Monday, January 06, 2025

Prime apple growing areas in US face increasing climate risks



Washington State University
sun damaged apples 

image: 

Sun damage is one risk apple growers face from a changing climate, particularly from more extreme heat days, when the maximum temperature is greater than 34 degrees C (93 F).

view more 

Credit: Bob Hubner, Washington State University



VANCOUVER, Wash. – Some of the most productive apple regions in America are facing big challenges from a changing climate, according to a Washington State University study.

Researchers analyzed over 40 years of climate conditions that impact the growth cycle of apple trees from bud break and flowering through fruit development, maturation and color development.

While many growing areas are facing increased climate risks, the top three largest apple producing counties in the U.S. were among the most impacted: Yakima in Washington, Kent in Michigan and Wayne in New York. In particular, Yakima County, the largest of the three with more than 48,800 acres of apple orchards, has seen harmful trends in five of the six metrics the researchers analyzed.

“We shouldn’t take the delicious apples we love to consume for granted,” said Deepti Singh, a WSU climate scientist and the study’s corresponding author. “Changing climate conditions over multiple parts of the growth cycle pose potentially compounding threats to the production and quality of apples. Moving forward, it would be helpful to think about adaptations at different stages of apple growth that can minimize overall harmful impacts.”

The team’s immediate next step is to look at projections, Singh added, to inform planning and management in the tree fruit industry.

For this study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the researchers analyzed climate data from 1979-2022. They specifically looked at six metrics that impact the apple growth, including two metrics of extremes—extreme heat days, defined as days with a maximum temperature greater than 34 degrees C (93 F) that can cause sunburn as well as other problems, and warm nights when the minimum temperatures were greater than 15 C (59 F) that can adversely affect coloration.

The researchers also looked at the number of cold days; “chill portions” or the number of colder hours an apple tree needs to be dormant; the last day of spring frost; and growing degree days, meaning the number of days above a certain temperature that are conducive for apples to grow.

Changes in these metrics can impact apple production, changing the time when apple flowers bloom, increasing the risk of sunburn on apples as well as affecting apple appearance and quality. The western U.S. has experienced the strongest trends in multiple metrics that are detrimental to apples.

The challenges are complex partly because apple trees are perennials, said co-author Lee Kalcsits, a WSU tree physiologist who leads programming at the Wenatchee Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center.

“What goes on in different seasons can affect long-term health as well as the performance and productivity of the apple tree during that specific season,” he said. “So what goes on in the winter affects what happens in the spring, which affects the summer, and it just keeps going around in a cycle.”

Growers are already adapting, he added, noting that in Washington state, producers are employing measures such as netting and evaporative cooling to fend off sunburn during the more frequent extreme heat.

With more climate risks likely, researchers are also taking steps to help the industry adapt. Kalcsits is leading a project funded by a $6.75 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help mitigate the impact of extreme climate events on apple and pear crops. It is a multi-institution grant with work planned across the nation as well as in the apple growing regions of Washington state.

“Washington is a great place to start to talk about adaptation,” said Kirti Rajagopalan, a WSU biological systems engineer and study co-author, who is also working on the grant project. “A lot of the commercial apple production happens in the northern U.S. There are also parts of Washington where the summers can get pretty hot, so this is a good place for a case study – and if we can manage it here, then it's likely manageable elsewhere too.”

Additional researchers on the current study include first author Shawn Preston and Matthew Yourek of WSU. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation and WSU’s Emerging Research Initiative.

 

Climate extremes in 2024 ‘wreaking havoc’ on the global water cycle



Australian National University





2024 was another year of record-breaking temperatures, driving the global water cycle to new climate extremes and contributing to ferocious floods and crippling droughts, a new report led by The Australian National University (ANU) shows. 

The 2024 Global Water Monitor Report, involving an international team of researchers and led by ANU Professor Albert van Dijk, found rising temperatures are changing the way water moves around the planet, “wreaking havoc” on the water cycle. 

“Rising sea surface temperatures intensified tropical cyclones and droughts in the Amazon Basin and southern Africa. Global warming also contributed to heavier downpours and slower-moving storms, as evidenced by deadly flash floods in Europe, Asia and Brazil,” Professor van Dijk said. 

In 2024, about four billion people across 111 countries – half of the world’s population − experienced their warmest year yet. Professor van Dijk said air temperatures over land in 2024 were 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than at the start of the century, and about 2.2 degrees Celsius higher than at the start of the Industrial Revolution. 

“In 2024, Earth experienced its hottest year on record, for the fourth year in a row. Water systems across the globe bore the brunt,” he said. 

“2024 was a year of extremes but was not an isolated occurrence. It is part of a worsening trend of more intense floods, prolonged droughts, and record-breaking extremes.” 

The most damaging water-related disasters in 2024 included flash floods, river floods, droughts, tropical cyclones and landslides. Water-related disasters killed more than 8,700 people, displaced 40 million people and caused economic losses exceeding US $550 billion. 

“From historic droughts to catastrophic floods, these extreme events impact lives, livelihoods, and entire ecosystems. Separate, heavy rainfall events caused widespread flash flooding in Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing more than 1,000 people,” Professor van Dijk said. 

“Catastrophic flooding in Brazil caused more than 80 deaths, with the region recording more than 300 millimetres of rainfall. 

“We found rainfall records are being broken with increasing regularity. For example, record-high monthly rainfall totals were achieved 27 per cent more frequently in 2024 than at the start of this century, whereas daily rainfall records were achieved 52 per cent more frequently. Record-lows were 38 per cent more frequent, so we are seeing worse extremes on both sides. 

“In southern China, the Yangtze and Pearl Rivers flooded cities and towns, displacing tens of thousands of people and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in crop damages. 

“In Bangladesh in August, heavy monsoon rains and dam releases in August caused widespread river flooding. More than 5.8 million people were affected and at least one million tonnes of rice was destroyed. In Spain, more than 500 millimetres of rain fell within eight hours in late October, causing deadly flash floods.” 

