socialist Worker, “For far too long we have laid down like sheep and now we need to fight back. Our people will stand firm and fight for this and never give up.”
He slammed the inaction of Labour mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham. “Andy Burnham has done nothing towards tackling racism, he said. “He is all about himself and the high ups. Most people here suffer from racism every day of the week. Our people are the ones who live on the streets in tents outside of St Peter’s Square in central Manchester.”
The Gypsy Traveller League organised the protest, which was full of signs reading, “Defend Roma rights,” and, “Stop police brutality against the Traveller community.”
Martin, another Traveller from Dublin, said, “I’ve been campaigning against racism for 40 years. We are sending out a clear message that what happened was horrible and despicable and racist.
“There was racist profiling involved. The chief constable needs to be held to account—who gave permission to use excessive and brutal force against young Traveller children?
“It’s the hallmarks of deeply embedded institutional racism.”
Maria, an activist for a Roma charity, told Socialist Worker, “I’m a mother in the Roma community and have faced discrimination during my private life and at work.
“It happens to all of us, to all gypsies all over the world. The racism has never stopped, but we won’t give up and will stand up for freedom and fair treatment of children.
“This is the time for our community to unite as one people and to have our voices heard.”
Chants of, “Say it loud, say it clear, Traveller, Roma welcome here,” and, “GMP shame, shame, all the violence in your name.”
Lincoln, who lives in Manchester, told Socialist Worker, “How would you feel if that was your little kid or younger brother or sister?”
Yasmin, a Stand Up To Racism activist, spoke at the demo. She said, “The Roma community is one of the most scapegoated. It’s shameful what the police did. We have to continue to hold the police accountable.
“They are the ones harming our communities and spewing out racism. The GMP has been shown to be institutionally racist and to protect those at the top of society. They aren’t friends of ours.
“And we must fight the government pushing this racism—Labour, Tory and Reform UK—who come along with racist ideas.”
Another speaker said, “We won’t lay down and take racial violence. We demand justice and we demand it now. The police traded their humanity for a badge. But when we are united, we are stronger than them.”
Travellers protest against police repression in Manchester
Greater Manchester Police forced Traveller children onto trains to carry them away from the city centre last month
Anger and determination on the protest in Manchester
By Thomas Foster in Manchester
Friday 06 December 2024
Around 250 Travellers and their supporters took to the streets of Manchester on Friday to rage against police repression and racism.
It came after Greater Manchester Police (GMP) stopped Traveller children from attending the Christmas markets and forced them onto trains out of the city at the end of last month.
At one point, there was a police line next to the shopping centre by the Christmas market.
The police then forced Traveller children onto different trains, with many children unsure of where they were going. One 13 year-old girl was sent to Grimsby in the north east of England. She was distraught and her parents had to travel to the town to pick her up.
Rupert, a Traveller, said, “My kids were here two weeks ago at the train station. They rang me up crying their eyes out. The next day my daughter was full of bruises. That’s the perfect definition of the police bullying children.
“There needs to be a stand from all of us as a community. That’s what today is—I reckon this is the start of something great. Unless we stand up, nothing will change.”
Tommy, one of the organisers of the protest, told Socialist Worker, “For far too long we have laid down like sheep and now we need to fight back. Our people will stand firm and fight for this and never give up.”
He slammed the inaction of Labour mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham. “Andy Burnham has done nothing towards tackling racism, he said. “He is all about himself and the high ups. Most people here suffer from racism every day of the week. Our people are the ones who live on the streets in tents outside of St Peter’s Square in central Manchester.”
The Gypsy Traveller League organised the protest, which was full of signs reading, “Defend Roma rights,” and, “Stop police brutality against the Traveller community.”
Martin, another Traveller from Dublin, said, “I’ve been campaigning against racism for 40 years. We are sending out a clear message that what happened was horrible and despicable and racist.
“There was racist profiling involved. The chief constable needs to be held to account—who gave permission to use excessive and brutal force against young Traveller children?
