What is the economic impact of the Baltimore bridge collapse?


By AFP

March 27, 2024

The collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge will bring an economic hit 

but analysts say it is unlikely to make a broad-based impact 

- Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File Anna Moneymaker

Beiyi SEOW with Elodie MAZEIN in New York

Diverted cargo and supply chain disruptions — businesses are rushing to avoid an economic hit following the collapse of a major bridge in Baltimore as a cargo ship slammed into it this week.

With vessel traffic at the Port of Baltimore suspended until further notice since Tuesday’s accident, experts warn of knock-on effects but say these should be manageable in the near term.

Baltimore is the biggest vehicle-handling port in the country, including cars and heavy farm equipment, US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg noted in a CBS interview.

“Right now you’ve got ocean shippers, the other ports and the cargo owners all working to figure out where to divert the ships that were headed that way,” he said.

Besides the hit to thousands of Baltimore port workers, Maryland Governor Wes Moore warned in a CNN interview that more than 140,000 people could be indirectly impacted by disruptions.

“The Port of Baltimore has such a significant economic impact, not just on my state,” he said, adding that the port handles over 50 million tons of foreign cargo last year.

“We’re talking about, you know, cars, heavy trucks, agricultural equipment,” Moore said.

“This is the impact it’s going to have on our country’s economy.”

– Diverted cargo –

Cargo bound for Baltimore will likely be partially diverted to the Port of New York and New Jersey, analysts say.

While this involves rerouting, the port “has the capacity to handle whatever will come their way,” a shipping industry source told AFP.

This is because the Port of New York and New Jersey is the second or third busiest in the country, and handles the equivalent of Baltimore’s year-long container volume in a much shorter period, the source said.

Bethann Rooney, port director at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, added that it is “proactively working with our industry partners to respond as needed and ensure supply chain continuity along the East Coast.”

While there will be “noticeable headaches” in the next several months, economist Ryan Sweet at Oxford Economics expects businesses will be able to adapt.

There will be supply chain disruptions, but he said: “I don’t think it’s going to have a macroeconomic effect because there are so many large ports within close proximity.”

These ports can likely handle a rise in cargo volumes, Sweet noted.

He added that there will probably not be a “broad-based supply shock” that will impact US inflation for consumer goods or GDP.

– Autos –

Certain sectors will be more impacted than others, such as automobiles, noted logistics platform Container xChange.

According to official figures, the Baltimore port’s private and public terminals handled over 840,000 autos and light trucks in 2023, the most among US ports.

“The port is a crucial gateway for specialized cargo and bulk handling, serving as a key link in many supply chains,” said Container xChange.

It warned that delays in cargo movement “could lead to inventory shortages, affecting businesses that rely on timely deliveries, like the automotive industry.”

Companies seeking alternative routes could also face higher transportation costs.

Among key auto companies importing through Baltimore are carmaker Mazda, which told AFP that the Baltimore port is “a vital part of Mazda’s logistics chain in the United States.”

“Mazda is currently assessing the potential impacts of a prolonged closure of the Port of Baltimore to ensure minimal disruption to operations,” a spokesperson said.

“At this time, no alternative plans have been finalized,” Mazda added.

Another major automaker Stellantis said it is starting talks with transportation providers for “contingency plans to ensure an uninterrupted flow of vehicles” to customers.

But Sweet of Oxford Economics there will unlikely be broad-based shortages in the autos sector, with weaker demand for new vehicles and companies having higher inventories these days.

“The issues could be more isolated to certain companies that rely on the Port of Baltimore to bring in their inventory,” he said.

Quirk in U.S. maritime law may be key to liability in Baltimore bridge disaster

Agence France-Presse
March 28, 2024 

The Dali, a Singaporean-flagged cargo vessel almost three football fields long, remains stuck under debris from the Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 27, 2024 after crashing into it. © Roberto Schmidt, AFP

The investigation continues to determine why a container ship, the Dali, smashed into a pillar of the 2.6 km span of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key bridge in early morning darkness on Tuesday, causing it to collapse and leaving six construction workers presumed dead.

However, establishing the precise cause of the accident will be just the first step in untangling the question of who will shoulder the financial cost of the disaster, which will be considerable.

John Neal, chief executive of the leading global insurer Lloyds of London, told British media on Thursday that the accident is "certainly going to be one of the largest marine losses in history”.

Mathilde Jakobsen, senior director of analytics at the credit rating agency AM Best, agreed, noting that “while the total cost of the bridge collapse and associated claims will not be clear for some time, it is likely to run into the billions of dollars”.

The tragedy could lead to up to $4 billion in insurance claims, Morningstar DBRS said.

Reinsurers – insurers that handle risks that are too large for insurance companies to handle alone – “will bear the bulk of the insured cost of the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore”, according to Jakobsen.

The Dali’s insurer, Britannia P&I Club, is part of a global group of mutual insurance organisations that pool liability for the shipping industry.

Known as protection and indemnity (P&I) clubs, they provide “liability cover for most shipping vessels” and “collectively insure approximately 90% of the world’s ocean-going tonnage”, notes Jakobsen.

Insurance claims from the bridge collapse will take a long time to determine and involve the families of those who died, the injured, those suffering damage to property, cargo and the cost of the indefinite closure of the Port of Baltimore, one of the busiest on the US eastern seaboard.

Maritime law from the 19th century

But according to the maritime lawyer John Fulweiler, the Dali’s owners, Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private, will certainly try to limit their liability from lawsuits by using a 19th century US maritime law that he calls “a powerful tool that favours vessel owners”.

The law was originally meant to prevent shipping companies from having to pay overwhelming losses from accidents at sea.

The ship’s owners, Fulweiler told FRANCE by email, can petition federal court under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, and bring all potential claims against them “into a single courtroom before a single federal judge”.

“When the Act is triggered, the court issues an order halting all claims that might be pending in other forums,” notes Fulweiler.

“It's an old piece of legislation” that produces “a lot of injustices,” says Fulweiler, by capping the ship owner’s liability to a sum equal to the “post-incident value of the vessel” and the earnings it collected from carrying the freight on board.

The wreckage wrought by the Dali is estimated to far exceed its current value.

According to Fulweiler, “the murky waters of the marine world give amplified lobbying power to those representing marine insurers and vessel owners".

(FRANCE 24 with Reuters)

'Egregious violation': Bridge collapse company fired worker who raised safety concerns

Carl Gibson,

 AlterNet
March 28, 2024 

The cargo ship Dali sits in the water after running into and collapsing the Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 26, 2024 in Baltimore, Maryland. 