While some parts of the world experienced major flooding in 2024, others endured crippling drought. 

“In the Amazon Basin, one of the Earth’s most important ecosystems, record low river levels cut off transport routes and disrupted hydropower generation. Wildfires driven by the hot and dry weather burned through more than 52,000 square kilometres in September alone, releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases,” Professor van Dijk said. 

“In southern Africa, a severe drought reduced maize production by more than 50 per cent, leaving 30 million people facing food shortages. Farmers were forced to cull livestock as pastures dried up. The drought also reduced hydropower output, leading to widespread blackouts. 

“We need to prepare and adapt to inevitably more severe extreme events. That can mean stronger flood defences, developing more drought-resilient food production and water supplies, and better early warning systems. 

“Water is our most critical resource, and its extremes—both floods and droughts—are among the greatest threats we face.” 

The research team used data from thousands of ground stations and satellites orbiting the Earth to deliver near real-time insights into critical water variables such as rainfall, soil moisture, river flows, and flooding. 

The Global Water Monitor is a collaboration between institutions across the world and involves various public and private organisations. 

The 2024 report is available on the Global Water Monitor website.  

Floods linked to rise in US deaths from several major causes


Study in Nature Medicine reveals potential deadly effect of large floods on injuries, infectious diseases, and other causes


Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health




Over the last 20 years, large floods were associated with up to 24.9 percent higher death rates from major mortality causes in the U.S. compared to normal conditions. A new study in the journal Nature Medicine demonstrates the sweeping and hidden effects of floods—including floods unrelated to hurricanes, such as those due to heavy rain, snowmelt, or ice jams.

Scientists at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health led the study in partnership with researchers at Arizona State University, Harvard University, and the University of Arizona. 

Until now, there had been a critical knowledge gap about cause-specific flood mortality risks in the U.S. over time, and how risks may vary among groups within the population. The study’s findings provide information that could help public health agencies allocate resources.

In the U.S., population growth alone is projected to result in an estimated 72 percent increase in the population exposed to floods annually by 2050, before accounting for the effect of climate change in leading to more frequent river, coastal, and flash floods.

“Flooding is an urgent public health concern as sea level rise, rapid snowpack melting, and increased storm severity will lead to more destructive and frequent events,” says first author Victoria Lynch, PhD, post-doctoral research fellow at Columbia Mailman School. “Our results show that floods were associated with higher death rates for most major causes of death, even for rain- and snow-related floods that are less likely to generate rapid emergency responses.”

“In the U.S., floods have a devastating effect on society, yet a comprehensive assessment of their continuing health impacts had been lacking,” says Robbie M. Parks, assistant professor in Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia Mailman School and senior author. “Our study is a first major step in better understanding how floods may affect deaths, which provides an essential foundation for improving resilience to climate-related disasters across the days, weeks, months, and years after they wreak destruction.”

After collecting 35.6 million U.S. death records from 2001 to 2018, the researchers used a statistical model to calculate how death rates changed in three-month periods following large floods when compared to equivalent periods in normal conditions.

Residents of 2,711 counties, covering over 75 percent of the U.S. population, experienced at least one large flood during the study period. Heavy rain was the most common cause of large flood events with the next most common cause due to snowmelt in the Midwest and tropical cyclones in the southeast.

The researchers found the largest overall increases in injury death rates among older people (24.9 percent) and females (21.2 percent) during the month of tropical storm/hurricane-related flooding, with increases in death rates associated with heavy rain-related flooding for infectious diseases (3.2 percent) and cardiovascular diseases (2.1 percent). Snowmelt-related floods were associated with higher death rates for respiratory diseases (22.3 percent), neuropsychiatric conditions (15.9 percent), and cardiovascular diseases (8.9 percent).

The rise in infectious diseases is likely related to disruptions to drinking water and sewage infrastructure that can lead to waterborne disease transmission. Chronic and neuropsychiatric conditions may relate to stress from persistent flood-related disruptions. Socioeconomic factors that drive health outcomes in communities vulnerable to floods, as well as residents’ ability to evacuate during emergencies and respond to their aftermath, may also play important roles.

“The majority of our understanding of flood-related health impacts comes from major events like Hurricane Katrina or Harvey that, despite their devastation, are a sample of a larger phenomenon,” says Jonathan Sullivan, assistant professor in Geography, Development, and Environment at University of Arizona and co-author. “Our study shows that even floods caused by snowmelt or heavy rain, each uniquely driven by changes to climate and development, elevate mortality months after the fact providing critical knowledge of how to manage and adapt to floods.”

Previous research on climate and health by the authors of this paper has found elevated death rates after tropical cyclones in the U.S., including disproportionate increases in excess deaths in socially vulnerable communities of color, and that tropical cyclones are associated with the spread of waterborne infectious diseases.

Additional co-authors are Aaron Flores, Arizona State University; Sarika Aggarwal and Rachel C. Nethery, Harvard Chan School of Public Health; and Marianthi-Anna Kioumourtzoglou, Anne E Nigra, and Xicheng Xie, Columbia Mailman School of Public Health. 

The study was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grants ES007322, ES033742, ES009089, AG093975, ES007142).


Teach Yourself Marxism

What did Marx mean by historical materialism?

What forces underpin the development of human society?


Egyptian workers built the gates of Thebes


Thursday 02 January 2025  
SOCIALIST WORKER Issue

Some o
f the most popular approaches to understanding history are the least convincing. Most people still learn that history is about the wars, laws and loves of powerful kings, a few queens, religious leaders and politicians.

We are taught that history is a journey from an oppressive past to a “glorious present” and the triumph of liberal democracy. Slavery, colonialism and tyranny were just creases ironed out by enlightened leaders.

But fantasies of endless progress have always been rudely interrupted by war, economic crisis, climate disaster and political upheavals.

