Monday, January 06, 2025

Ngo Van: an inspiring revolutionary

JANUARY 1, 2024

Ngo Van died twenty years ago today. Mike Phipps recalls the life of an extraordinary Vietnamese socialist, based on his gripping autobiography In the Crossfire: Adventures of a Vietnamese Revolutionary.

Ngo Van lived an extraordinary life. In his Introduction to In the Crossfire, Ken Knabb summarises: “In Part I of this book Van recounts his experiences growing up in a peasant village; working as a teenager in Saigon; discovering the true nature of the colonial system; becoming aware of movements that were fighting it; cautiously seeking out other dissidents; attending clandestine meetings; establishing underground networks; disseminating radical publications; organizing strikes and protests; taking part in insurrections and partisan warfare; being jailed and tortured by the French; and facing the murderous betrayals by the Stalinists, who systematically liquidated the Trotskyists and all the other oppositional movements in the aftermath of World War II.”

Van’s book opens with his arrest, torture and imprisonment in 1936, before recounting his childhood in rural poverty and some of his formative experiences under French colonial rule:

“One day at noon I entered the courtyard of the Communal House and stumbled upon a scene of beating. A poor wretch in rags was lying face down, his arms and legs pinned to the ground by three others. His tormentor was holding a long flexible rod at arm’s length and raining blows on the man’s lower back. At each of the twenty-some blows, the victim cried out and jerked convulsively. The solemnly dressed notables seated inside looked on impassively at the punishment of the man they had just condemned. It was the notables’ self-appointed right to intervene in disagreements between villagers and to judge and punish the poor people at their mercy. This scene of cold-blooded cruelty marked me for life.”

Despite being talented, Van was forced to end his formal education at the age of 13. He found work in Saigon at a time of anti-colonial uprisings in in the late 1920s  which  suffered fierce repression. Van became increasingly involved in political activity and organised a workplace union. At this time, despite the tensions arising from the support for French militarism peddled by followers of the Moscow line, in Vietnam Trotskyists and Stalinists still worked together on the journal La Lutte. That ended in May 1937 when the Stalinists walked out and denounced Trotskyists as “fascist agents” – which the journal’s supporters found profoundly disorienting.

Van was in and out of jail in the late 1930s, where he met numerous other revolutionary activists. He was particularly impressed by the peasant militants whom he met, who “saw the struggle as inseparable from their daily rural life, envisioning global social change in terms of how it would affect their own village community. Their sense of brotherhood moved me greatly… What became of my rural friends in the maelstrom of the Cochin Chinese peasant insurrection in November 1940? Their village Thanh Loi, which was on the fringes of the Plain of Reeds, was apparently wiped out by machine-gun fire and bombs.”

Without knowing it, Van found himself in the heart of this uprising. The insurgents attacked the militia posts to obtain arms, set fire to town halls and other official buildings, killed cops who were known torturers, attacked patrols and tried to block roads and canals and destroy bridges.

Martial law was declared. French troops searched villages after first bombing them and raking them with machine-gun fire. Over a hundred insurgents were killed in combat; thousands of noncombatant villagers were slaughtered by bombs or gunfire or taken away to be tortured.

Van writes: “Of the 5,800 people arrested, 221 were condemned to death — the executions were held in public to serve as examples — and 216 others were condemned to forced labour camps. The prisons were so overloaded that the excess prisoners were cooped up in barges where, under metal sheeting broiling in the sun, they died like flies.”

Van was in Saigon in March 1945 when the Japanese took control. “The French colonial regime, after eighty years of crushing with terror, violence and corruption all the attempts of its slaves to break their chains, had collapsed in a single night.”

Japanese rule did not last. Anglo-American aerial bombardment came swiftly, followed by French ground troops who carried out the largescale execution of civilians. When the Japanese army surrendered on August 15th, 1945, Saigon was in turmoil.

“A burst of wild hope filled us when we learned that the 30,000 miners of the Hongai-Campha Coal Mines had taken their fate into their own hands and elected workers councils to manage the coal production themselves. The miners were now in control of the public services in the area, the railways and the telegraph system. They were applying the principle of equal pay for all types of work, whether manual or intellectual. They had even begun a literacy campaign, setting up courses in which those who were literate taught their fellow workers how to read. In this working-class ‘Commune,’ life was organized with no bosses and no cops.”

Van and his comrades feared  that this could not last. The Stalinist Vietminh, who were now in power in the North, had begun a campaign of physically eliminating those they called ‘Trotskyist traitors to the Fatherland.’ When the Allied Commission arrived on September 6th under the command of British General Gracey, it ejected the Vietminh’s de facto government, ordered the dissolution of all armed groups and prohibited any possession of arms.

Two weeks later, Gracey declared martial law. “Filled with terror and rage, the people of the city quickly built barricades with chopped-down trees, overturned vehicles and piled-up furniture in order to bar the passage of patrols and troops. It was a desperate resistance. You could hear the rattle of machine-gun fire until six the next morning. Eventually the city centre fell to the French, supported by the Gurkhas… French soldiers and sailors went from door to door in the city centre and on the waterfront, shooting out the houses’ locks and taking the inhabitants away.”

On October 3rd, 1945, continues Van, “an order reached the front from the Vietminh Executive Committee, which was discussing a ceasefire with General Gracey. It called on all insurgents to fight only the French and to allow the British and Japanese to pass freely through the lines. This was an appalling and deadly folly: Detachments of Gurkhas and Japanese, who were being used as auxiliary troops by Gracey, immediately passed through the zones controlled by the insurgents without having a shot fired at them, and took possession of the most strategic positions. This enabled the French to break through the resistance at Ba Chieu, Binh Hoa and the Binh Loi bridge and on the Hang Sanh road toward Thi Nghe. At the Thi Nghe bridge around two hundred Trotskyist fighters from La Lutte were massacred.”