(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Maersk — the company that chartered the cargo ship involved in the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore that killed six people and injured several others — was sanctioned by the Department of Labor last year, according to a new report.

Lever News reported that cargo giant Maersk was hit with a violation in July of 2023 when it illegally fired a worker who reported safety concerns to the U.S. Coast Guard. The employee reported numerous safety concerns aboard a Maersk vessel that included leaks in a starboard-side tunnel, alcohol use by crew members and leaving a trainee unsupervised aboard the ship Safmarine Mafadi.

The worker also blew the whistle about inoperable lifeboats on board the ship and faulty emergency fire suppression equipment. The employee — who was a chief mate on the ship and occasionally served as a relief captain — told federal officials that they believed their firing was "retaliation for reporting alcohol consumption on board the vessel." Maersk was ordered to reinstate the worker and pay $700,000 in back wages and damages.

READ MORE: Nancy Mace blames Biden's infrastructure law after ship strike collapses Baltimore bridge

The worker was fired for violating an internal Maersk policy that required employees "to first report their concerns to [Maersk] ... prior to reporting it to the [Coast Guard] or other authorities." The Occupational Safety and Heath Administration (OSHA) slammed the company over the policy, describing it as "repugnant," "reprehensible" and "an egregious violation of the rights of employees." OSHA added that the policy "chills [employees] from contacting the [Coast Guard] or other authorities without contacting the company first."

Lever reported that during the OSHA investigation, the Department of Labor accused Maersk of violating the Seaman's Protection Act. That legislation allows for workers in the maritime industry to blow the whistle on safety violations while protecting them from retaliatory actions by their employers. The Department of Labor ordered Maersk to revise its internal policy to allow workers to contact the US Coast Guard directly about any safety concerns.

In an official statement, Maersk stated that while it was "horrified" about the crash that collapsed the bridge and expressed sympathy for those who were killed and injured, the company made it clear that responsibility for the Key Bridge collapse fell to Synergy Group, which was piloting the ship.

"We can confirm that the container vessel ‘DALI’, operated by charter vessel company Synergy Group, is time chartered by Maersk and is carrying Maersk customers’ cargo. No Maersk crew and personnel were onboard the vessel," the company stated. "We are closely following the investigations conducted by authorities and Synergy, and we will do our utmost to keep our customers informed."

READ MORE: 'Disgusting': Maria Bartiromo ripped for linking Baltimore bridge collapse to Biden border policy

The Key Bridge collapsed after the DALI vessel experienced a power outage, prompting it to crash into one of the bridge's main trusses. While the ship's crew was able to issue a mayday call to first responders who then shut down the bridge to traffic, there were still several construction workers on the bridge repairing the road. Search and rescue teams were able to save several workers, but six were killed.

President Joe Biden has vowed that the federal government will foot the bill for the repair of the bridge and will work quickly to restore both bridge traffic and shipping lanes in and out of the Port of Baltimore. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg warned that while those repairs are underway, there will be "major and protracted supply chain issues" due to the inability of cargo ships to access Baltimore's port.

The Biden administration has not yet said if it will pursue legal action against Maersk or Synergy Group to help pay for the cost of repairing the Key Bridge. If it was to issue any civil penalties, the decision could be litigated in federal courts for several years.

READ MORE: Buttigieg: 'Major and protracted supply chain issues' expected after bridge collapse

Cargo Giant in Baltimore Crash Silenced Whistleblowers

By David Sirota

March 27, 2024

The company that chartered the cargo ship that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore was recently sanctioned by regulators for blocking its employees from directly reporting safety concerns to the US Coast Guard — in violation of a seaman whistleblower protection law, according to regulatory filings reviewed by the Lever.

Eight months before a Maersk Line Limited–chartered cargo ship crashed into the Baltimore bridge, likely killing six people and injuring others, the Labor Department sanctioned the shipping conglomerate for retaliating against an employee who reported unsafe working conditions aboard a Maersk-operated boat. In its order, the department found that Maersk had “a policy that requires employees to first report their concerns to [Maersk] . . . prior to reporting it to the [Coast Guard] or other authorities.”

Federal regulators at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which operates under the Labor Department, called the policy “repugnant” and a “reprehensible and an egregious violation of the rights of employees,” which “chills them from contacting the [Coast Guard] or other authorities without contacting the company first.”

Maersk’s reporting policy was approved by company executives, federal regulators found in their investigation into the incident.

“[Maersk’s] Vice President of Labor Relations, admits that this Reporting Policy requires seamen to report safety concerns to the company and allow it time to abate the conditions before reporting to the [Coast Guard] or other regulatory agencies,” Labor Department investigators said in their report.

During their investigation into Maersk, federal officials said there was “reasonable cause to believe” that the company’s policy violated the Seaman’s Protection Act, which protects maritime workers who speak out about unsafe working conditions. Officials ordered the company to reinstate the employee and pay over $700,000 in damages and back wages. They also demanded that Maersk revise its policy to allow seamen to contact the Coast Guard about safety concerns before notifying the company.

The fired employee was a chief mate on the Safmarine Mafadi, a Maersk-operated vessel, who also served as a relief captain when needed. The seaman reported unrepaired leaks, unpermitted alcohol consumption onboard, inoperable lifeboats, faulty emergency fire suppression equipment, and other issues.

Before he was fired, the employee was disciplined for not properly maintaining the logbook and failing to properly follow orders. The fired employee told federal regulators that he believed these disciplinary actions were “retaliation for reporting alcohol consumption on board the vessel.”

Maersk did not respond to Lever questions about the Labor Department’s findings and its previous policy on workplace safety reporting ahead of publication.

In a comment to other news outlets, Maersk stated: “We are horrified by what has happened in Baltimore, and our thoughts are with all of those affected. We can confirm that the container vessel ‘DALI’, operated by charter vessel company Synergy Group, is time chartered by Maersk and is carrying Maersk customers’ cargo. No Maersk crew and personnel were onboard the vessel. We are closely following the investigations conducted by authorities and Synergy, and we will do our utmost to keep our customers informed.”

Whistleblower Protection

The Seaman’s Protection Act was enacted in 1984 to protect maritime workers who reported statutory violations to the Coast Guard from company retaliation. These employees had been left out of other whistleblower laws at the time. In 2010, the legislation was amended to also safeguard employees who refused to perform certain duties due to fears of personal injury.

Enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, companies that violate the Seaman’s Protection Act can be subject to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. The Coast Guard also encourages employees to “report any hazardous condition before it results in a costly mishap.”

Despite the law explicitly protecting maritime employees from workplace abuses including whistleblower retaliation, experts say there have been relatively few whistleblower complaints. In 2017, a case involving the Seaman’s Protection Act made it to the Supreme Court seeking to protect a New York harbor worker, a “persistent safety advocate,” who had been fired after reporting dangerous conditions, though the court declined to hear the case.

Many maritime employers have a similar policy that prevents employees from directly contacting the Coast Guard or other regulatory agencies, according to Eric Rhine, a lawyer specializing in maritime injuries, aviation accident claims, and other issues at the Spagnoletti Law Firm.

In a blog post, Rhine highlighted a previous whistleblower retaliation case that found it was “‘standard business practice’ for employers to prohibit any direct contact by employees with government regulatory bodies.”

Rhine also highlighted that maritime employees, who face many work hazards, have a right to report unsafe conditions aboard their vessels to federal regulators.

“Sometimes accidents occur when they could have been avoided if proper and reasonable care was taken by those responsible for safe working conditions,” Rhine wrote. “These accidents can leave employees with lasting impairment that prevents them from ever working again. Of course, even worse, they can be deadly.”

Total Collapse

The vessel that crashed into the Baltimore bridge, Dali, was chartered by Maersk and operated by Synergy Marine Group, a ship management company based in Singapore. The ship had a crew of twenty-two foreign workers from India. The boat is owned by Grace Ocean Private and was headed to Sri Lanka.

Maersk, which is headquartered in Copenhagen, is one of the world’s largest shipping companies, reporting more than $51 billion in revenue in 2023. The company operates in 130 countries and employs one hundred thousand workers, according to its annual report. As of December 2023, Maersk owned 310 ships and was chartering 362, which they say is one of the world’s largest container shipping fleets.

Since 2021, Maersk has spent $2.7 million lobbying Congress and federal regulators on workers compensation, as well as port congestion and infrastructure issues, among other concerns, regulatory filings show.

Since last summer, Maersk has been battling the International Longshoremen’s Association — a labor union that represents sixty-five thousand maritime workers, including Maersk employees — over labor unrest at a port in Alabama.

In August 2023, APM Terminals, a division of Maersk, sued the union, claiming that workers at its Mobile, Alabama port were on strike illegally during an active contract. The court case is ongoing, and documents filed by the union in March allege that the company illegally suspended six workers for “raising a concern about a safety issue at the job site.”

As of publication time, rescuers have suspended the search for six missing construction workers who were working on the Baltimore bridge at the time of the collapse. The workers are presumed dead, officials said. One body was reportedly recovered from the river on Tuesday.

 

NTSB Releases "Black Box" Timeline of Baltimore Bridge Strike

 

PUBLISHED MAR 27, 2024 10:20 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

On Wednesday, the National Transportation Safety Board released an initial timeline of events in the tragic collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which was struck by a container ship and destroyed early Tuesday. The agency has received an initial tranche of voyage data recorder (VDR) information from the U.S. Coast Guard and can now sketch out a rough outline of what transpired aboard the vessel. 

At about 0039 hours on Tuesday morning, the boxship Dali got under way from Baltimore's Seagirt Terminal with 21 Indian crewmembers, two local pilots and 56 hazmat containers on board. The pilots released the docking tugs shortly after, and the vessel entered the ship channel. 

At 0124 hours, Dali was under way in the channel, making eight knots and steering 141 degrees. At about 0125, multiple alarms went off, and the VDR ceased recording the ship's electronic system data. Using backup power, the VDR kept recording bridge audio, and it captured the pilot's verbal rudder commands. 

One minute later, at 0126, the VDR was able to resume recording the ship's electronic data. Shortly after - at 0126:39 - the pilot made a general VHF call for tug assistance. This was the first distress call from the vessel. 

At about this time, a dispatcher at the pilot's association contacted the duty officer at the MDTA, the state authority that operates the Francis Scott Key Bridge.  This gave the MDTA enough early warning to begin shutting down the bridge to traffic, an action that officials have credited with saving many lives. 

At 0127:04, two minutes before contact with the bridge pier, the pilot gave the order to drop Dali's port anchor. He also gave additional steering commands.

At 0127:25, the pilot made a general radio call over VHF to warn that the Dali had lost all power and was approaching the Key Bridge. By this time, MDTA's duty officer had dispatched units to shut down all lanes of traffic.  

The ship was still making seven knots at 0129:00, the moment that the VDR began recording the audible sounds of the allision. The noise continued until 01:29:33, and the pilot made a VHF call to report the bridge's collapse a few moments later. 

NTSB began interviewing crewmembers today, agency chair Jennifer Homendy said at a press conference. The first interviews with the pilots are scheduled for tomorrow. For the immediate term, the agency's focus is on collecting any evidence that could be erased by activity at the site, preserving data before salvage operations begin in earnest.   

Homendy noted that some of the containers on the bow have been breached, including some hazmat containers, and that a sheen has been spotted on the water. The area is dangerous to access, and federal and local responders are aware of the damage. 

Though the composition of the sheen and release is not known, the ship's hazmat cargo was mostly corrosives and flammables, along with miscellaneous hazmat - a typical classification for lithium-ion batteries.

UK

Israeli arms company Elbit forced to sell Tamworth site

A victory for direct action and the Palestine solidarity movement

Palestine Action at the Elbit site in Tamworth (Picture: Palestine Action)

Direct action for Palestine secured a success on Friday as Elbit Systems, part of Israel’s arms trade, was forced to sell its Elite KL factory in Tamworth, near Birmingham.

Alongside mass marches and other forms of action, it’s a sign of the power of the Palestine solidarity movement.

The company had previously manufactured cooling and power management systems for military vehicles. But it faced falling profits and increased security costs resulting from repeated Palestine Action efforts.

After the sale was completed the site’s new owners, listed as Griffin Newco Ltd, told Palestine Action that they will have nothing to do with the previous owners, Elbit, and have discontinued any arms manufacturing.

Palestine Action said, “This victory is a direct result of sustained direct action which has sought to make it impossible for Elbit to afford to operate in Britain.

“Before they sold the enterprise to a private equity syndicate, Elbit had reported that Elite KL operating profits had been slashed by over three-quarters, with Palestine Action responsible. Elbit directly cited the increased expenditure on security they’d been forced to make, and higher supply chain costs they faced.