Marxists have a distinct understanding of historical change—one that puts human activity, and specifically workers’ activity, at the heart of events.

Karl Marx’s great insight was that human beings “make their own history, but they do not make it as they please, they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past”.

It is working people who have a key role in initiating change. The communist poet Bertolt Brecht shone a light on the hidden role of enslaved people and labourers in history when he asked:

“Who built the seven gates of Thebes?
“The books are filled with names of kings.
“Was it the kings who hauled the craggy blocks of stone?
“And Babylon, so many times destroyed.
“Who built the city up each time?”

As Marx wrote, “History does nothing, it ‘possesses no immense wealth,’ it ‘wages no battles’.” It is humans who do those things.

The Marxist approach to history focuses on the hidden forces that underpin the development of human society.

All human development depends on the development of productive forces—the technology, machinery and labour power used in production.

In the past, those productive forces developed enough to create a surplus in addition to what people needed to survive. Society divided into classes, with a minority controlling the surplus and a majority excluded from enjoying a share. Classes had different interests and fought for access to that surplus.

Today, societies produce more than enough food to feed everyone. But the imperative for the ruling class to create profit means some go hungry.

History is shaped by the struggles of successive social classes to mould society in their own interests.

Marx’s view of history, known as historical materialism, helps us to understand that there is nothing inevitable about progress.

Marx did discuss how technology influenced society. New technology opens up new possibilities for changes in society. The invention of the steam engine allowed for industrial capitalists to dominate.

But technology does not do this alone, and it is not automatic that society will progress forwards. It is all too easy to imagine capitalism collapsing into climate catastrophe rather than giving way to socialist freedom.

Marx and Engels are often accused of reducing everything to economics. But as Frederick Engels wrote in 1890, “According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted.”

Visions of fully automated, luxury communism may sound fantastic, but realising the potential of new technology requires a struggle.

Technology can always be appropriated by those who are hostile to progress. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argued that class struggle is key to understanding history.

In that struggle, the organisation, confidence and understanding of the working class will be crucial in whether society moves forward or collapses backwards into barbarism.
In Depth

Can Marxism make sense of fashion?

Capitalism both bombards us with the ideal of clothes as individual expression, and denies us the means to attain anything truly distinctive. Sarah Bates looks at how Karl Marx can help us make sense of the contradiction


Hip hop street styles in the 1980s borrowed from designer chic—in the form of a Gucci T-shirt. Gucci then grabbed the style for itself

Friday 03 January 2025
SOCIALIST WORKER Issue

At this time of year, the high streets—what is left of them anyway—are filled with red and white banners declaring it’s our “last chance to buy”. We are bombarded with urgent demands to grab a bargain that will give us some longed-for confidence and social success.

Cheap “fast” fashion rightly gets a lot of stick for being environmentally damaging and made by workers in extremely poor conditions.

Socialists want clothes that don’t cost the earth and decent workplace practices for garment workers. But that only takes us so far. Thanks to the writings of Karl Marx, we can investigate the fashion industry from the perspective of both producer and consumer and explore how they relate to each other.

Marx wrote about the ­contradiction between the glamour of luxury goods and the terrible conditions that workers experienced when producing them. “It is a curious fact that the production of precisely those articles which serve the personal adornment of the ladies of the bourgeoisie involves the saddest consequences for the health of the workers,” he said.

But it’s not just the fact that workers can’t afford the objects they produce or services they deliver. The capitalist ­workplace is organised around the needs of accumulation of profit, not to respond to our wants and needs.

Clothes are more than simple objects to keep us warm or cover our naked bodies. Choosing clothes can be part of the way we express our personality and our individuality. What we wear is tied up with our gender expression, sexual orientation, cultural identity and class position.

Clothes are a way to both set yourself apart from the crowd and to place yourself in a social and cultural context.

This expression of identity can feel particularly important when many of us wear uniforms for much of our lives. We get our very first pair of polished black school shoes in early childhood.

Uniforms at work and school reflect ­hierarchies. Often the boss wears a suit while the ­workforce is forced to wear gaudy polyester. Sometimes, bosses will implement “casual Fridays” as a little treat or to impose a ­contrived sense of informality.

Most of us buy cheap, mass produced fashion from s­upermarkets, online retailers or clothes shops. But whether you shop in H&M, Shein or Sainsbury’s, the clothes look largely the same because they’re produced by similar designers using the same fabrics made in the same factories.

Despite the reality of being sold the same clothes as most other people, we’re also sold the myth of “individuality”. We’re told if we just buy the right clothes and wear them the right way, it will fulfil our desire for individual expression.

The concept of the self and individual identity are part of how we are encouraged to see ourselves under capitalism.

The capitalist fashion ­industry wants consumers to seek out individuality while stamping on their ability to achieve it.

But there’s more to the ­relationship between the fashions of the rich and the clothes the rest of us wear. Under capitalism, the fashions of the rich and poor interact with each other.

Designers regularly lift ideas straight from youth subcultures—think of the safety pin studded denim and leather of the punks, or dramatic black stylings of goths.

As young people figure out their own sense of identity, clothes operate as a way for us to tell the world who we are, and to develop unique styles.

But these organic street styles—often pioneered by the young people from oppressed groups and from the working class—are quickly snapped up by luxury designers. The way that sportswear companies, such as Nike with its “just do it” catchphrase, market trainers is a good example.

The firm pitches its­ ­products as essential for athletic ­brilliance and as symbols of vibrant street youth culture. Nike uses the music, imagery, language and wider cultural references of its intended customers to situate its products within their world.

Only a tiny minority of the rich can wear the finest exclusive fashions that are made to order and produced from the most luxurious materials. These garments display designers’ creativity, which is bought by celebrities for display at the gala dinner or red carpet event.

The cost of designer clothes vastly outstrips either the raw materials or the wages paid to the workers who make it. It is a hugely exploitative industry whether clothes are made in Bangladesh or Paris.