Van managed to escape by the skin of his teeth through the waterways of the Plain of Reeds, amid aerial bombardment. On his journey, he saw torched villages, corpses in rivers and other gruesome signs of colonial reconquest: “We passed through a village just after the French had been there. They had lined up all the villagers in squatting positions on the edge of a canal, then machine-gunned them all.”

Of his home village, there was dreadful news. Whole groves of bamboo and pineapple trees had been levelled. “The uniformed killers ransacked the little straw huts and other dwellings, searching them from top to bottom, breaking open cupboards, upsetting ancestral shrines and smashing the temple of the Guardian Spirit. Women, children and old people were herded to the side of the road. The men found hiding were taken to the Iron Bridge and shot, their bodies thrown into the water. Peasants at work in the rice fields were machine-gunned at point-blank range.”

In Saigon, “the postwar ‘new France’ lashed out against the small number of French who sympathized with the native Indochinese peoples. Soldiers had beaten the editor of the socialist news-sheet Justice, which had denounced the crimes committed by the brutes of the Expeditionary Corps, completely destroying his home as well as the paper’s office and printworks…  A young French woman, a member of the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps, was forced to walk down Rue Catinat at six in the evening between two paratroopers carrying whips. Her hands were tied behind her back, her head was shaved, and a placard was attached to her back that read: ‘I signed the Marxist resolution’.”

The war spread to the North in December 1946. “The treaty of March 6, 1946, a fool’s bargain signed by Ho Chi Minh through which the ‘new France’ recognized Vietnam as a ‘free state’ within the French Union, enabled Leclerc’s troops to enter Hanoi ‘without firing a single shot’ and to install themselves at strategic points in the country.”

Police mopping-up operations spread terror in the Saigon-Cholon region. Van saw a camp surrounded with barbed wire “where the French killers were piling up the prisoners they had captured during these raids. They shot them in batches of ten at a time, like hostages. Among the corpses was a boy, still holding a piece of paper, probably indicating his name and address.”

In Spring 1948, Van managed to escape to France, noting, “Of all those who had taken part in the revolutionary opposition movement and who had remained in the country, hardly a one survived.”  

The second part of Van’s book has a more subdued tone. In France, he had a different life: dire poverty and wage-work in a Paris factory. Van writes, “The bosses control our time. Time eats away our life. We proletarians are nothing but the bosses’ ‘variable capital’… As Marx wrote in The Poverty of Philosophy: ‘Time is everything, man is nothing; he is at most the carcass of time.’”

Van worked in a variety of factories. He formed a lifelong friendship with a Spanish civil war veteran, brought his 12 year old son to Paris and started to paint while convalescing  in the Pyrenees, after a bout of tubercular pleurisy.

His political outlook changed too. After re-reading Marx, he began to distrust any form of organisation that could  be seen as an embryonic state and became very critical of those Trotskyists who gave critical support to the forces of Ho Chi Minh.

His attitude to Stalinism did not change. He was working in a factory when the May 1968 events broke out. “Students were calling for a general strike and coming to the factories in order to make contact with the workers. The [Communist Party-led union federation] CGT prevented the workers from meeting them, keeping the workers isolated in their factories and driving away the students.”

Ngo Van’s memoir includes biographies of many of his comrades and is dedicated “to all these friends and comrades, and to so many others; to all those who have dreamed of a new world liberated from oppression and exploitation; to the serfs of the rice fields, the slaves of the plantations, the miners, coolies, farm labourers, workers and peasants who died anonymously, ‘combatants who fell in the struggle with no one to tell their story, no one to evoke their spirit’ and to the memory of my mother.”

There is more about Ngo Van in this excellent obituary by Hilary Horrocks and Simon Pirani, as well as a list of some of his writings. Even while he was alive, the history of revolutionary socialists in Vietnam was being suppressed. In the Crossfire helps keep this critically important memory alive.

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

Image:Japanese troops entering Saigon in 1941 https://picryl.com/media/japanese-troops-entering-saigon-in-1941-32ed7c Public domain photograph of Imperial Japan, Japanese empire, during World War Two, free to use, no copyright restrictions image – Picryl description Wikimedia Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal PDM 1.0 Deed


UK

‘Huge strides have been made for LGBT+ rights over the last 50 years, but equality does not feel as certain as it once did’

Photo: eyematter / Shutterstock

This year, LGBT+ Labour turns 50 years old. As the Labour Party’s LGBT+ affiliate organisation, the Labour Campaign for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (LGBT+ Labour) was created in 1975 with two main aims: to ensure the Labour Party and the trade unions support and act in favour of LGBT+ rights; and to encourage members of LGBT+ community to support the labour movement.

Since then, LGBT+ Labour has been part of a transformation of LGBT+ progress: in law, in societal attitudes, and in political representation. But this progress has not always been easy, and lessons from our past are crucial to taking on the challenges of today.

The period of the 1960s, 70s and 80s saw important shifts in the Labour Party’s approach to LGBT rights. The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 – which partially decriminalised homosexuality – was introduced under Labour PM Harold Wilson after Conservative PM Harold Macmillan had refused to do so.

In response to growing hostility towards LGBT people in the press and public discourse in the lead up to Section 28, groups such as Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners developed alliances between LGBT activists and trade unions. The 2014 film Pride details this alliance, which led to the adoption of a resolution to criminalise LGB discrimination at Labour’s 1985 Annual Conference.

‘Advancement of LGBT+ equality does not feel as certain as it once did’

These advances laid the foundation for the Labour government of 1997 – 2010 to make huge strides forward on LGBT+ rights, including: equalising the age of consent in 2000; repealing Section 28 in 2003; the 2004 Civil Partnership Act; the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, which gave trans people full legal recognition of their gender; and the Equality Act 2010, which protected LGBT employees from discrimination at work.

The period of 1997 – 2010 represented a step-change in societal attitudes towards LGBT+ people, too: so much so that a Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, felt able to legalise same-sex marriage in England in Wales in 2013, although the legislation still relied on Labour votes to pass. Same-sex marriage was subsequently legalised in Scotland in 2014, and in Northern Ireland in 2020.