“It’s the hallmarks of deeply embedded institutional racism.”
Maria, an activist for a Roma charity, told Socialist Worker, “I’m a mother in the Roma community and have faced discrimination during my private life and at work.
“It happens to all of us, to all gypsies all over the world. The racism has never stopped, but we won’t give up and will stand up for freedom and fair treatment of children.
“This is the time for our community to unite as one people and to have our voices heard.”
Chants of, “Say it loud, say it clear, Traveller, Roma welcome here,” and, “GMP shame, shame, all the violence in your name.”
Lincoln, who lives in Manchester, told Socialist Worker, “How would you feel if that was your little kid or younger brother or sister?”
Yasmin, a Stand Up To Racism activist, spoke at the demo. She said, “The Roma community is one of the most scapegoated. It’s shameful what the police did. We have to continue to hold the police accountable.
“They are the ones harming our communities and spewing out racism. The GMP has been shown to be institutionally racist and to protect those at the top of society. They aren’t friends of ours.
“And we must fight the government pushing this racism—Labour, Tory and Reform UK—who come along with racist ideas.”
Another speaker said, “We won’t lay down and take racial violence. We demand justice and we demand it now. The police traded their humanity for a badge. But when we are united, we are stronger than them.”
TRAVELLERS IS A TERM USED FOR ROMA AS WELL AS IRISH NOMADIC COMMUNITIES
Nick Clegg warns Elon Musk could become a “political puppet master” in US politics
Elon Musk risks becoming a “political puppet master” in US politics, the former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has said.
In comments made on Nick Robinson’s Political Thinking podcast, Clegg said that the billionaire and X owner Elon Musk had been “playing an outsized role” in the US election and now the formation of the Trump’s administration.
Clegg said Musk has a choice “he can either be an avid and well-heeled supporter […] or he can try and become a sort of political puppet master”.
The former deputy PM said this would involve Musk “going well beyond Trump, deciding who the next Republican candidate should be, and the one after that”.
He stated that while it’s common for “people with means” to get involved in politics, taking on the role of a “political puppet master” would be “quite different” to the general tradition of American democracy.
Clegg stood by comments he previously made about X being “a one man, hyper-partisan, ideological hobby horse”.
Nick Robinson questioned the former Liberal Democrat leader on his job as second-in-command to Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg, suggesting that some might ask, “What on earth are you doing working for a global multibillionaire who has this degree of power? You should be taking him on.”
Clegg responded: “I’ve never believed in life whether it was going into coalition when people said I shouldn’t or taking controversial decisions when I shouldn’t, I’ve never believed in the comfort of just basically commentary from the sidelines.
He continued: “If I’ve had a chance as I have been very lucky enough in my life, to get my hands dirty and deal with consequential issues, I’ve always hugely enjoyed that.”
Clegg joined Meta as vice president of global affairs in 2018 after he lost his Sheffield Hallam seat to Labour in 2017.
In 2022, he was promoted to the senior role of president of global affairs by Zuckerberg.
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
6 December, 2024
Left Foot Forward
The former deputy PM and Lib Dem leader, who is now Meta’s president of global affairs, says Musk is playing an “outsized role” in the Trump administration.
Left Foot Forward
The former deputy PM and Lib Dem leader, who is now Meta’s president of global affairs, says Musk is playing an “outsized role” in the Trump administration.
Elon Musk risks becoming a “political puppet master” in US politics, the former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has said.
In comments made on Nick Robinson’s Political Thinking podcast, Clegg said that the billionaire and X owner Elon Musk had been “playing an outsized role” in the US election and now the formation of the Trump’s administration.
Clegg said Musk has a choice “he can either be an avid and well-heeled supporter […] or he can try and become a sort of political puppet master”.
The former deputy PM said this would involve Musk “going well beyond Trump, deciding who the next Republican candidate should be, and the one after that”.
He stated that while it’s common for “people with means” to get involved in politics, taking on the role of a “political puppet master” would be “quite different” to the general tradition of American democracy.