But the real point of one‑off designer clothing is to show that the wearer has a distinct and individual personality—­something few of us get the opportunity to express.

Some working class people save up to splash their hard‑earned cash on designer clothes that sell at greatly inflated prices. Partly, that is about status, but it also an attempt to grab a slice of that “individuality” seen on the red carpet.

The Marxist concept of ­alienation helps to explain why fashion plays such an important role in our lives. The fashion industry, like other industries, is both a source of exploitation and an opportunity for creativity.

Most people have no choice but to work for majority of their lives. But they’re denied any control over how they work and what the end results look like. Marx described this lack of control over how and what we produce as alienation.

Working together with others has the potential to be ­creative and fulfilling. But in ­capitalist society it is more likely to be frustrating, tedious and ­exhausting. Work robs us of our creativity and makes us sick.

For Marx, the untapped ­creativity of workers was one of the key distinctions between humans and other animals. He described how “spiders conduct operations which resemble weavers” and bees produce honeycombs.

These structures can appear as miracles of nature and are certainly the products of effort—but they do not contain the same constituent elements as human labour.

Marx argued that while other animals led narrow lives defined by instinct and survival, humans had the capacity to think beyond immediate need and behave creatively. Alienated labour under capitalism, wrote Marx, created “marvels and beauty beyond necessity” but at the same time it produced “suffering” for the worker.

It is this potential that is wasted in the ­capitalist workplace. Bosses want us to be spiders, endlessly creating the same web over and over again—but we could build so much more.

We have a capacity for ­imaginative labour that is untapped by the lives we lead. At every stage of fashion production, the workers who create, who do the sewing, ­cutting, trimming, the ­marketing and selling, know more about their jobs than the bosses.

Take sewing machinists as an example. Machinists are forced to work on a production line, which is boring and can be dangerous.

Or consider people who spend long hours picking cotton in fields. They are forced to repeat the same physical labour all day, even though some of it could be shared or automated. The cotton picker and the machinist have ideas and experiences that would make their work better.

But they are denied that chance because the current system needs to maximise profits. The bosses need workers to be obedient, to accept harsh discipline and the authority of those who exploit them.

The fact that most people working in the garment industry are poor women from the Global South makes it easier for corporations to ignore them, their abilities and their ideas.

We live in a deeply ­disheartening world. And we are told that it is primarily through the acquisition of commodities that we will find the fulfilment and the social connections that we need. Fashion and consumption choices are one way in which people constantly seek ways to fulfil themselves and buy into an illusion of choice.

The fashion industry ­reinforces the feeling that ­something is missing in our lives and then profits from our insecurities. This is possible because alienation shapes our need to clothe ourselves within a wider context of capitalist society.

Think about how Cuban heels make men appear taller and “Spanx” promise to smooth out any lumps and bumps our bodies have the audacity to possess.

Marx’s theory of alienation is not simply an exploration of how capitalism is responsible for human misery.

The theory of alienation is a deeply optimistic analysis. Marx argues that working class people have the potential to produce what they need collaboratively and creatively—and to become masters of their own destiny.

He did not think we had to spend our days weaving the bosses’ webs—and he was right.
In Depth

How the arms industry corrupts political parties—interview with Andrew Feinstein

Andrew Feinstein is joint editor of The Monstrous Anger of the Guns: How the Global Arms Trade Is Ruining the World and What We Can Do About It. He spoke to Judy Cox about the new book


Andrew Feinstein

Thursday 02 January 2025 
SOCIALIST WORKER  Issue

Why did you publish this book?

Put very simply, war and militarism—and the arms trade that feeds them—have never been more relevant than it is today.

There is the devastating impact of weapons in the conflicts in Gaza, in Sudan, in Congo. But there is also the impact the arms industry has on the entire world.

In the case of Britain, the one area that there never seems to be a lack of money for is the weapons industry and “defence”.

So, the money which should be going in the NHS and should be going into scrapping the two-child benefit cap and keeping the winter fuel allowance is going into the military and wars like that in Ukraine.

The book sets out how this happens and why it happens.

And it shows that those who benefit from this trade primarily are the ruling elite. The arms trade benefits those who control political and economic power in this country.

How does the link between arms corporations and governments encourage corruption?

The arms trade is very corrupt—and its corruption oils the wheels of the political establishment.

It funds political parties and politicians make extremely large amounts of money out of the business of war.

There are lots of examples of how this happens in the book. But the book also gives voice to campaigners and activists from around the world who fight against the arms trade and militarism.

It includes all sorts of different approaches and campaigns, from litigation against companies, to direct action against arms companies.

It gives a lot of food for thought about what we can do practically to change the situation.

What do you think the best tactics to use against the arms trade?

Currently this is so important because our government is using anti-terror legislation to stop criticism of its support for Israel.

Journalists and activists are being accused of terrorism for opposing a genocide. In a good society, it would be those perpetrating genocide who would be seen as the terrorists.

Will Donald Trump’s return to the White House this month make things worse?

Trump’s election will mean that some things important will change, like abortion rights.

But militarism would not have changed because both Republicans and Democrats support US imperialism and Israel’s genocide.

When it comes to the role of militarism, both the Republicans and the Democrats have uncritically supported Israel’s genocide.

Both parties rely on defence companies for their funding and both parties are both parties of war and militarism.



Reform UK supporters chant ‘Free Tommy Robinson’ at party conference

‘Are you going to shut up or just go out?’



Reform members were heard chanting for Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, to be released from prison during a regional party conference in Leicester last Friday.

While discussing grooming gang scandals in areas like Rotherham, some audience members began chanting pro-Tommy Robinson messages.

During Lee Anderson MP’s speech, one member of the crowd shouted “Listen to Tommy Robinson”.

When a second crowd member shouted a pro-Tommy Robinson chant, Anderson told the man “to shut up or get out”.