READ MORE: NHS puberty blockers ban: Fresh party trans row as LGBT+ Labour sounds alarm

In recent years, however, the continued advancement of LGBT+ equality does not feel as certain as it once did, in both societal and legislative terms. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation are up by 112% in the last five years, while transphobic hate crimes have increased by an appalling 186% across the same period. This corresponds with a lack of progress in Westminster, with the previous Conservative government failing to ban conversion practices and improve trans healthcare, despite repeated promises over several years.

‘Real progress for LGBT+ communities to be delivered under a Labour government’

Ahead of the last Labour government, LGBT+ Labour activists organised, mobilised and won influence in the Labour Party and on its policy platform. Changing the law while in turn shifting public perception, and thus building momentum to achieve full equality. The progression from civil partnerships to equal marriage is one such example; another would be lifting the ban on LGBT+ people serving the military, increasing recognition of LGBT+ servicepeople over time, reflected by a new £75 million financial package for historic wrongs against LGBT+ veterans, increased by 50% under the new Labour government.

Ahead of the 2024 general election, LGBT+ Labour activists once again organised, mobilised, and influenced Labour’s policy platform. Our Chris Smith campaign fund, standing at a record £27,500, alongside canvassing sessions to mobilise hundreds of activists across the country, helped to elect a record number of LGBT+ Labour MPs at the election.

READ MORE: New Labour MP embroiled in trans rights row

Simultaneously, through the National Policy Forum and broader advocacy efforts, we secured key manifesto commitments on LGBT+ rights and on policy areas which disproportionality impact LGBT+ people: modernising the Gender Recognition Act, removing indignities and improving the healthcare pathway for transgender people; commissioning a new HIV Action Plan, with a view to ending new cases by 2030, becoming the first country in the world to do so; developing a new cross-government strategy to end homelessness; recruit 8,500 new NHS mental health staff to improve access to support; and introducing a new right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations for British Nationals abroad.

Two key commitments were not only in the manifesto but also featured in the first Labour government’s King’s Speech in 14 years: a comprehensive, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, and making LGBT+ hate crime an aggravated offence. We will continue to work with ministers, advisers and Labour MPs to ensure that these two commitments are delivered as soon as possible. Real progress for LGBT+ communities to be delivered under a Labour government.

Across 2025, we will also be partnering with MPs, councillors, LGBT+ charities, trade unions, private sector organisations and fellow Labour Party campaign groups to celebrate LGBT+ Labour’s history and focus our minds on the progress still to come. If you would like to get involved, please join us today.


UK

Starmer: New NHS deal with private sector puts ‘patients before ideology’

Photo: Number 10/Flickr


Keir Starmer has said he won’t put “ideology before patients” as he unveiled a new relationship with the private healthcare sector to get NHS waiting lists down.

In his first major policy speech of 2025, the Prime Minister said more private facilities would be available for NHS use under the partnership. The government’s newly published NHS plan promises patients choice of more providers via the NHS app, “including in the independent sector”.

Bringing down 7.5million-strong NHS waiting lists is one of the government’s flagship pledges, but use of the private sector is likely to prove controversial on the left.

Starmer said: “I know some people won’t like this, but I make no apologies. Change is urgent. I’m not interested in putting ideology before patients, and I’m not interested in moving at the pace of excuses.”

One political journalist said to Starmer that “some people watching might be worried about backdoor privatisation of the NHS”, and asked if he would be open to going further.

He said later the priority was waiting lists, but he was “not ideological” and implied he was open to expanding private sector involvement further if there was capacity.

He also said NHS use of the private sector is “not new”, and the deal was to ensure it was done better, stopping “cherry-picking of cases”.

Labour’s wider plans for the NHS

The plans announced today to bring down waiting lists also include an expanded use of Community Diagnostic Centres to allow more people to access tests 

It is one of the government’s milestones to reduce waiting lists to have 92% of NHS patients treated within 18 weeks.

Starmer added: “Politics can be a force for good, and we can unite the NHS behind a plan for reform, an NHS that’s faster, easier and more convenient, with waiting times, cut, patients in control, technology at your service, and outstanding care in your community.”

UNISON’s head of health Helga Pile said: “Ministers know that all the extra appointments and other ways of increasing capacity won’t happen on their own.

“Health workers have been taken for granted for years by governments and little they’ve heard from the Prime Minister on his plans will encourage them to feel differently.

“Getting decisions right on pay, and recruiting and retaining skilled, experienced workers must be at the heart of any recovery plan for the NHS.”

Starmer defends his record on grooming gangs against Elon Musk attacks

Meanwhile the Prime Minister was also quizzed by journalist on X owner, Tesla founder and incoming presidential adviser Elon Musk’s remarks about British politics – including an allegation Starmer was “complicit in the rape of Britain” in reference to scandals around child sexual exploitation.

But Starmer defended his record as Director of Public Prosecutions, adding that “those that are spreading lies and misinformation as far and as wide as possible, they’re not interested in victims.”

He said he wanted to “call out” politicians calling for an inquiry who had previously “sat in government”, and were now jumping on the “bandwagon of the far right”, without naming Kemi Badenoch.

One BBC journalist called Starmer’s response over grooming gangs “perhaps the most impassioned Starmer has ever been in his time as prime minister.”


Right-Wing Watch

The legacy of the Capitol Hill riots

The embracing of a man who incited a dangerous and deadly insurrection as he refused to accept the result of a democratic vote - akin to a three-year-old refusing to accept his bedtime - risks pushing Britain further down a dark and dangerous path, eroding the very values that have long defined the nation.

4 January, 2025 

On January 6 2021, a violent and heavily armed mob of Donald Trump loyalists stormed the US Capitol while Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Five people were killed, and hundreds injured.