The first action at the site, in November 2020, saw activists smash into the building covered in blood-red paint.

Between March and July 2021, roof-top occupations put the site out of action three times. Despite increased security, another roof-top occupation in July saw the site closed.


Full coverage of the struggle in Palestine


In February 2022, activists decommissioned the site for weeks—closed off after an occupation that saw over £250,000 of damage.

After this, Elbit erected a security perimeter around the site. One month later, six people were arrested after occupying the roof and smashing through, preventing the production of parts for Israel’s military machine.

Elite KL is a “specialist thermal management business”. Since the sale, the company has focused on cooling systems for buses and trains, but it had, under Elbit, manufactured these systems for military vehicles.

Until December of last year, Elite KL’s website was advertising its military and defence products, and it was known to provide parts for Israel’s Merkava tanks. Its export licence records demonstrate its provision of ML6a components for military ground vehicles to Israel.

Elbit Systems itself provides 85 percent of the drones and land-based military equipment for the Israeli military, along with a wide range of the munitions and armaments currently being used against Gaza’s besieged population.

Its chief executive, Bazhalel Machlis, claims the Israeli military offered the company its thanks for their “crucial” services during the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Huge marches, local protests, workplace walkouts, pickets of arms firms, direct action, student occupations and many other methods are all important in fighting Israel’s assaults on Gaza.

Don’t buy West’s hypocrisy over Chinese cyber-spying

A Chinese cyber-attack has left the British and US governments raging. Thomas Foster explains why this is hypocritical—and how cyber-warfare is a ruling class tool

Thursday 28 March 2024 

SOCIALIST WORKER  Issue 2899

Both the West and China use cyber-espionage 

(Picture: Flickr/ Focal Foto)

The United States and British governments accused China of being behind a years-long cyber-attack campaign against politicians, journalists and businesses last week. Chinese cyber-espionage group APT-31 carried out the campaign, targeting critics of China with sophisticated hacks of work accounts, personal emails, online storage and telephone call records to steal information.

In response, the US and Britain sanctioned a handful of individuals and a company described as a front for the Chinese ministry of state security. The reality is that the attacks—and threat of them—are one group of elites trying to use its influence to bribe another group at the top. Cyber-attacks aren’t an attack on us all.

But, they can spill over to see elites competing over real things, like economic domination and military power. China is a class ridden society—and attacks and represses its own people. It spies on workers, tries to stop their organisation and crushes trade unions for the millions in its factories.

The Chinese state has also locked up to one million Uyghurs Muslims in internment camps and suppresses Uyghur culture and national self-determination claims. But there is hypocrisy in the US and British government’s grandstanding over cyber-warfare. Rulers in Britain and the US have their own empire of hacking, which they extensively use for their own interests.

When imperialist rivals compete against each other, they use whatever means they can to gain an advantage. British officials said the Chinese government is responsible for gaining access to information on millions of British voters by hacking the Electoral Commission. Chinese surveillance doesn’t influence and tamper with Western elections.

The US and Britain always rush to call out Chinese cyber-warfare that threatens their own power. But both have been carrying out cyber-attack campaigns against China and a whole array of countries.

Last year, the US National Security Agency (NSA) carried out a number of cyber-attacks against Chinese telecommunications company Huawei Technologies to monitor and steal critical data.

Don’t be pulled in by rulers’ Chinese spy claims

In 2022 the US hacked a government-funded Chinese university, Northwestern Polytechnical University, which conducts military research. After infiltrating the university’s network, NSA infiltrated wider telecommunications infrastructure to steal Chinese user data. The US and Britain don’t contain their cyber-espionage to China—they also carry out cyber-attacks on their allies.

In 2014 the British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) hacked into Belgian telecommunications company Belgacom between 2010 and 2013. GCHQ hacked the company to steal data from mobile devices and carry out cyber-attacks, in a cyber-warfare campaign titled “Operation Socialist”.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Britain’s yearly National Cyber Force report admits that the government carries out an array of cyber-warfare all the time, from “influencing behavior” to “gathering data on hostile actors”. And it’s likely that the US and Britain will use the latest revelations as an excuse to ramp up their own attacks even further.
Racism against China

There is a racist undercurrent to some of the language used in the United States and Europe when discussing China’s economic growth. The rhetoric at times falls into the trope of “Yellow Peril”. “Yellow Peril” is a form of racism that depicts “barbaric” Asian countries as an existential threat to Western “civilisation”.

Throughout history, racists have depicted Asian countries as “uncivilised”, “unclean”, or “filthy”, to look at just a few examples. Elements of these disgusting tropes remain today. In 2019 US state department director of policy planning Kiron Skinner described the US’s competition with the Soviet Union as “a fight within the Western family” but China as “a really different civilisation”.

Zhang Xiaoming, a professor at Peking university, writes that US and European ruling classes often describe China “either as an uncivilised outsider or as a less-civilised insider”. He adds that the racist “clash of civilisations” trope leads Chinese people to be seen as the “other”.
Imperialists locked into global competition

China threatens the United States’ domination of global capitalism. In response, the US and other Western countries are ramping up their rhetoric, sanctions and economic policies against Chinese state capitalism. The growth of China’s economic power has meant that Western ruling classes see it as a threat to its own.

After the news of the latest cyber-attack campaign, prime minister Rishi Sunak said that China is “the greatest state-based threat to our economic security”. In recent years, the ruling classes of the US and other Western countries have taken a harder line against China.

The reason why is found in the structural features of global capitalism. While the US remains the world’s most powerful country, its relative power has been declining since the turn of the 21st century.

Imperialism, competition and violence

In this time China has massively expanded its economic production. Chinese state capitalism transformed half a billion peasants into industrial workers—transforming the economy into the world’s second largest.

The US’s ruling class first saw China as just a place for cheap labour. But now China’s economic power means it is the US’s biggest challenge in a system of global competition and imperialist rivalry.

As its economic power has grown, China’s ruling class has become more assertive in fighting for its economic and political interests. Its Belt and Road Initiative—which commits over £800 billion to hundreds of infrastructure projects—is threatening US influence in the Global South.

But despite the increasing imperialist rivalry between US and Chinese ruling classes, there remains a mutual economic dependency. The support of US bosses is vital for China remaining a key base for global production.

And China is vulnerable around technology, depending on Western production of semiconductors and other microchips. And the US still depends on China’s low-cost production base, taking advantage of Chinese manufacturing.