He said: “Are you going to shut up or just get out? Do you want to come up here and speak? Do you want to come up?”.

This comes after Elon Musk published a pinned post on X which said: “Free Tommy Robinson” and claimed he was sent to prison for exposing truth about grooming gangs.

Robinson was instead jailed for contempt of court after repeating false allegations about a young Syrian refugee.

By telling members of the crowd shouting messages in support of Tommy Robinson to “shut up”, Anderson again signalled that Reform UK is trying to distance itself from the far-right figurehead, who is currently serving an 18-month prison sentence.

In an interview on LBC yesterday, Reform MP Richard Tice said of Robinson: “He’s in jail, he’s nothing to do with us and never will be.”

He added: “It is as clear and as simple as that, we’re a serious political party”.

Anderson was the first big speaker at Reform UK’s East Midlands party conference on Friday.

In his speech, the Ashfield MP said: “We’re not far-right protestors, we’re just decent, hard-working Brits that want to leave our country in a better state than when we arrived”.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward


Reform UK’s Leicester conference is a warning to the anti-racist movement

Over 200 anti-racists protested outside the Reform UK East Midlands conference as speakers scapegoating migrants inside


Supporters of Stand Up To Racism outside the Reform UK 
regional conference in Leicester

By Thomas Foster
Friday 03 January 2025
SOCIALIST WORKER


Reform UK’s regional conference in Leicester on Friday gave a taste of the party’s plans for 2025—spreading vicious racism and building a mass far right party.

But the conference didn’t go unopposed as over 200 supporters of Stand Up To Racism Leicester protested outside (see below).

Racist scapegoating of migrants and refugees for problems caused by bankers, bosses and billionaires took centre stage at the conference.

“We’re going to need bigger venues in the future,” crowed Nigel Farage as he pitched Reform UK as the only party that will clamp down on immigration.

Farage railed against the “37,000 young men who crossed the English Channel last year” and painted a picture of migrants overwhelming Britain’s borders. “It’s not just people coming on the back of lorries—it’s people coming on visas and overstaying,” he claimed.

In reality, Britain has a below average number of people applying for asylum compared to other European countries.

But attacking refugees, who are fleeing war, poverty and dictatorship, was just the thin end of the wedge for Farage. He continued, “The population explosion of ten million—more than ten million—over the past 20 years is the biggest contributor to our diminishing quality of life.”

“We cannot get access to health care, our children and grandchildren cannot get onto the housing ladder, the traffic is impossible—nothing works anymore.”

In reality, it’s public school boy and former stockbroker Farage’s mates in big business who are to blame. The rich amassed vast wealth and backed politicians who slashed and privatised the NHS, allowed landlords to jack up rents and left services to crumble.

Farage seized on the far right weaponising child sexual exploitation (CSE) scandals, which saw police and local authorities fail victims due to sexism (see below). But the far right claims it was due to race and political correctness.

“The police have failed in all of these towns and cities, they dare not say anything for fear of being called racist,” he said.

Farage welcomed onto the stage former Tory MP Marco Longhi, the latest Tory politician to defect to Reform UK.

Longhi said the Tory party had “lost its soul”—“it has changed, I have not”. “I stopped an asylum hotel in my then constituency of Dudley,” he said. “I wanted to put Dudley people first—I wanted to put our people first.

“What does it mean to be British anymore? Our heart and identity have been ripped apart at the altar of political correctness and wokery.”

Reform UK’s growth is occurring amid increasingly vocal support from billionaire and Donald Trump supporter Elon Musk. On Wednesday, he posted on X to his 210 million followers, “Vote Reform. It’s the only hope.”

Musk has taken to sharing posts from Reform UK MPs such as Tice and Rupert Lowe, as well as fascist Tommy Robinson.

Farage was careful to distance himself from Robinson, who is trying to build a fascist street movement. “We’re a political party aiming to win the next general election. He’s not what we need,” he said.

But when broadcaster Matthew Goodwin pushed the far right’s narrative about child abuse, one member of the crowd called out, “You going to support Tommy Robinson?” The Nazi, who was jailed for contempt of court, has weaponised CSE scandals to push racist myths about “Muslim grooming gangs”.


How sexual violence is racialised
Read More

The conference came as Reform UK’s membership grew to over 166,000—surpassing the Tory party’s membership of around 131,000 over Christmas.

The new membership base has little real influence, with Farage and Tice remaining firmly in control of Reform UK. Members have little to no say in candidate selection, leadership selection or party policy.

Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice boasted this week that the new members will help to ramp up the party’s “ground game”. “We’ve consistently been saying that we’ve got to open lots of branches and build a ground game,” he said.

Reform UK’s key target is success in the May local council and mayoral contests. The party isn’t just a threat to the Tories—it’s been taking votes from the Labour Party too in by-elections.

Reform UK feeds off the sense of disillusionment with the Labour government, which is failing working class people. At the conference, Tice attacked Labour chancellor Rachel Reeves’s cuts to winter fuel payments and described her as “a nightmare on socialist street”.

But the central mobiliser is racism towards migrants, refugees and Muslims. This isn’t an accident—Labour’s torrent of racist scapegoating towards migrants and refugees has laid the ground for voters switching to Reform UK.

Prime minister Keir Starmer and home secretary Yvette Cooper’s language of crackdowns, small boats and secure borders plays up the lie that immigration is a problem. And then Reform UK presents itself as the only party that will do anything about it.

At the anti-racist protest, SUTR supporter Jackie told Socialist Worker, “Reform UK is growing because of the failure of mainstream parties.

“The mainstream media has courted racism, saying that all the problems are caused by mass immigration—and Labour hasn’t challenged that.

Reform UK is hoovering up “floating voters who feel disenfranchised, fed up and that no solutions for them are being offered,” Jackie argued. “We need to build a genuine anti-racist movement capable of taking on what’s ahead.