The attempted coup was not a spontaneous act but had been planned for weeks, encouraged by elected officials and, most notably, the former president himself, who had spent weeks stoking baseless ‘big lie’ conspiracy theories about Joe Biden’s win. On that day, Trump urged the crowd to march to the Capitol and “fight.”

Now, four years later, the man identified by the House of Representative’s January 6 Committee as having “lit that fire” of insurrection, is about to return for a second presidential term. Trump has promised to pardon many of the rioters. In an interview with TIME magazine, he said that pardons could start in “the first hour… maybe the first nine minutes” of his presidency.

It’s the stuff of nightmares, representing a chilling turning point, not only for the United States but for democracies worldwide. Inevitably there are those who are emboldened by the events of January 6, who believe that there are few consequences, perhaps even political rewards, for inciting violence. Four years later, the ripple effects of that day continue to reverberate, manifesting in increasing displays of hate and extremism worldwide.

And Europe is no exception, where, sadly, news of tragic far-right violence is never far away. Germany has witnessed a surge in far-right, racist, and antisemitic violence, reaching unprecedented levels in over a decade, where violence against politicians dominates the headlines.



The European Liberal Forum (IPS) highlights how these attacks are often driven by transnational networks of far-right extremists, particularly through online communities. In their 2022 Policy Paper, they wrote:

“Each new attack serves as a motivation to do the same or even more. Despite these networks being decentralised, international links are maintained, particularly between the US and Europe…. Asylum seekers and ethnic minorities are often the primary targets.”

Intensifying divisions

On the first anniversary of the Capitol Hill riots, scholars from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies reflected on the long-term impact of January 6. Larry Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy, warned that the insurrection was the “gravest assault on American democracy since the Civil War.”

“[But] rather than providing a sobering lesson of the dangers of political polarisation, the insurrection seems only to have intensified our divisions, and the willingness to contemplate or condone the use of violence,” said Diamond.

He pointed to a Washington Post survey from 2022, that showed a third of Americans feel violence against the government could be justified in some circumstances, a sharp increase from 16 percent in 2010 and 23 percent in 2015.

Diamond’s concerns are compounded by the fact that many politicians have not been chastened by the near “constitutional catastrophic” events of January 6.

“The “Big Lie” that Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 election retains the support of most Republicans and a substantial proportion of independents. Around the country, Republican legislatures have been introducing, and in many states adopting, bills that would give Republican legislatures the ability to reverse or sabotage legitimate electoral outcomes, and other bills that make it more difficult for people (especially Democratic-leaning groups) to vote,” he continued.

A hint at the UK’s future?

The UK watched in horror at the chaos unfolding on Capitol Hill four years ago. Images of rioters scaling government buildings, desecrating offices, and beating officers were a reminder of what democracy shouldn’t look like, and, at the time, we believed such an insurrection could never happen here.

Yet a dangerous undercurrent has been brewing in Britain, where US-imported adversity to diversity and inclusion has made its way across the Atlantic, fuelled, sadly, by a right-wing media. Outlets like the Daily Mail and the Sun, repeatedly stoke fears about the “Islamification” of Britain, presenting Muslims as a threat to British values, while pushing an agenda that is highly critical of progressive movements, using the term ‘wokeism’ pejoratively to present a perceived overemphasis on political correctness and identity politics.

Senior Tories embrace Trump

Despite his role in the January 6 insurrection and his regular use of violent language to describe his opponents, high-profile Tory figures in Britain laud Trump. Liz Truss claimed – absurdly – he will make the world safer. Robert Jenrick said if he was an American citizen, he would “be voting for Donald Trump,” while Boris Johnson praised him for ensuring a “peaceful transfer of power” despite the coup attempt in 2021. This embracing of Trump shows just how far to the right the Tory party has fallen.

Farage and Reform

Then there’s the growing influence and popularity of Reform UK and Nigel Farage, who dismissed the Capitol Hill riots as a “ramshackle gathering of people.”

In the 2024 general election, Reform secured 4.1 million votes, marking the largest vote share ever for a far-right party in Britain. The party’s growing popularity among voters parallels the rise of far-right in the US, where formerly ‘moderate’ Republicans coalesce around Trump and his overt racism. A Politico analysis found that more than 20 of Trump’s presidential campaign rallies and campaign events demonised minority groups. The supposed threat of migrants was the core part of the former president’s campaign, promising that he’s the one who can save the country from a group of people he calls “animals,” “stone cold killers,” the “worst people,” and the “enemy from within.”




This perceived threat of migrants was also the cornerstone of Reform’s election campaign. Farage even said the general election “should be the immigration election,” promising a “freeze” on non-essential immigration, which he blamed for NHS waiting lists and the housing crisis, saying other parties “would rather not discuss it.”

Nigel Farage has made it clear that Trump is his dear, dear friend, having abandoned his constituents in Clacton multiple times so he can attend Republican events in the US.

Hope not Hate warns that the rise of Reform is a threat to communities, spreading division and pushing far-right ideas. “If we don’t act now, we risk seeing their influence grow even further in future local, mayoral, and general elections.”

Far-right riots

Sadly, the magnitude of the far-right ‘anger’ flared up this summer, following the tragic stabbing of three young girls in Southport. While the incident sparked shock and disbelief across the UK, a false narrative emerged online, claiming the attacker was a Syrian Muslim asylum seeker. This fuelled outrage and riots among groups of anti-immigrant protestors, who targeted mosques.

In a bid to quell the violence, a judge made the unusual decision to reveal the identity of the attacker – a 17-year-old British national from a Christian family originally from Rwanda. Yet the damage had been done.

So-called “pro-British protestors” engaged in violent acts, throwing bricks through mosque windows, chanting anti-Islamic slurs, setting cars on fire, attacking residents and police, and even attempting to burn down a hotel housing asylum seekers.

As the violence escalated, right-wing figures and apologists for the rioting spread a myth that white far-right “protestors” were the victims of a “two-tier” policing system that discriminated against them based on race and politics. The hashtag #twotierkeir trended.