Clegg stood by comments he previously made about X being “a one man, hyper-partisan, ideological hobby horse”.
Nick Robinson questioned the former Liberal Democrat leader on his job as second-in-command to Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg, suggesting that some might ask, “What on earth are you doing working for a global multibillionaire who has this degree of power? You should be taking him on.”
Clegg responded: “I’ve never believed in life whether it was going into coalition when people said I shouldn’t or taking controversial decisions when I shouldn’t, I’ve never believed in the comfort of just basically commentary from the sidelines.
He continued: “If I’ve had a chance as I have been very lucky enough in my life, to get my hands dirty and deal with consequential issues, I’ve always hugely enjoyed that.”
Clegg joined Meta as vice president of global affairs in 2018 after he lost his Sheffield Hallam seat to Labour in 2017.
In 2022, he was promoted to the senior role of president of global affairs by Zuckerberg.
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
UK Right-wing media in uproar over peaceful demonstration urging Sadler’s Wells to cut ties with Barclays
Fossil Free London drew attention this week for staging a protest on the opening night of Matthew Bourne’s Swan Lake at Sadler’s Wells Theatre in Islington. The protestors called on the venue to cut ties with Barclays, one of the world’s largest investors in fossil fuels.
The right-wing media quickly seized on the story, with the Daily Mail headline reading: ‘Moments eco-zealots dressed as ballerinas douse themselves with ‘oil’ at opening night of Swan Lake in protest at theatre’s ties to Barclays bank.’
Meanwhile, The Express claimed it had the “exclusive” with the headline:
‘Climate activists hurling black paint dragged out of major UK theatre on opening night.’
Their story claimed theatre-goers were left “aghast,” after the activists staged a “die-in” during the performance.
The protestors did indeed cause a stir on the opening night of the production. During the interval they staged a demonstration, pouring oil on campaigners dressed in Swan Lake costumes while chanting: “Sadler’s Wells, drop Barclays” and flaunting a banner that read: “Cut Ties with Barclays.”
The security eventually escorted them out of the building.
Even the Daily Mail was forced to acknowledge a statement from a Sadler’s Wells spokesperson, who said: “A peaceful demonstration took place outside the auditorium last night.
“The performance was uninterrupted, though we apologise for any disruption to our audiences.”
Barclays is one of Sadler’s Wells main sponsors. Notably, Nigel Higgins, chair of the Sadler’s Wells Board of Trustees, also serves as the chairman of Barclays, as stated on the theatre’s website.
The activists point to 2024 research by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) which uncovered that Barclays bank now holds over £2 billion in shares, and provides £6.1 billion in loans and underwriting, to nine companies whose weapons, components and military technology are being used by Israel in its attacks on Palestinians.
The PSC is also calling on concerned people to boycott all Barclays services until the bank ends its “grave complicity in Israel’s attacks on Palestinians.”
Joanna Warrington, campaigner with Fossil Free London, said that it’s time for Sadler’s Wells to stop “dancing round the issue.”
“By continuing to partner with Barclays, a bank that fuels climate breakdown and genocide, Sadler’s Wells is complicit in global suffering and the destruction of our future. This sponsorship lets Barclays hide behind a veil of corporate responsibility, while it continues business as usual, bankrolling the industries driving environmental devastation and violence across the world.
“Sadler’s Wells must choose: uphold the values of art and humanity, or remain complicit in the destruction and greed that threatens us all.”
Image credit: Fossil Fuel London – Talia Woodin, @taltakingpics
Yesterday
LEFT FOOT FORWARD
‘Sadler’s Wells must choose: uphold the values of art and humanity, or remain complicit in the destruction and greed that threatens us all.’
‘Sadler’s Wells must choose: uphold the values of art and humanity, or remain complicit in the destruction and greed that threatens us all.’
Fossil Free London drew attention this week for staging a protest on the opening night of Matthew Bourne’s Swan Lake at Sadler’s Wells Theatre in Islington. The protestors called on the venue to cut ties with Barclays, one of the world’s largest investors in fossil fuels.