The globalisation of capital has led to supply chains crossing borders and spanning the world. The result is the contradiction of both China’s and the US’s economy being reliant on each other while also competing against each other. But ruling classes can’t escape the logic of competition internally. As long as China rivals the US economically, it will be treated as a threat.

The mutual revelations of past and present

Ahead of a talk to the Socialist History Society tomorrow, Professor Paul Preston explores the impact of contemporary politics on historical investigation with reference to his writings on Spain.

There is a mantra recited by professional historians to the effect that all history is contemporary history.  Its origin is widely attributed to the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce on the basis of an essay on historiography published in 1912 with the evocatively prophetic title Storia, cronaca e false storie which could reasonably be translated either as ‘History, News and False Stories’ or as ‘History, Chronicles of the Present and Made-up Stories’. 

The celebrated aphorism reflects the truism that all analysis and interpretation of the past is almost invariably passed through a filter of the individual historian’s ethical and political response to events of the day. I would certainly accept that this applies to most of my own work on Spanish history from the 1870s to the present day. 

In fact, Croce’s dictum applies not only to writing and research by historians irrespective of the period researched.  It is also valid when applied to works of theatre, fictional literature, opera, sculpture, visual arts or cinema.  

Examples abound right across the creative arts.  Commentators on Shakespeare’s eight English history plays about the period between 1396 and 1485 frequently note that they reflect an effort to legitimize the monarchy established in 1485 by the alleged usurper Henry Tudor.  English historical fiction, from that of Sir Walter Scott, via those of Benjamin Disraeli and Charles Dickens, right up to the more recent work of Hilary Mantel, interpret their subjects with the political and ethical values of the period in which they were actually written. 

This is even more true of operas with historical subjects from Russia – including those by Mussorgsky, Shostakovich and Prokofiev – from France – including those by Berlioz, Meyerbeer or Massenet. The most dramatic example comes from Italy. Giuseppe Verdi’s works written between 1840 and 1860, such as Nabucco, I Lombardi, Ernani, Attila or Un ballo in Maschera, reflected his commitment to the cause of Italian unification against Austrian tyranny. 

However, the cliché about the relationship between past and present, between historical writing and contemporary values, is not just valuable in assessing works of history. It works both ways, as is demonstrated frequently by the bitter polemics stimulated when once admired cultural icons are reassessed in terms of contemporary values as racist and/or misogynistic and then passionately defended. 

Barely a day goes by without our being reminded of the value of a knowledge of history in assessing contemporary politics.  That politicians tend not to welcome reminders of historical precedents was underlined almost exactly a year ago by Gary Lineker.  He drew widespread vitriol for his response on social media to claims by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, in justification of her plans to stop migrants crossing the Channel on small boats, that the UK is being “overwhelmed”.  He responded: “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European counties.  This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.” He was subject to waves of abuse and accused of breaching the BBC’s impartiality rules. 

Leaving aside the obvious absurdity that impartiality requires equal treatment of the rapist and the raped, the oppressor and the oppressed, the criticism directed at Lineker reflected the discomfort felt by most politicians on being reminded of how history can supply abundant evidence to expose errors of judgement or the hidden agenda underlying their rhetoric.  And it is not as if there were not plenty of famous aphorisms to warn them.  In 1852, Karl Marx stated: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”  In 1905, the Spanish philosopher Jorge Santayana declared that “Aquellos que no pueden recordar el pasado están condenados a repetirlo”, a phrase that can be rendered as “nations that are ignorant of their history are doomed to repeat it.”

In my book, A People Betrayed: A History of Corruption, Political Incompetence and Social Division in Modern Spain 1874–2018 (London: William Collins, 2020), I make an explicit acknowledgement of the influence of contemporary politics on investigation of the past.  For instance, during the years that I was researching and writing the book, I lived, on a daily basis, under the shadow of the Brexit process in Britain. It was a painful experience to have to witness the combination of lies, governmental ineptitude and corruption that have undermined the welfare state, brought public services to their knees and bitterly divided a nation once regarded as a beacon of calm.  The book made no attempt to suggest that Spain is unique in terms of corruption or governmental incompetence.  There are other European nations for which, at various historical moments, similar interpretations might be valid. 

My next book, Architects of Terror: Paranoia, Conspiracy and Anti-Semitism in Franco’s Spain (London: William Collins, 2023), broadly speaking, was about how fake news contributed to the coming of a civil war.  Needless to say, a further element of contemporary relevance was the centrality of the theme of antisemitism.  Moreover, my most recent book, ‘Perfidious Albion’ – Britain and the Spanish Civil War (London: The Clapton Press, 2024) is not without evidence of the validity of Croce’s thesis. 

The book’s title reflects the three chapters that deal with the hypocrisy and prejudice of British foreign policy towards the Spanish Republic.  The insulting epithet dates back to the thirteenth century but was popularised in France as a result of British opposition to the French Revolution. 

It is a commonplace of thinking about the Spanish conflict that Franco’s victory was the result of the aid that he received from Hitler and Mussolini and the alleged betrayal of the Republic by Stalin.  My book tries to demonstrate that Franco also owed much to the way in which the British policy of Non-Intervention was far from neutral.  Denounced by Jawaharlal Nehru as “the supreme farce of our time”, it favoured Franco and the Axis Powers and severely weakened the capacity of the democratic Republic to defend itself. 

Proclaimed Non-Intervention did nothing to inhibit the continued supply of military aid from the Axis powers to Franco’s rebels, nor to prevent the crucial participation of the crack high-tech German Condor legion with the latest aircraft and artillery, as well as around 80,000 Italian troops, and high proportions of the Italian navy and air force.  

In fact, Conservative policy was deeply damaging to its proclaimed interests.  It was in sharp contrast to the realism and courage of those who could see that a failure to defend the Republic would ensure that the Fascist threat to Madrid would inevitably be unleashed next on Paris and London.  It was manifested in the humanitarian efforts of the Aid Spain Movement, in the participation of British volunteers in the International Brigades and in the invaluable contribution of many British doctors and nurses to the Republican medical services. 

It is not necessary to look far to find contemporary parallels with the damage done to the national interest by the adoption of policy based on high-sounding but partisan rhetoric.  Both the proclaimed economic benefits of Brexit and those of the anti-immigrant ‘hostile environment’ policy give renewed relevance to the axioms of Marx, Santayana and Croce.