The narrative was pushed by figures like Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and Nigel Farage. Farage, in particular, claimed that the perception of two-tier policing grew from the “soft policing” of the Black Lives Matter protests.

The recent tragedy in Germany, when a driver crashed into a Christmas market and killed at least five people, ignited a similar firestorm of far-right fury. When the suspect was identified as a man from Saudi Arabia, leading right-wing figures from the Netherland’s Geert Wilders to Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen in France, seized on the harrowing attack to push an anti-immigrant and anti-Islam agenda. Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who’s now a key adviser to Trump, also weighed in, blasting the German chancellor Olaf Scholz as an “incompetent fool.”

It subsequently emerged that the arrested man is a Saudi refugee Christian working as a doctor with some connections to the far-right who may have been protesting at either German treatment of refugees, or the Saudi regime, or against Islam. He was known to the authorities and clearly presents a more complex case that the likes of Musk would acknowledge. The right never deals with complexity of nuance though, preferring to live permanently in the nursery rhyme world of Simple Simon.

US interference in UK politics

Seemingly unable to keep his nose out of other country’s politics, Musk also led the ‘two-tier’ policing charge in the summer. He tweeted that “civil war is inevitable” in the UK, in response to a post claiming that “open borders and migration” had led to the protests.

Musk also tweeted in support of those attacking officials for arresting people believed to have posted offensive comments online, promoting a “free speech absolutist” stance he has long pushed. He posted a meme of a cartoon character strapped to an electrocution chair and likened the scene to the punishment people would face for posting their views online in the UK by 2030.

“Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?” he asked in yet another tweet.

But these claims are easily debunked. BLM demonstrations in Britain were mostly peaceful, as are the protests against Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza.

Musk kicked off 2025 as he ended 2024, calling for the release of the jailed far-right activist, Tommy Robinson. He tweeted that authorities should “free Tommy Robinson” — and said a deeply controversial documentary by the English Defense League co-founder was “worth watching.”



As if Musk’s rants on the social platform that he owns (and has reportedly manipulated to artificially boost his content) weren’t bad enough, reports suggest that the billionaire is considering a $100 million donation to Reform, despite residing in the US.

“It will be a fantastic endorsement of our policies to save Britain and get Britain growing again,” said Reform’s deputy Richard Tice in a recent interview.

The hypocrisy of Farage and Tice’s acceptance of the foreign donor after having previously kicked up such as fuss over the Hungarian American billionaire investor George Soros donated £400,000 to the pro-EU campaign, Best for Britain, did not go unnoticed.

Dark money from the US to UK

But dark money has long crossed the Atlantic. Influential right-wing UK think-tanks, with ties to politicians, have received millions in donations from the US. As of 2022, the Taxpayers’ Alliance, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Policy Exchange, the Adam Smith Institute and the Legatum Institute had raised $9m from American donors since 2012.

From voter suppression to attacks on abortion rights, to an almost apocalyptic disdain for ‘woke’ leftists and the incessant peddling of culture wars, dangerous ideas from the American right have steadily gained ground in Britain.

And now with the dawn of Trump 2.0, we must ask: after turning our back on the EU, was landing in America’s lap always an ambition for some on the right?

A shocking headline in the Telegraph last week suggests it was:

“It’s time to become the 51st state of the US.”

“We need to get Brexit done properly. Let’s finally face up to reality and put our Maga hats on,” the author argued




This embracing of Trumpism, and the man who incited a dangerous and deadly insurrection as he refused to accept the result of a democratic vote, akin to a three-year-old refusing to accept his bedtime, risks pushing Britain further down a dark and dangerous path, eroding the very values that have long defined the nation. America is about to embark on the most important political experiment of the post war years. Will the agencies of the democratic state – the law courts, the legislature, the media, the devolution of power to the states – be robust enough to withstand the excesses of Trumpism? While here at home, will the Labour government have the courage, the political nous, and above all sufficient success, to withstand those who will be pressing to plant Trumpism in our own soil. That seems to be the fundamental question as we enter the new year.

Right- wing media watch – Rage against Khan – Sadiq’s knighthood triggers Tory media meltdown

Sadiq Khan has been handed a knighthood in the New Year Honours, prompting a right-wing media meltdown. “Reward for failure,” they’re calling it.

“Leading Tories pointed to his ‘track record of failure’ in the capital, including over tackling knife crime and dramatic hikes in council tax, congestion charges and emissions levies,” bemoaned the Daily Mail.

Such is the anger over the London mayor’s knighthood that it threatens to “overshadow the list,” claim the reports.

The Telegraph felt compelled to make the PM’s ‘reward for failure’ its lead frontpage story.

“Starmer accused of putting party before country as he hands honours to ‘cronies,’ the article continued.

The “reward for failure” smear seemed to have originated from shadow home secretary Chris Philp, who was quoted by the Telegraph saying: “Londoners would be “furious” at Sir Sadiq’s knighthood, which amounted to “rewarding failure.”

Oh dear, are these the same Londoners who voted for Khan in landmark third successive term win as mayor in May? Despite a nasty and relentless smear campaign by his main rival, Tory candidate Susan Hall, which was backed up by much of the Tory press, Khan won 1,088,225 votes – 275,828 more than Hall.

Surely if Londoners were so against him, he wouldn’t have bagged what was the second-largest majority in the history of the London mayoralty process?

Alongside Angela Rayner and Ed Miliband, Sadiq Khan is one of the Tory media’s most loathed figures. In their rants about him “waging war on London’s drivers,” “capitulating to unions over tube strikes,” and “presiding over rising crime rates,” there’s no mention of the many strides he’s made in improving the lives of Londoners. Such as presiding over free school meals for all state primary school pupils, council homebuilding hitting a higher level than at any time since the 1970s, the freezing of rail fares as national fares continue to rise, standing up for renters, more police officers on the streets in the face of huge Tory cuts, and so on.