“We invite anyone who stands up for unity and against division to join us in that endeavour.”

Anti-racists have to campaign against Reform UK in the local election—and the Labour government’s scapegoating of migrants that fuels the party’s rise.

Anti-racists say Reform UK not welcome in Leicester

Over 200 anti-racists protested against Reform UK’s East Midlands conference in Leicester on Friday.

The demonstration was organised and built at short notice over the Christmas period by the Leicester branch of Stand Up To Racism (SUTR).

Nigel Farage’s party has two MPs across the East Midlands, Richard Tice in Boston & Skegness and Lee Anderson in Ashfield.

The Reform UK supporters were mostly male and white—in a striking contrast to the diverse crowd of anti-racists there to greet them.

As Reform supporters entered the Athena conference centre, protesters could be heard celebrating Leicester’s multiculturalism. They chanted, “Whose Leicester? Our Leicester! Whose streets? Our streets!” and, “We are many, you are few. We are Leicester, who are you?”.

Speakers at the SUTR rally included Jenny Day from the NEU education union, Imam Shafi Chowdhury from City Retreat community organisation and Sharmen Rahman from the Green Party.

They condemned Farage for posing as a “man of the people” while pushing policies that would harm the working class—and challenged his racism rhetoric.

Unite union and Green Party member Dane told Socialist Worker, “It was great to see a unity of the left.

“People from anarchists and socialist groups, trade unions, Green Party, Labour Party and faith groups all stood together in unity to stop the populist hard right Farage supporters.”

Beth, a student from Nottingham, added, “It was a very obvious political choice. This isn’t the biggest city in the East Midlands. But it is the most multicultural city in Britain and I think they came to stir up trouble but it ended up biting them in the ass.”

Earlier in the day Shockat Adam, the independent MP for Leicester South, released a statement condemning Reform’s “dog whistles on race”. He acknowledged the concerns expressed by some of his constituents, but did not attend the protest or call on supporters to.

As Reform UK plans further regional conferences this month, anti-racists should take inspiration from Leicester and take to the streets.

Petra on behalf of Leicester SWP

Demand justice for the victims, don’t let the racists divide us

The far right has seized on horrific child sexual exploitation (CSE) scandals to push a racist agenda.

Home Office minister Jess Phillips rejected Oldham council’s call for a government-led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation.

Right wing channel GB News reported the decision, which Labour took last October, on Wednesday.

Billionaire X owner Elon Musk—who supports Donald Trump and Reform UK—and senior Tory politicians then picked it up. He also demanded that Nazi Tommy Robinson be freed from prison.

The far right and racists are continuing a long history of racialising sexual violence.

Home Office research from 2020 said, “There is no credible evidence that any one ethnic group is over-represented in cases of child sexual exploitation.”

The cops and councils failed victims because of sexism, not because of race or “political correctness”.

The far right’s narrative only further harms victims of abuse and exploitation.

 

Peace – on whose terms?

JANUARY 6, 2024



Mike Phipps explains why we must continue to support Ukraine in its resistance to Russian aggression and occupation.

It’s clear that this winter is going to be the most challenging for Ukrainians since Russia’s war of aggression began nearly three years ago.

The energy situation is especially critical. In 2024, Ukraine’s energy infrastructure was subject to ten major bombing attacks, leaving generation capacity around 20% below what it should be. This winter electricity could be cut off in some places for 14 to 20 hours per day.

As Simon Pirani has argued, Russia’s war is above all a war on Ukraine’s civilian population, a view confirmed by UN and NGO reports. There have been massacres of civilians, rape used as a weapon, torture, forcible conscription and forcible deportations.

In the territories occupied by Russia, the occupying authorities are pursuing a strategy of forcibly expelling Ukrainian civilians and encouraging in-migration by Russians. Access to services, including medical, is increasingly conditional on people taking Russian citizenship.

Ukrainians will continue to need support from the global community, including humanitarian and military assistance – at a time when, polls suggest, support in Western Europe up until Ukraine achieves outright victory is falling sharply, and when the inauguration of Donald Trump as US president could also result in a drop in aid.

Recent Yougov polling in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and the UK found support for a negotiated peace rising, although not necessarily a majority in most countries. Instinctively, such news will be heartening to anti-war activists: after all, peace is better than war, is it not?

The problem is: what would be the basis for a so-called peace? The entire self-declared premise of  Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine, spelled out in his 2021 essay On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, now apparently mandatory reading for the Russian military, is that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. Moreover, the very existence of Ukraine within its present borders – frontiers which were recognised by Russia in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons – is to Putin an “anti-Russia project.”

In March last year, Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council and former President, ruled out peace talks and demanded a compete capitulation from Ukraine, saying “Ukraine is definitely Russia.”

It’s hard to say what a peace deal might look like in these circumstances. Earlier this year, Andrew Murray wrote on the Stop the War Coalition website: “Russia will need to accept a sovereign and independent Ukrainian state.”

But as Simon Pirani has pointed out, this is meaningless. Russia “did so, in the Belovezha accords that dissolved the Soviet Union (1991), and the Budapest memorandum under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons (1994). Since 2014 Russia has been pounding Ukraine militarily, in breach of those agreements.”

Formally, the Stop the War Coalition (StW) calls for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. But you will find little coverage of the appalling war crimes committed by the invaders – well-documented by human rights organisations – or the resistance to them by often defenceless Ukrainian civilians. If any other occupying power was massacring civilians in cold blood, you would expect to hear about it from your local anti-war movement. Ukraine, however, is excepted.

Part of the reason for the refusal of StW to solidarize with the Ukrainian people in their fight against imperialist Russian invasion and occupation is their framing of the conflict as a ‘NATO proxy war’.  Just days before the Russian bombardment began in 2022, Tariq Ali mocked the notion of an imminent invasion as a “highly orchestrated media campaign” in an article entitled “News from Natoland”.