Paul Preston is School Professor for the Department of International History, at the London School of Economics. He is one of the world’s foremost authorities on the Spanish Civil War and the author of numerous books on modern Spain, the Spanish Republic, the war and its aftermath.

On 28th March, at 6.30pm, Paul Preston will speak to the Socialist History Society about his latest book ‘Perfidious Albion’ – Britain and the Spanish Civil War. All welcome, register free here.

From prison to president: stunning opposition win in Senegal’s election

LABOUR HUB EDITORS

MARCH 26, 2024

The result of last Sunday’s election offers a prospect of real change for the west African country, argues Mike Phipps.

“Senegal’s anti-establishment candidate looks almost certain to become president after a stunning election victory that is likely to steer the west African country in a radical new direction,” reports the Guardian.

“A little over a week after his release from prison, Bassirou Diomaye Faye is almost certain to be declared the country’s next president after his main rival unexpectedly called him to concede defeat.”

Faye’s outright victory, with 55% of the vote,  constitutes a clear rejection of Macky Sall, the incumbent president whose twelve years in office saw spiralling poverty and unemployment, as well as increasing repression and attacks on civil liberties.

The election result is a triumph for democracy in a region where there have been eight military coups since 2020. Yet Senegal’s election almost didn’t happen:  Sall sought to postpone it in February and was forced backtrack only after massive opposition on the streets.

So who is Faye? Senegal’s youngest ever president is an anti-corruption candidate. He was released from prison only this month along with his mentor Ousmane Sonko, who was disqualified from standing in the election because of a defamation conviction. Both are former tax inspectors. Faye spent more than 11 months in prison for a Facebook post that the regime deemed subversive.

Ahead of Sunday’s election, Faye published a declaration of his assets, and called on other candidates to do the same. It lists a home in Dakar, and land outside the capital and in his hometown. His bank accounts hold roughly $6,600.

A victory for Faye is a good sign for democracy in Senegal, according to  Alioune Tine, founder of the think tank Afrikajom Center and Amnesty International’s former regional director for West and Central Africa. “Democracy was sick with political violence, with state violence, with death,” he told Al Jazeera, adding that Sonko being barred from contesting the election further showed that democracy was in an unhealthy state.

Faye had to fight the election as an independent after the dissolution of his Patriots of Senegal (PASTEF) party last July for supposedly causing unrest. The PASTEF party, which was founded by Sonko in 2014, endorsed Faye. It won a third of the parliamentary seats in the 2022 National Assembly election after forming an alliance with four other parties.

Faye is a left wing pan-Africanist who has campaigned for a fundamental reshaping of Senegal’s relationship with its former colonial power, France, which he says exercises an “economic stranglehold” on Senegal. He wants Senegal to cease using the African Financial Community (CFA) franc—a unit of currency that was pegged to the French franc, and now to the euro.

The principle behind the arrangement is simple: to give France economic control over African states, which it exercises by use of currency devaluation, which can have a disastrous effect on local economies. Macron is an enthusiastic supporter of this colonial relic.

“Convinced that full independence cannot be achieved without controlling the economy, livestock management, fisheries and agriculture, we are fully committed to achieving food, digital, fiscal, energy and scientific sovereignty,” Faye says in an introduction to his election manifesto.

Faye has also promised to renegotiate mining and gas contracts sighed with foreign countries. Along with other African leaders, he is highly critical of these contracts, which guarantee the mining of minerals that will help European countries achieve their transition to cleaner energy. Many of them replicate the same colonial practices seen in the era of fossil fuel extractivism – low royalties, few environmental safeguards, undermining traditional ways of life for small farmers and herders. The issue is assuming increasing importance for countries rich in these new resources.

France continues to keep a contingent of troops in Senegal, as it does with other former colonies in the region. As elsewhere, younger Senegalese want to see an end to this.

Faye has also pledged to reduce presidential powers, make the judiciary more independent and reform land ownership. The earlier jailing of Faye and Sonko underlined the concern shared by many that the judiciary has been politically manipulated to harass the outgoing president’s opponents.

Faye appeals to younger voters –  60 percent of the population is under 25 – who are in the forefront of the demands for change. Unemployment is 20 percent and poverty stands at 40 percent. Young Senegalese had grown bitterly hostile to the outgoing regime which last year authorised police to fire on protesters with live rounds, causing two dozen fatalities and injuring hundreds. Macky Sall’s attacks on democracy also included shutting down the country’s prestigious University Cheikh Anta Diop and cracking down on journalists.

In avoiding the military coups that have hit so much of the region, Senegal has come to be seen as a model of democracy in west Africa. This election offers an opportunity to add some meaningful content to that image.

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

The Battle for the Torygraph

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead

23 March, 2024 

Left Foot Forward

Abu Dhabi-backed investment fund RedBird IMI’s hunt for profitable investments in media, sport and entertainment in Britain, has hit regulatory obstacles in its bid for the Telegraph and its right-wing stablemate the Spectator.

The battle for the Torygraph is heating up. A controversial bid by Redbird IMI, an entity run by former CNN head Jeff Zucker and backed financially by the United Arab Emirates, has been met by fierce opposition within UK Conservative political and media circles. Andrew Neil branded the idea of a foreign government, and particularly a dictatorship, owning the publication as ‘absurd.’ Also vying for ownership are two domestic media giants, Murdoch’s News UK Corp. and the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT). Between them and Reach Publishing, they already control 90 percent of Britain’s newspaper circulation. Taking over the Telegraph would therefore add to Britain’s worrying lack of media plurality even further. The fourth horse in the race is Sir Paul Marshall, the GB News owner, recently accused of endorsing far-right, Islamophobic, homophobic and conspiracy theory posts. Giving the hedge fund millionaire another media platform to flex his right-wing muscle should concern us all.

It’s safe to say that the future of the Torygraph looks none too rosy. And as so often with Tory shenanigans, the story reeks of hypocrisy.

Post-Brexit, the UK government has been actively seeking investments from the Gulf to help sustain the economy. Football clubs, prime London property, media outlets and lucrative deals with BP; a growing number of Britain’s assets are being invested in and bought up by our oil-rich allies in the Middle East. Such is the scale of multibillion-dollar investments streaming from highly repressive Gulf states, namely the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, into UK institutions, that Gulf investors refer to London as the ‘eighth emirate’ of the UAE.