What is especially nauseating about the right-wing media’s reaction to Khan’s knighthood is its glaring double standards. In their rage against Khan, they also forget that Shaun Bailey, Khan’s Tory rival in the 2021 mayoral election, was nominated for a life peerage in 2022 by Boris Johnson – a fat lot of good Bailey’s done for London. But then again, when we think of the knighthoods given other mediocre right-wingers like the long-standing Eurosceptic John Hayes, peerages to Russians, not to mention that almost a quarter of those ennobled in 2020 were party donors and ex-associates of Boris Johnson, Bailey might be one of the better ones.

If Starmer was going to knight anyone, I’m so pleased he choose Sadiq Khan. Not only his many great achievements in London, but because it clearly grated on the nerves of the right-wing press.

If there’s one thing we can count on, it’s the predictability of the Tory media. The one thing they cannot abide is for political success to be found in left-wing or even mildly progressive policies. Despite Atlee’s massive rebuilding of Britain after the war, the social transformations enabled by the Wilson government, and even the restoration of public services achieved by the first Blair government, the right-wing narrative has to be one of left failure.

Smear of the week – Tory press seize on Tulip Siddiq ‘embezzlement’ smear

Sadiq Khan wasn’t the only one who found themselves targeted by a right-wing smear campaign over Christmas.

‘Keir Starmer’s corruption minister Tulip Siddiq and her family are probed over claims they took £4 billion in bribes for Putin-funded nuclear power plant,’ is a dream headline for the Tory press. And, predictably, it was the Daily Mail that had the ‘exclusive.’

It’s a sensational story that the tabloids are eager to milk, but the truth behind Labour MP Tulip Siddiq’s involvement in alleged embezzlement, is far more complex and opaque.

The allegations stem from a 12-year-old event. In 2013, Siddiq, whose family’s native country is Bangladesh, was photographed with Russian President Vladimir Putin and her aunt at a signing ceremony for a deal between Russia and Bangladesh.

Siddiq faces allegations that she was involved in brokering the deal, and Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) is investigating her for embezzlement.

While Tulip Siddiq has long been involved in the Labour Party, having joined them at 16 and becoming Camden’s first Bangladeshi female councillor in 2010, she did not become an MP until 2015.

She has also firmly denied any wrongdoing, calling the claims politically motivated and a “hit job.”

Saddiq’s aunt, Sheikh Hasina Wazed, was ousted as the country’s prime minister in August after 15 years in power. She began her political career as a pro-democracy icon, but, in recent years, had been accused of turning autocratic and clamping down on any opposition to her rule.

The inquiry into the Labour minister was opened as part of a wider investigation by Bangladesh’s anti-corruption commission, which is looking into crimes and corruption that took place under Hasina’s rule.

Keir Starmer’s spokesman confirmed that the prime minister has full confidence in Siddiq, who continues to serve as economic secretary to the Treasury and City minister. Asked about any potential conflicts of interest, the spokesman said: “I can’t speak to events that happened prior to a minister’s time in government,” adding, there was a “very clear declaration process” for ministers, which had been followed.

But Conservative politicians and their supporting press are using the allegations to score political points, demanding that Siddiq “comes clean.” Matt Vickers, Conservative home affairs spokesman, said: “The British public deserve a government that is focused on their priorities, not distracted by yet another scandal.”

The more liberal press has reported the story with greater balance, acknowledging Siddiq’s denials and confirming that her discussions with the ethics team were part of a standard fact-checking process, not a formal investigation.

As the Guardian reports, it is understood that Bangladeshi authorities have not yet contacted Siddiq as part of the investigation, which was based on allegations raised by Bobby Hajjaj, who was in opposition under Hasina’s rule.

But, sigh, being female, Muslim, and a Labour MP, Tulip Siddiq is an easy target for the gutter press, never mind the fact that this smear is built on a 12-year-old photo and politically motivated claims.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch
UK Government urged to prioritise refugees’ lives after ‘deadliest year’ for Channel crossings

'The journey across the English Channel in a small boat has always been perilous. But in 2024 it became more deadly.'




The Refugee Council has urged the government to prioritise saving refugees’ lives and increasing safe and legal routes into the UK, after a record 69 people died crossing the channel in 2024.

According to the charity’s new report, 2024 was the deadliest year for English Channel crossings in small boats, with the 69 deaths surpassing the 59 recorded between 2019 and 2023.

The report stated that while the government seems to have accepted that enforcement action against the smuggling gangs has made the crossings more dangerous, it has not announced any measures to improve search and rescue in the Channel.

The report, Deaths in the Channel: What needs to change, noted: “The journey across the English Channel in a small boat has always been perilous. But in 2024 it became more deadly.”

The increase in deaths is in part attributed to an increase in the average number of people per boat and boats being “increasingly unseaworthy”.

The organisation suggested that the increased risk is likely due to the UK and French governments’ enforcement measures aimed at disrupting the criminal gangs profiting from these dangerous crossings.

The Refugee Council also pointed out that the government does not publish official data on the number of people who die trying to reach the UK.

It called for the government to begin publishing quarterly figures on deaths during Channel crossings in small boats.

The charity also recommended that the government introduce a pilot refugee visa, allowing 10,000 people from countries with higher rates of asylum approval to travel to the UK for their claims to be processed.

Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, said: “The record number of deaths in the Channel this year should serve as a stark reminder that the current approach is not working. Smuggling gangs are profiting from men, women and children forced into life-threatening conditions, and enforcement measures alone are not enough to address this.”

“More safe and legal routes are needed to provide a lifeline for those fleeing war and persecution. The success of the Ukraine schemes shows that when safe alternatives exist, refugees use them and don’t resort to incredibly dangerous journeys across the Channel.

“The Government also has a responsibility to invest in better search and rescue operations, in partnership with France, to prevent yet more deaths. Every person who lost their life in the Channel this year was someone with a story and loved ones – like 7-year-old Sara, who died boarding an overcrowded boat with her family.”