Even after the invasion, the evidence that Western powers were hell-bent on encroaching on Russian interests is scant. The sanctions that followed the aggression were notoriously relaxed on the crucial issue of oil, Russia’s largest source of export revenues. Fearing a hike in global oil prices, the US rejected an outright ban and proposed a price cap – too high to have much effect – which allowed Russian oil to continue to flow.

When the Ukrainian military hit Russian oil refineries with drone strikes in March 2004, Washington was displeased. Meanwhile despite the promise that Western firms would quit Russia en masse, only around 10% have actually done so. The evidence that Western countries are using the Ukraine conflict to put Russia into an economic and military chokehold does not stack up.

Nor does the idea that what the conflict is ‘really’ about is NATO expansion. The last time any country bordering Russia joined NATO was in 2004 – the small Baltic states of Latvia and Estonia. The only ones to join since then are four small Balkan countries nowhere near Russia. Ukraine is not likely to become a member of NATO – that’s the view of senior US officials who do not want the treaty obligations that would entail – although the invasion of Ukraine has strengthened support for NATO there.

Unsurprisingly, very few Ukrainians believe that their existential struggle against bombardment, occupation and assimilation is a ‘NATO proxy war’. Most civil society activists, peacebuilders and human rights defenders take the line of a 2023 appeal, signed by dozens of organisations, which stated: “This argument denies us our humanity and diminishes Ukraine’s history of hardwon independence.”

The appeal condemned abstract appeals to end the war as “calls to surrender our sovereignty and territorial integrity.” It stated: “We ask that international organisations and movements respect the right of Ukrainians to be at the front and centre of determining how to make their peace and how to defend themselves and their rights. We ask for respect for our calls for inclusion and that when it comes to determining our future there should be ‘nothing about us without us’. We object to conferences and marches for ‘peace in Ukraine’ where Ukrainians are neither meaningfully involved nor fairly represented.”

The Stop the War Coalition appear to take a polar opposite approach. It ignores the views of the vast majority of Ukrainians and peddles the myth – widely debunked – that the West is the major obstacle to peace, as if the Russian regime was merely a bystander in the conflict. It claims too that the West is pouring weapons into Ukraine – although even it admits that many analysts feel that the Biden Administration has not helped Ukraine nearly enough.

Ultimately, the StW’s position on the conflict is untenable, as others have pointed out. It wants peace negotiations that respect a sovereign and independent Ukrainian state and it wants an end to Western arms supplies to Ukraine. How will cutting off Western military aid bring Putin to the negotiating table? And what bargain would he drive if Western support were ended? With what would Ukraine be able to negotiate if Western aid were suspended?

In fact, for StW’s Lindsey German, shockingly, Ukrainian self-determination is secondary and the argument for it is “spurious”, as “Ukraine does not have self-determination from the Nato powers.”

As one commentator noted, “Insofar as StW had anything new to say about the war in 2024, it was summed up by the words ‘escalation’ (used over 50 times in the course of the year).” And this is the West’s, Biden’s, supposed escalation that is referred to: “Russia having North Korean troops in their own country is hardly sign of escalation on their side,” suggests Lindsey German,  bizarrely comparing the 10,000 North Korean combat soldiers participating actively in the conflict to the stationing of US troops in some West European countries.

So there we have it. In the ‘peace negotiations’ the Stop the War Coalition envisages, Ukrainian self-determination is a fiction: it’s just a question of how much land, materiel and people an isolated, and ideally disarmed (if Stop the War had their way) Ukraine would surrender to the Russian aggressors.

Seductive as calls for ‘peace’ sound after three grinding years of conflict, these basic truths should be remembered. Socialists and internationalists here and elsewhere should be first and foremost listening to what their Ukrainian counterparts are telling them – not parroting Kremlin propaganda in the guise of a misconceived ‘anti-imperialism’.

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

Image: Russian bombing of a school in Kramatorsk, July 21, 2022. Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=421090610058834&set=a.293060042861892. Author: State Emergency Service of Ukraine, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

UK


Proud to be in the RMT



 

JANUARY 4, 2024

Jeff Slee looks back over his time as a trade union activist on the railways and outlines why the RMT has been such an effective union.

I retired from the railway in 2023, after 39 years. I was an RMT workplace rep, Branch Secretary, Regional Council Chair, and National Executive Committee member.

I was proud to be a member of the RMT. The RMT is admired throughout the labour movement in this country and internationally for our militancy, socialist beliefs, and campaigning. We led the way in the 2022-23 wave of strikes. Our strikes then were over pay; but also against plans by the Train Operating Companies – dictated to by the Department for Transport – to remove train guards, close ticket offices, cut jobs, and worsen terms and conditions, and against Network Rail’s plans to worsen our maintenance workers’ conditions and rosters.

After two years in dispute the DfT and TOCs dropped all their plans. Network Rail’s proposals went back to negotiation, but these have been difficult. RMT General Secretary Mick Lynch won admirers for his plain speaking, and for the way he dealt with media interviews – especially the Newsnight interview where he called fellow interviewee Tory junior minister Chris Philp a liar 15 times without ever raising his voice or losing his cool.

RMT stands for Rail, Maritime, and Transport. Our members – about 80,000 – are mostly in rail: Network Rail, the Train Operating Companies, and Transport for London (London Underground and London Overground). We are also the biggest union among British seafarers. And we have some members in offshore energy (oil rigs), buses, and lorries. The RMT was formed in 1990 from the merger of the NUR (National Union of Railwaymen) and NUS (National Union of Seamen). In my time, our General Secretaries were Jimmy Knapp, Bob Crow, Mick Cash, and now Mick Lynch.