The right-wing media quickly seized on the story, with the Daily Mail headline reading: ‘Moments eco-zealots dressed as ballerinas douse themselves with ‘oil’ at opening night of Swan Lake in protest at theatre’s ties to Barclays bank.’
Meanwhile, The Express claimed it had the “exclusive” with the headline:
‘Climate activists hurling black paint dragged out of major UK theatre on opening night.’
Their story claimed theatre-goers were left “aghast,” after the activists staged a “die-in” during the performance.
The protestors did indeed cause a stir on the opening night of the production. During the interval they staged a demonstration, pouring oil on campaigners dressed in Swan Lake costumes while chanting: “Sadler’s Wells, drop Barclays” and flaunting a banner that read: “Cut Ties with Barclays.”
The security eventually escorted them out of the building.
Even the Daily Mail was forced to acknowledge a statement from a Sadler’s Wells spokesperson, who said: “A peaceful demonstration took place outside the auditorium last night.
“The performance was uninterrupted, though we apologise for any disruption to our audiences.”
Barclays is one of Sadler’s Wells main sponsors. Notably, Nigel Higgins, chair of the Sadler’s Wells Board of Trustees, also serves as the chairman of Barclays, as stated on the theatre’s website.
The activists point to 2024 research by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) which uncovered that Barclays bank now holds over £2 billion in shares, and provides £6.1 billion in loans and underwriting, to nine companies whose weapons, components and military technology are being used by Israel in its attacks on Palestinians.
The PSC is also calling on concerned people to boycott all Barclays services until the bank ends its “grave complicity in Israel’s attacks on Palestinians.”
Joanna Warrington, campaigner with Fossil Free London, said that it’s time for Sadler’s Wells to stop “dancing round the issue.”
“By continuing to partner with Barclays, a bank that fuels climate breakdown and genocide, Sadler’s Wells is complicit in global suffering and the destruction of our future. This sponsorship lets Barclays hide behind a veil of corporate responsibility, while it continues business as usual, bankrolling the industries driving environmental devastation and violence across the world.
“Sadler’s Wells must choose: uphold the values of art and humanity, or remain complicit in the destruction and greed that threatens us all.”
Image credit: Fossil Fuel London – Talia Woodin, @taltakingpics
Redefining global security – less war, more cooperation
DECEMBER 8, 2024
Mike Phipps reviews The Insecurity Trap: A Short Guide to Transformation, by Paul Rogers with Judith Large, published by Hawthorn.
The 2024 Munich Security Conference asserted that the world has entered a new era of decline in global cooperation, in favour of protectionism and self-interest. This, alongside rising nationalism and right wing populism, a growing mistrust of science and expertise and the huge growth in the influence of social media, is worrying enough. The increased tendency to respond to international threats with exclusively military ‘solutions’ is creating new dangers.
The breakdown in international cooperation is illustrated by the West’s reckless approach to the climate emergency – despite the emergence of new technologies that make rapid decarbonization possible within a very short period. It was underlined by the lack of intergovernmental responsibility during the Covid pandemic, expressed in ‘vaccine nationalism’ – all while the world’s ten richest people increased their wealth by US $540 billion in the pandemic’s first year.
Paul Rogers notes: “ The world’s dominant economic model is terribly ill suited to responding to global challenges that need close intergovernmental cooperation.”
As climate breakdown and increasing global inequality fuel greater migration, the West’s response is to impose new barriers to movement and resort to divisive and nationalist rhetoric to support its policies – which further strengthen militarism and undermine international cooperation in tackling global problems.
The preference for military responses has had a profound impact. It’s estimated that 940,000 people died in post-9/11 wars directly as a result of war violence, and four times that number indirectly. Some 38 million people were displaced in wars that cost $8 trillion. And it should be remembered that these wars – particularly in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, where new instabilities and terrorist threats were generated – were failures – just as Russia’s war on Ukraine and Israel’s war on Palestine will be failures, lucrative though they may for arms manufacturers and other corporate interests.