Such investment is often at the expense of human rights. In 2021, the UK halved its foreign aid to Yemen while continuing its arming of the Saudi-led coalition in the war-torn country. Over last five years, Britain has sold over £75m worth of spyware, including wiretaps and telecom interception equipment to spy on dissidents to more than 17 countries, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Amid our unrelenting courting of oil-rich sheiks of repressive Gulf States, RedBird IMI, a joint venture between the American private equity firm RedBird Capital Partners and Abu Dhabi-based International Media Investments (IMI), has its eye on the Telegraph and its right-wing stablemate the Spectator. RedBird IMI was launched in late 2022 with Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, a member of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, deputy prime minister of the UAE and owner of Manchester City football club, as a major backer and beneficiary of the fund.

RedBird IMI has been on something of a spending spree of late, acquiring the UK production company, All3Media, creators of hit shows, including Fleabag and Squid Game: The Challenge. But the company’s hunt for profitable investments in media, sport and entertainment, has hit regulatory obstacles in its bid for the right-wing titles.

The purchase, which is supported by Sheikh Mansour, would see the newspaper, currently valued at a reported £600m, come under full Emirati ownership. The transaction would reportedly include the UAE paying off the £1.2bn worth of debt that is owed to Lloyd’s Bank by the newspaper’s current owners, the Barclay family.

But the deal has sparked fierce resistance from some Tory MPs who are concerned about the newspaper’s editorial freedom. Scrambling to introduce laws to stop foreign governments being able to own British newspapers, over 100 MPs signed a letter opposing the buyout, pointing to the UAE’s poor domestic record on press freedom.

“If major newspaper and media organisations can be purchased by foreign governments, the freedom of the press has the potential to be seriously undermined. No other democracy in the world has allowed a media outlet to be controlled by a foreign government. This is a dangerous Rubicon we should not cross,” the MPs wrote in a letter to the culture secretary, Lucy Frazer.

The media regulator Ofcom has warned that the UAE has “clear political and broader commercial incentives to influence the editorial line” of the Telegraph. Frazer said the regulator has found that RedBird IMI, could look to exert influence over the newspaper’s output, particularly in matters relating to the Middle Eastern country.

The furore over the IMI ownership bid of the Telegraph raises questions about the double standards involving foreign influence on our media assets.

In 2010, Russian businessman and a former member of the KGB, Alexander Lebedev, bought the Independent, having taken control of London’s Evening Standard a year earlier. Lebedev later transferred control of the titles to his son, Evgeny, a friend of Boris Johnson’s. In 2022, Alexander Lebedev quit his role at the Independent, after being placed under economic sanctions by Canada for “directly enabling” the Russian war in Ukraine. Despite concerns from senior government officials over Evgeny Lebedev’s links to Russia, shortly after becoming prime minister, Boris Johnson appointed Lebedev to the House of Lords. Several years earlier in 2017, Saudi property investor Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel had bought a 30 percent stake in the Independent’s online newspaper. Amol Rajan, the BBC’s media editor and former editor of the Independent, described Abuljadayel as a “rich man who wants to be richer, in short; and a Saudi investor seeking influence.”

“Money and influence are the two main reasons that people invest in media, and there’s no reason to think Abuljadayel is any different,” Rajan said.

If a similar fate was to lay in store for the Telegraph by essentially giving Adu Dhabi editorial control of the titles, then critics of the UAE ownership bid would surely have a point. But then again, how much editorial freedom exists at the Telegraph, or most other British nationals for that matter, where coverage is skewed by the political interests of their owners, is questionable anyway.

The Telegraph hasn’t earned its ‘Torygraph’ moniker without good reason. The daily broadsheet has endorsed the Conservative Party at every general election in Britain since 1945. When the newspaper celebrated its 100th birthday in 1955, it received a message of congratulations from its columnist Winston Churchill, who pointed out that he was the oldest and longest-serving member of the paper’s staff.

When the Barclay brothers bought the Telegraph Group in 2004 for around £665m, Sir David Barclay suggested that the Daily Telegraph might no longer be the ‘house newspaper’ for the Conservatives. Such suggestions however failed to materialise, as the newspaper maintained and even upped its Tory party bias.

Prior to the 2010 general election, the Telegraph’s chairman texted David Cameron every day to suggest the Conservative leader spoke to the editor to ensure his party’s message was getting across in the newspaper. In 2015, the daily was fined £30,000 for sending an unsolicited email to hundreds of thousands of its subscribers urging them to vote for the Conservatives. During the Tory leadership election in 2019, the Telegraph endorsed its former columnist, Boris Johnson. The New Statesman described the broadsheet as ‘more of a parish newsletter churning out press releases for Boris Johnson’s campaign team than an actual newspaper.’

When you consider the decades-long political influence of the newspaper slanted heavily in the Conservatives’ favour, the hoo-hah about its sale to the UAE within Tory circles is not difficult to understand.

It looks like Middle East control of the Telegraph is immaterial anyway as the deal has all but been derailed. The question is, who are the other bidders, and would they be preferable to Mansour’s IMI?

According to the Telegraph, Murdoch’s News Corp UK and the DMGT have held talks about a potential takeover of the titles.

The “Who Owns the UK Media?” 2023 report, published by the Media Reform Coalition, found that three companies – DMGT Media, News Corp UK and Reach – control 90 percent of the UK’s national newspaper market. These three groups also account for over 40 percent of total audience reach of the 50 largest online news brands in the UK.

DMGT is owned by Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere and great-grandson of the Daily Mail’s founder, Lord Rothermere, who was a staunch admirer of Hitler and Mussolini. If DMGT Media is successful in taking over the Telegraph, then a single publisher would be close to controlling half of all the national newspaper circulation in Britain.

But the US-Australian billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp UK has also expressed interest in adding the titles to his media business. Murdoch, who handed over operations to his son Lachlan last year but still plays a role in the business, has a shrewd understanding of how media and power work. With the Sun, the Times, and Sunday Times, News UK already controls one-third of the nation’s newspaper market, as well as other UK media assets including talkSport.

But there is another party interested in getting its hands on the Conservative media titans. Paul Marshall, the hedge fund founder who funds GB News and donates generously to the Conservatives, wants to add the Telegraph to his rapidly-growing empire. Marshall also owns UnHerd, one of the biggest sites for political commentary in the UK.

The hedge fund billionaire is now considered the frontrunner to ownership race, despite having been found to have liked and shared multiple far-right, Islamophobic, homophobic and conspiracy theory posts online.

A source close to Marshall said: “If it comes up at the right price and at the right time, he will consider it.”