Solomon added: “These deaths are not inevitable. The government needs to take a different approach if it is to ensure everything possible is done so that 2025 does not see a repeat of last year’s devastating loss.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward



Successive UK governments have done ‘precious little’ to stop people dying in the Channel, this must change – activists warn


‘We cannot allow this loss of life to become normalised.’

Yesterday
Left Foot Forward



On December 29, at least three migrants lost their lives when attempting to cross the English Channel from France to Britain. Approximately 50 migrants were rescued from the freezing waters.

The tragedy followed the rescue of more than 100 migrants by French authorities on Christmas Day, when at least 850 people reached the UK in small boats.

Stricter immigration rules and border controls have left many desperate people, fleeing persecution, poverty and war, with few options but to rely on people-smuggling networks and unsafe routes.

Since last January, at least 77 migrants have died or gone missing in the Channel, making 2024 the deadliest year on record for such crossings. Tens of thousands of migrants have reached Britain, nearly 36,000 arriving in small boats over the course of the year.

According to the Red Cross, many migrants are drawn to the UK because they speak some English and have family members already living there whom they hope to join.

Following the tragic loss of lives over Christmas, migrant charities and human rights organisations have ramped up calls to the UK government to provide safe crossing routes for people to reach the UK.

Care4Calais CEO Steve Smith said that Keir Starmer must fulfil his promise to deliver change for those seeking safety in the UK.

“2024 has been the deadliest year on record in the Channel… The government can end the deaths in 2025 overnight, if they so wish.

“By introducing safe routes for the survivors of war, torture and persecution to claim asylum in the UK, they will end crossings and save lives.”

Sabby Dhalu, co-convenor of Stand Up to Racism, warned how successive British governments have done “precious little” to stop people dying in the Channel.

“We cannot allow this loss of life to become normalised. We call on the government to immediately implement safe passage to Britain for refugees whilst their asylum claims are processed.

“That’s the only way to stop this horrific loss of life.”

Fizza Qureshi, CEO of the Migrants Rights Network CEO, noted how the recent deaths, like all those before them, were “entirely preventable.”

“Migration is constantly framed around numbers, rather than people. Successive cruel government policies focused on deterrence force people — largely black and brown people — into making these dangerous journeys.

“We renew our call for the government to reverse its plans to increase cruel deterrence and enforcement measures, and implement safe routes for people of all nationalities to come to the UK.”

The Refugee Council is also urging the government to prioritise saving refugees’ lives and increasing safe and legal routes into the UK. The charity is recommending that the government introduce a pilot refugee visa, allowing 10,000 people from countries with higher rates of asylum approval to travel to the UK for their claims to be processed.

“The government needs to take a different approach if it is to ensure everything possible is done so that 2025 does not see a repeat of last year’s devastating loss,” said Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council.
UK 
Unions slam proposal to trade higher salaries for lower pensions in bid to avert public sector strikes


'Like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.'



Plans are reportedly being considered which could see millions of teachers, nurses and civil servants offered higher salaries in return for lower pensions.

The proposed reform is aimed at retaining public sector staff and averting future public sector strikes over pay. But it has been criticised by unions, who have labelled it “dangerous.”

Richard Munn, Unite’s national health officer, said: “This is nothing more than rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The real issue is about providing more investment in public services. Lower pensions would force workers to work even longer, when too many are already being forced out of the health service before reaching pension age due to illness.”

The National Education Union (NEU) warned that the model would force public sector employees to choose between “poverty now or poverty in retirement.”

The British Medical Association (BMA) said it would have “serious concerns” if doctors’ pensions were being considered.

In December, the government began setting salaries for 2025/2026, with chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing that most public sector workers would receive a maximum pay rise of 2.8 percent, just 0.2 percent above projected inflation.

In response, unions have threatened further strikes unless the proposal is revised.

A decision on the pay and pension reform has not yet been made and former chancellors are reportedly sceptical of the idea. But it has the backing of former cabinet secretary Lord O’Donnell, who argues it is a ‘win-win’ which would save the Treasury money. He said:

“If you increase a civil servant’s pay by £1,000 you could reduce the net present value of their pension by more than £1,000, which makes debt more sustainable but would also be a trade-off that makes sense to the civil servant because having that money upfront will mean a bank gives them a mortgage.”

Disputes over pay have led to recurring strikes in hospitals and schools. Thousands of NHS nurses leave the UK each year for better-paying jobs abroad, while more than a quarter of state school teachers abandon the profession within the first three years.

Cat Little, secretary at the cabinet office, is reviewing “the balance between pay and pensions,” and has started discussions within the government about offering staff more flexibility.

But Steve Webb, a former pensions minister, warns that while a pay rise in exchange for pension cuts may appear cost-neutral, it “brings forward costs” for the government. Since no money has been set aside for pensions, any savings would only not happen until today’s workers retire, while the additional cost of higher wages would be felt immediately.
How our democracy has been hijacked by corporations and wealthy elites

The only effective remedy is to ban all private donations, or bribes, to political parties.



3 January, 2025 

‘Free and fair elections’ is the slogan of liberal democracies. But when did we have free and fair elections?

The slogan obfuscates the power of corporations and wealthy elites in shaping public choices. People merely rubber-stamp the policies already decided by political elites and their financial backers. Some crumbs are occasionally thrown to the masses but the rich and corporations always win because they control the means of production and public information, fund political parties and threaten to cause chaos if their wishes are ignored.

It is hard to recall any mass social movement calling for cuts in real wages and benefits; ever-lengthening queues for hospital appointments; profiteering by corporations; tax abuses by corporations and the rich; substandard housing, lousy pensions, inadequate social care, bailout of banks and energy companies; subsidies for corporations, or rivers full of sewage. Yet these things have happened because governments bow to the power of corporations and the rich to buy the political system. Governments indulge them with tax cuts, lax laws and poor enforcement whilst condemning most of the voters to misery and premature death.