As the Rethinking Security Group has observed, current UK national security thinking privileges supposed ‘national security’ over a common value to which all people have an equal claim. Its version of the ‘national interest’ is driven by establishment and corporate interests and it prioritises short-term violent threats over long-term drivers of insecurity, usually responding with military methods and the curtailment of civil liberties.
These priorities will need to be drastically recast if we are to deal with the fundamental threats we face. “To prevent systemic climate breakdown and unbearable catastrophes, we need to achieve radical change almost beyond comprehension within a couple of decades,” argues Rogers.
In the UK alone, given its huge renewable energy resources, every home could be insulated within a decade, as could workplaces, and a national network of improved public transport and a wide range of carbon reduction programmes could be rolled out. But this requires a break with the dominant neoliberal economic model.
A rethinking of the meaning of national security will also be necessary. Security needs to be redefined as freedom from fear and want, to live in dignity; it should be a common right, not gained at others’ expense; and therefore a shared responsibility, not one that privileges a self-selecting group of powerful states.
In practice , this means a new emphasis on international development to help poorer countries develop their renewable energy resources, and a commitment to strengthening the United Nations and reorienting the UK military to focus on disaster relief.
This is a short book, but a useful introduction to a subject often sidelined by the left and avoided by those who are put off by the jargon that often accompanies the topic. Rogers’ redefinition of security away from military capabilities makes the discussion here vital and accessible.
Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.
UK
‘It Can’t Happen Here’ could happen here
DECEMBER 7, 2924
Guy Standing suggests a bleak political outcome will result from Labour pursuing its current economic strategy.
In 1935, Sinclair Lewis wrote a book entitled It Can’t Happen Here, warning that fascism in Europe could easily happen in the United States. His central character is a right-wing multi-millionaire, Buzz Windrip, who stands for President, whose speeches are uncanny precursors of Donald Trump’s. So is the story, although the shooting of Windrip has a nastier outcome.
Today, we need a British equivalent to Lewis’ book, because all the signs are there to suggest that unless a progressive transformational politics is launched now, in a few years’ time the extreme right could take control.
In most analyses of Trump’s victory, the focus has been on demographics – whites versus minorities, women versus men, young versus old, etc. There has been very little on class, although Bernie Sanders accused the Democrats of abandoning the working class. We will come to his perspective shortly.
Before doing so, we should reflect on some ancient wisdom. Plato was among the first to assert that democracy could only thrive if there was only modest inequality and widespread public education based on morality and respect for truth. Neither condition exists today.
We are living in a globalising economic system best described as rentier capitalism, in which an institutional architecture has been constructed such that more and more income flows to the owners of physical, financial and so-called intellectual property.
Wealth has grown relative to income, and wealth inequality vastly exceeds income inequality, while the labour share of income has fallen globally. In the process, the paradox is that the ideological domination by free market economics has created the most unfree market system ever imagined, as elaborated elsewhere.
Two implications help to explain the crisis leading to the re-election of a man as President who in any real democracy should have never been considered. First, rentier capitalism has generated a new global class structure, in which the top three classes in income terms are recipients of rental income – a plutocracy, an elite serving their interests and a shrinking salariat in secure employment benefiting from various forms of property.
Below them is the old proletariat, long the core support for US Democrats, Labour in Britain and social democrats generally. That has shrunk sharply, with many falling into the new mass class, the precariat, defined in three dimensions – insecure, unstable labour, volatile earnings without non-wage benefits or guaranteed state benefits and exploited by debt, and, most importantly, distinctive relations to the state, in that they are the first mass class in history that is systematically losing acquired rights of citizenship, les droits acquis. They are, and feel like, supplicants. This is stigmatising, humiliating and induces the four As – Anxiety, Alienation, Anomie and Anger.