The first reason why we are effective is that we are an industrial union, not a general union nor a craft union. The core of the RMT is the rail industry, where most of our members work, and most of our NEC and officers come from. We organise among all grades of railworkers – cleaners, station staff, maintenance, signalling, traincrew, etc. We are proud of being a union which aims for, as one of our slogans says, “All grades united in a common cause”.  That unity is seen in our AGM, NEC, Regional Councils, and most of our branches. It means that our reps and lay activists willingly give their time to help represent and campaign amongst workers in other sectors of the railway. It means that the RMT leadership would find it difficult to play off one section of the membership against another, if they wanted to. Which they don’t.

Although the national rail network was privatised and fragmented 30 years ago, the loyalty of railworkers is to the railway as a whole, not to whichever company employs us, and this loyalty to the industry runs through the RMT.

Of the other rail unions, ASLEF organises only among train drivers, and encourages drivers to see themselves as separate and somewhat superior to other rail workers. As for TSSA, many years ago they were the union for white collar rail workers and managers, but they haven’t had a reason to exist as a separate union since the division between salaried staff and the rest was abolished thirty years ago. Their membership is dropping, and their latest attempt to find a partner to merge with failed when the GMB rejected their advances.

The second reason why the RMT is an effective union is our structure. All our officers – the General Secretaries, two Assistant General Secretaries, 16 Regional Organisers and two Maritime officers – are elected by the membership, not appointed, and have to face re-election every five years. So, they are ultimately accountable to the members, not to the GS.  And they come from the RMT membership – all have been union workplace reps, and branch officers.

Our NEC has 16 members: three from Maritime, one from Offshore, and 12 from the ‘General Grades’ (mostly rail). They are all full-time, working at our Head Office (Unity House), so they work day-to-day with the GS, the AGSs, Maritime National Secretary, and union officers. And the accountability of the Officers to the NEC is there every day. Whereas in those unions where the NEC only meets on occasional weekends, it is all too easy for the union bureaucracy to keep things from the NEC or fob them off.

These NEC members are elected for a three-year term, then go back to their old jobs – they can’t stand for re-election when that term is up. So the NEC does not become a clique separated from the membership. In my term on the NEC, I would report back to our quarterly Regional Council meetings, and among the branch delegates present were two of our Region’s former NEC members. Their support and advice was a great help, but their presence meant I always faced knowledgeable questioning and criticism.  

Third, the RMT is a socialist union, and proud of it. In Rule 1 of our Rule Book, our aims include: “To work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society”. I have never found the word “supersession” in a dictionary. But every union activist knows and believes in what this rule means.

We don’t have an organised right wing in the union, and haven’t had for a long time now. Back in the 1990s, almost no one of significance in the RMT supported Tony Blair and New Labour. Within a few weeks of Blair being elected Party leader, our then full-time officer for the South East– a good man and a good officer, a Labour Party member, but not considered part of the left of the RMT – had taken to calling him “Tory Blur”.

Fourth, we are a militant union. A few years ago, an Assistant General Secretary visited our branch and told us: “Sometimes it’s good to have a strike just so the members know how to do it.” Of course, officers and reps negotiate in good faith with employers. In some companies we have gone years without having to go to a dispute. But the option of taking industrial action is always seriously considered if the results of negotiations are not acceptable. A lot of effort goes into ensuring that our union membership data is up to date, so we are less likely to fall foul of the anti-union laws when we do ballot for action.

In 2017, the Tory government changed the anti-union laws so that every picket must have a ‘picket supervisor’. The picket supervisor had to give prior notice of the time and place of picketing to the police. At the time, our Southern guards were holding strikes against Drivee-Only Operation and we were the first union to face this new requirement. Our workplace reps and branch officers (none of them on full-time release) readily took on this role, and when they went to their local police stations to give notice they found themselves having to explain the new law to them!

I can’t write about the RMT without saying something about Bob Crow.  I don’t go in for hero-worship – it is the working class that produces change, not individuals – but he was a great General Secretary and a great man. And one of the best orators I have ever heard. He could explain the class struggle, and the need for socialism, in simple words in a way that inspired those who heard him. And he put his socialist principles into the way the union did things. To give one small example, one of his first decisions after being elected GS was to take the two Head Office cleaners away from the agency that employed them and make them RMT staff, and cancel the union’s contract with the agency.

Bob knew for the RMT to stand up for our members, we had to be prepared, ready, and able to take industrial action if necessary. He found that once employers recognised this, we usually got better results from negotiations without having to use industrial action. When he died, some rail bosses praised him in the media as a great negotiator.

While the RMT is a strong union within Network Rail, the TOCs, and London Underground, we have found it hard to organise other sections of railworkers, such as cleaners. Most train and station cleaning is outsourced, to companies including Mitie, Churchill, and Servest, which other trades unionists will also have come across. We have been campaigning for years to get basic rights and conditions for rail cleaners.

Our union officers and activists put a lot of effort and their own time into recruiting and organising amongst these workers. They represent cleaners in hearings, and encourage cleaner members to become reps. As a result, we are getting gains for these workers. To give one example, London Underground outsource their cleaning to an American company, ABM.  We have recently – after years of workplace organising, public campaigning, and political lobbying – managed to get these cleaners company sick pay instead of the much lower Statutory Sick Pay – and free travel on the Tube going to and from work, something that all London Underground Ltd employees get but cleaners did not. And we are continuing to campaign for this cleaning to be brought back in-house.

On the national rail network, we are now in a position where we can ballot cleaner members across different companies for co-ordinated industrial action over pay and conditions. But it is hard to get a Yes vote for action that beats the legal thresholds, and harder still to maintain strike action over a longer period. For many cleaners in the southeast, English is not their first language; they are intimidated by their managers; and when they go on strike the cleaning companies bring in agency workers. And while we call disputes against the cleaning companies, those most responsible for the poor pay and conditions of the cleaners are the train companies, who give the contracts to the outsourced companies and could – but don’t – set minimum standards on pay and conditions, etc.

I am confident that the RMT will continue to be seen as leading the way in the UK trade union movement.

Jeff Slee is a retired rail worker and former RMT National Executive Committee member.