Political donations are a sport for the rich. The richest 50 families hold more wealth than half of the UK population. The top fifth of households have 63% of the country’s wealth, while the bottom fifth has only 0.5%.The bottom 50% of the population have 5% of wealth, and the top 10% a staggering 57%. Whichever way you look at it, only the rich have the resources to fund political parties, get access to policy makers and sway government policies.

All major parties are for sale to the rich and corporations. Tories received £10m from Frank Hester’s firm Phoenix Partnership. Hester was famously locked into a racist tirade and said that Diane Abbott – Britain’s first Black female MP – made him “want to hate all Black women” and that she “should be shot”. Companies linked to Tory donors received £8.4bn in public contracts since 2016.

We all remember how former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair bent the rules and exempted Formula One racing from a tobacco advertising ban to secure a £1m donation. Subsequently, due to public uproar the money was retuned. Prior to the 2024 election Labour received £4m from Cayman Islands -based hedge fund with shares in oil and arms and £2m by Ecotricity, owned by Dale Vince, the green energy tycoon. Labour’s biggest individual donor was Lord David Sainsbury, who gave the party £2.5m.

Businessman Zia Yusuf was the second biggest Reform UK donor, providing £200,000. Since the election, he has become the party’s chairman. ‘Cash for honours’ has been a recurring theme in UK politics as parties nominate donors for peerages, knighthoods and other honours.

The UK’s political elites have been content with the sale of the political system to the highest bidder, but are now stirred by revelations that the right-wing US billionaire Elon Musk is funding Reform UK MPs and is considering handing $100m (£78m) to Reform, pushing the UK closer to the right-wing policies preferred by the incoming US President Donald Trump.

To prevent foreign money from shaping UK politics, some have proposed bans on foreign donations, financial limits on donations by corporations and donations. The head of Electoral Commission has said that corporate donations must come of profits made in the UK. Such suggestions assume that ‘foreign’ and ‘profits’ can easily be defined and policed. There is no central enforcer of company law. Many donations are routed through small companies which enjoy exemptions from numerous disclosures. The UK’s electoral policing system relies on the voluntary disclosures by donors and recipients and has no capacity to act swiftly. The above reforms can easily be bypassed and won’t achieve the desired objectives.

The only effective remedy is to ban all private donations, or bribes, to political parties. This can be supplemented by state funding of political parties with strict limits and public accountability.

Currently, the UK’s Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires that donations or loans must be from “permissible sources”. These include: individuals registered on a UK electoral register, UK-registered unincorporated associations, and UK-registered companies which are incorporated in the UK and carry on business in the UK. An unincorporated association doesn’t need to register with the Electoral Commission unless it makes political contributions exceeding £37,270 in a calendar year – and even then, it doesn’t have to reveal how it raised the money. Secrecy is embedded within the legislation. Since 2020, more than £13m has been donated to political parties through “unincorporated associations”. Nearly two thirds went to the Conservative Party.

Prior to the Elections Act 2022, British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years could not vote in the elections and were therefore not on the electoral register and could not fund political parties. The Act changed that and enabled the tax exiles with no intention of living in the UK, to vote and fund parties. Thus, it is impossible to prevent foreign money from entering UK politics and swaying elections. How will any election regulator know whether the money donated by tax exiles is clean?

The idea of restricting donations to Individuals on the UK electoral register cannot prevent foreign or even dirty money from funding political parties. An election law expert gave the hypothetical example of a Russian oligarch’s wife, who is a British citizen registered on the electoral roll in London, making a donation in her own name. “The authorities will just accept it without investigating, because they say, ‘Well, she’s on the register, and she says it’s her money’.”

If Elon Musk’s friends and associates are on the UK electoral register and make political donations, nothing will appear to be abnormal, and no questions will be asked.

Companies registered in the UK are permitted to make donations. Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) has corporate presence in the UK and can therefore make political donations. He also controls Tesla UK, Starlink Internet Services UK and other companies and they can make donations too. Each can create hundreds of subsidiaries and as legal persons they can make donations. The distinction between domestic and foreign is not always clear-cut. For example, a Dubai-based Investment Fund, which owns right-wing broadcaster GB News, has made a £50,000 donation to a faction of Conservative MPs. This could have been routed through GB News. Is this a domestic or a foreign donation? Neither the Electoral Commission nor the Police have the capacity to investigate the origins of political donations.

In July 2021, a report by The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that “donations should only be made from profits generated in the UK”. However, there is no watertight legal definition of profit. Profit has no physical appearance and is calculated by applying accounting rules made by the private sector. The accounting rules or standards are pliable. The profits of a company can be manufactured with intragroup transactions.

Tax exiles have long used shell companies and complex corporate structures to circumvent political donation laws. None of this has received any challenge from the Electoral Commission. Even if there were some new financial limits on donations, they can be funnelled through numerous subsidiaries and affiliates to violate the spirit of the law.

The only effective measure is to ban all political donations, and the giving and receiving of such donations a criminal offence. Such a ban would force political parties to compete and develop publicly acceptable policies. The successful parties would attract more members and membership fees. Those unable to do so will wither.

Political parties already receive funding from the state. It is called ‘short money’ and is available to opposition parties under strict rules. The financial support assists an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business, travel and associated expenses and running costs of the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The principle could be extended to provide state funding for elections related spending, subject to strict rules. Some will object to state funding of political parties, but the alternative is the current corrupt situation where politics are hijacked by corporations and the rich.

The possibilities of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” are stymied by corporations and the rich. They fund parties to shape public choices and prevent emancipatory change. A total ban on political donations is needed. Parties will have to rely upon their membership fees. This will reduce the money available to the parties and they will need to spend it wisely, possibly by eliminating misinformation. State-funding, subject to strict controls, can also be considered. Corporations and political elites are dependent upon each other for advancement of their power and interests, at the expense of people. Ending that dependence is a necessary precondition for possibilities of democracy.


Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.