In 2011, I wrote a book, The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, which has been translated into 25 languages and led me to make hundreds of presentations around the world. A Financial Times reviewer said I was predicting that the growth of the precariat would lead to fascism. This was wrong. The argument was that unless governments addressed the needs, insecurities and aspirations of the precariat, there would be a drift to fascism. On page 1, it is claimed that we would see the emergence of a “political monster”. In 2016, numerous people emailed to say the monster had arrived.
The precariat has continued to grow, but consists of three factions in what is still a class-in-the-making, not yet a sufficiently united class-for-itself with a common vision. The first faction is the Atavists, those falling out of old working-class communities, with little formal education. They feel they have lost Yesterday, and tend to support Trump and his look-alikes elsewhere. They are predominantly men. The term ‘left behind’ is not right. They have been pushed down. They tend to be anti-feminist, racist and anti-liberal.
The second faction is the Nostalgics, the millions who feel they have no home anywhere, a Present. These are the migrants along with minorities including many people with disabilities. In general, they do not support populist far-right politicians, but some are drawn to appeals to traditional conservative views, through the weaponizing of religion, a favourite tactic of Trump and his type.
The third faction is the Progressives. These are mainly the young educated who were promised a Future and a Career if they went to college. They come out realising they bought a lottery ticket and that they do not have future income security. They are aghast at the neo-fascism of the Trumps. But they see little in what the orthodox ‘left’ is offering. So, they are inclined to disengage from politics, not voting at all. This is especially likely when they see Biden et al supporting genocidal slaughter in Palestine.
Now we come back to Bernie Sanders’ reaction to the Democrats defeat. After he accused them of abandoning working-class people, the Democratic Party chair said this was BS (bullshit) and that Biden had been the most pro-working class president, pointing out that he had saved union pensions, joined a picket line and created millions of high-wage jobs.
Both were stuck in the past. Biden had looked after the proletariat, but ignored the precariat. Labour and social democrats in Europe have been doing the same. The precariat are not in trade unions with access to pensions, paid holidays and access to social rights. They are wallowing in chronic insecurity, denied access to universal benefits and entitlements. The Democrats have neglected them for three decades, beginning with Clinton’s welfare reform of 1996, when he pronounced “the end of welfare as we know it”. This shifted social policy decisively to means-testing and behaviour-testing, backed by punitive sanctions. New Labour and social democrats of the Third Way persuasion in Europe took the same route. In the UK, it culminated in the odious Universal Credit.
While Democrats were alienating the precariat, a space opened for libertarian populists. Ironically, because Trump is a serial liar, able to promise anything he thinks will appeal to emotions, he and populist copyists can sell a vision of a better future when in fact the plutocracy he represents and on which he depends for financial support will deliver libertarian policies that are contrary to the material interests of the precariat.
Symbolically, not only was he funded by the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who reportedly donated $175 million to the campaign, but on the day after Trump’s victory, the nine richest American plutocrats gained an extra $64 billion. There were also unseemly celebrations on Wall Street, with traders wearing Trump T-shirts. As one said, “Every capitalist in America is celebrating.” Meanwhile, there were reports that millions would be losing medical insurance.
This leads back to the analogy with Britain. In an injudicious Mais Lecture earlier this year, Rachel Reeves, in preparing to become Chancellor, claimed that Labour would emulate Bidenomics, which she named “securonomics”, or “modern supply-side economics”.
In her initial budget in October she certainly began that. If Labour continues with it, one can predict political failure and socio-economic conditions conducive to US-style plutocratic populism, in which someone like Nigel Farage will have a realistic chance of winning power.
Progressives should remember that Labour only received the support of 19% of the electorate in July, in what were the most propitious circumstances imaginable, faced by an exhausted, chaotic Conservative Party, pilloried by Farage’s Reform Party. Starmer’s Labour obtained fewer votes than Corbyn in 2019. They won a landslide only because of a woefully undemocratic electoral system. But with that system, they only have to lose a couple of percentage points of voter support to become a political rump. Without electoral reform towards proportional representation, Labour could just prepare the ground for Faragism.
Another lesson for Britain is that the space for a plutocratic populism is gained by a combination of a visionless centre-left party and the erasure of a civilised centre-right party. Trump achieved the latter by openly attacking the old Republican establishment. In Britain, we have a visionless Labour government and crushed civilised Conservatism, as the Tories lurch to the right to wrestle with Trump’s close friend, Nigel Farage.
In that context, Bidenomics with a British face could alienate enough of the precariat to sleepwalk to defeat. The measures Labour has already introduced are seriously regressive – refusing benefits for children with two younger siblings, cutting winter fuel allowance for people hovering above poverty, raising national insurance (passed onto workers by lower wages and expanding the precariat), cutting the real value of benefits for people with disabilities, and raising university tuition fees, which will hit students from low-income families.
A key idea behind securonomics is that public spending will shift from current to capital investment that will, in the government’s estimation, boost economic growth in the longer term. It brings to mind Keynes’ famous aphorism – “in the long run we are all dead”. But Reeves said in the Mais Lecture that Labour would adhere to a fiscal rule with a “target to ensure that expenditure on welfare is contained within a predetermined cap”. This is a clear signal that benefits that would give security to the precariat and others are set to fall.
Labour is relying on attracting foreign financial capital to achieve growth, and in that regard organised a lavish Business Summit within months of coming into office. Moreover, in her dealings with finance, Reeves promptly blinked.
Before the election, Labour had said it would tax private equity profits – so-called ‘carry’ – at the same rate as income tax. Those in private equity are among the plutocrats and elite, making phenomenal money. In her budget, Reeves reneged on her commitment, and their lofty incomes will be taxed at 32% compared with 45% that other high-income earners are supposed to pay. There were lavish parties held in the City to celebrate.
This is a further regressive twist, and looks particularly nasty in the context of saying the government cannot pay benefits for all children living in poverty. Probably equally regressive is the proposed industrial strategy based on copying Biden, which promises even more subsidies for capital, reducing their risk exposure in the hope that this will boost GDP growth. If those subsidies go mainly to foreign capital, there will be massive leakages abroad, mainly to financial firms in the USA.
Reeves’ adoption of Biden’s industrial policy, based on supply-side economics, will not boost GDP growth by much. It did not in the USA. Even the IMF has recognised that structural inequalities of wealth and income are the main impediments to economic growth. But there is nothing on any plan to reduce inequalities in the Mais Lecture. Instead, Labour is to rely on supply-side reforms that will probably increase inequalities, while having little effect on investment and growth, because they will induce international tax competition.
However, the biggest flaw of all is the almost religious faith placed in growth. Labour believes higher GDP growth will lead to rising living standards all round. But under rentier capitalism, income gushes upwards, little trickles down. One revealing study found that with increased GDP growth, only the top two percentiles – that is, top 20% — gain more than the rate of growth. Lower down the spectrum many do not gain at all; growth increases inequality.
A further flaw in the misnamed securonomics is that there is no demand-side vision. Where is the increased demand coming from? The precariat’s income will remain depressed and uncertain, with Universal Credit making life more cruelly so. There is nothing to suggest private debt will fall, which is crushing demand and increasing stress, mental illness, deaths of despair and anomic violence. And real wages will continue their decades-long stagnation.
In short, if growth happens, made unlikely by Trump’s protectionist tariffs, it will not make the precariat more secure or reduce the inequality that breeds resentment, rising morbidity and mental ill health. On top of that, our education system has moved closer to the US system, in which the pursuit of ‘human capital’ has crowded out ethical education and respect for truth.
Unless Labour changes course, giving priority to providing basic security and a vision of a Future for the precariat, what has happened in the USA will happen here.
Guy Standing is Professorial Research Fellow, SOAS University of London and a Council member of the Progressive Economy Forum. He is author of various books, including The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class and The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay.
Image: Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer. Source: UK Parliament. Creator: JESSICA TAYLOR Author: © UK Parliament / Maria Unger, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)