In response to the accusations that Marshall had endorsed far-right social media posts, his rival for ownership of the Telegraph, Jeff Zucker, said the GB News owner is “unfit to own a newspaper.”

Analysis by the Press Gazette confirms how right-wing political bias strongly dominates Britain’s newspaper circulation, with six of the daily nationals being right-wing, five supposedly neutral, and just two left-wing. The left-leaning papers have an average daily circulation of 300,000 and their right-wing counterparts have a circulation of 2,100,000

.

Giving politically motivated media moguls an even tighter grip on an already highly concentrated press landscape by taking over the Telegraph and Spectator would surely mark a dark day for media plurality in Britain.

But then how UAE ownership would pan out is anybody’s question. If we consider how Abu Dhabi ownership has transformed Manchester City football club, perhaps the latter would be the lesser of the evils, at least from a business perspective? Then again, giving a repressive state without a democratic government control of a British media institution that is supposed to be part of our nation’s democratic process, is surely not what the country wants or needs?

Isn’t there a more left-wing investor out there with a spare £600m who might be interested in buying the Telegraph and giving Britain’s media that is heavily tilted to the Right some much-needed alternative perspectives? Sadly, capitalism tends not to work that way.

Right-Wing Media Watch – ‘Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown’; Plots upon plots or when is a plot not a plot?

Following a pathetically lame plot to get Boris Johnson back at No. 10, the right-wing media seemed to have set their sights on Penny Mordaunt.

‘Will Penny Mordaunt be the next prime minister?’ asked the Spectator this week, in what was another Tory title to devote editorial space to speculation about a so-called plot to oust Rishi Sunak and replace him with the Leader of the House of Commons.

The reports first emerged in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph last weekend. ‘Plot to crown Penny Mordaunt as PM: Tory MPs on Right have held secret talks with moderates about replacing Rishi Sunak with Leader of House,’ was the lead story on the Mail’s front page on Saturday.

“Ms Mordaunt has been identified as a potential standard-bearer for Tory moderates in a future contest in which right-wingers such as Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman would start as favourites,” the article continued.
By the Monday however, the newspapers had taken a notably different tone, deciding to leap to the beleaguered Prime Minister’s defence.

‘Rishi Sunak’s allies rage at Penny Mordaunt after she fails to quash rumours of a coup against the PM and Tory MPs spending the weekend plotting,’ splashed the Mail, insisting that the Prime Minister is ‘set to launch a political fightback after a torrid week.’

‘Mordant could lose seat – so stick with Sunak, says PM’s allies,’ headlined the Telegraph.

‘Penny Mordaunt isn’t the answer, her only ideology is mushy Blairite progressivism,’ claimed the Spectator.

Such antagonistic reports came despite Mordaunt having made no public comment on the speculation, but with sources close to her having dismissed the claims as “nonsense.”

In early March, Mordaunt was ranked as the most popular Cabinet minister among Tory party members, overtaking Kemi Badenoch. Suggestions have been made that as she is becoming increasingly attractive to centrists in the party, which could enable her to defeat right-wingers like Kemi Badenoch, the Sunak ousting plot was a deliberate ploy designed to scupper her chances in a leadership battle when he steps down. Speaking to i News, an ally of Mordaunt said that the briefings were an attempt to ruin her prospects as leader.

“I suspect what is partly behind this is people trying to make it difficult for her in future. It’s interesting that Kemi [Badenoch] is quite so loud on this,” the MP said.

Could the right-wing media’s deliberate amplification of the Penny Mordaunt rumour be an attempt to trash the Leader of the Commons’ prospects of the Tory crown once Rishi Sunak steps down?

Of course, the last thing the Tories need is another leadership circus. But as we move closer to the election, no doubt there will be more plots in the pipeline by the Conservative media as they set out to distract from the utter chaos engulfing the Prime Minister. It’s also likely that the Mordaunt plot has yet to run its course.

Woke-Bashing of the Week – Nike enrages the anti-woke bridage after changing the colours of the St. George’s flag

Nike is the latest brand to find itself in the firing line of the woke-loathing squad. According to reports peddled by the usual media suspects, the Mail Online, Daily Express and GB News, England fans are furious about the sports brand’s update to the St George’s cross on the back of the new Three Lions short.

Supporters have apparently been left enraged when it was revealed that Nike had replaced the horizontal line on the traditional red cross with a navy blue, light blue, and pink one, despite the kits appearing to be a nod to the 1966 World Cup winners’ training kit, which contained blue, red and purple.

Tweeting the launch of the new kit, Nike wrote: “A playful update to the St. George appears on the collar to unite and inspire.”

Leading the backlash were the same old names. Nigel Farage and Brandan Clarke-Smith were said to be fuming, while Reform UK MP Lee Anderson described the move as ‘virtue signalling woke nonsense.’

“The left have a nerve to ask me why I want my country back.

‘This virtue signalling, namby-pamby, pearl-clutching woke nonsense must stop. Any more of this and I’ll be on the first flight to Rwanda,” Anderson told the Daily Express. (We can live in hope!)

Disappointingly but sadly not that surprisingly given his courting of the Murdoch media, including attending the media magnate’s midsummer party last year, Keir Starmer waded into the furore. In a grilling about the story by the Sun editor Harry Cole on the newspaper’s new politics show Never Mind the Ballots, the Labour leader said the original colours were ‘unifying’ and called for the label to be changed back, while recommending for the shirts to be reduced in price.

Naturally, the Sun went into reactionary overdrive, with the sensationalising headline: ‘Keir gets shirty: Keir Starmer blasts hated change to England footie short on Sun’s new politics show and demands kits must be cheaper.’

As well as collaborating with the right-wing newspaper, Starmer’s comments are disappointing given the Right’s history of reactionary objection to some of the England team’s gestures of unity and inclusion.

During the 2020 Euros, the simple act of kneeling against racism for several seconds before each game prompted so much outrage among the Right that the prime minister had to step in and attempt to quell the panic. Predictably, Lee Anderson, then a Tory MP of course, was so dumbstruck, he decided to boycott the team in protest.

It will be interesting what lies ahead for the ‘woke’ England team, their ‘woke’ manager, and their ‘woke’ kit designers, at this year’s Euros in Germany. No doubt the self-appointed ringleaders will be getting deliberately wound up as a means of bolstering their own niche political causes.

Fortunately, most of us respect the England team’s quest for tolerance, fairness, and unity, and couldn’t care a less about the design of a flag label on the back of the players’ shirts. We just want to watch a decent game of football.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch