Tuesday, September 03, 2024

Don’t stop with taking down Thatcher’s portrait

By David Osland

Peter Mandelson famously once proclaimed: “We are all Thatcherites now.” The former MP for Hartlepool was speaking for himself, of course.

That precise choice of words, annunciated in Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper The Times, was primarily designed to discomfit anyone foolishly harbouring vaguely pinko sentiments in the Labour Party of the early 2000s.

But the barb packed a punch. The Third Way, the label dreamed up by those who sought to dignify Labour’s political direction of the period by according it the standing of an ideology, very much did take the Thatcher revolution as its starting point.

Privatisation was extended rather than reversed. Economic policy remained within a free market framework. Bob-a-job businessmen were systematically glorified and even gifted with ministerial appointments. Council houses continued to be sold.

The need for nuclear weapons went unquestioned. There were one or two important concessions on employment rights, but the anti-union laws stayed on the statute books.

In short, New Labourism came to praise Caesar, not to bury her. Those of us who maintained that most of Britain’s long-running problems were deepened rather than resolved on her watch went unheeded.

As if to acknowledge the intellectual debt, prime minister Gordon Brown later commissioned a portrait of Margaret Thatcher, at a cost of £100,000 at the price levels then prevailing. The painting has graced 10 Downing Street ever since.

Well, until recently, anyway. Word that Keir Starmer has ordered its removal has been a major news story in Britain this week.

Uproar on the front page of the Daily Mail. Predictable condemnations followed from the usual suspects on the much-diminished front bench of the Conservative Party.

But who are they to deny the tenant of rented property the right to change disagreeable wall hangings?

I have been to countries in which it is obligatory for shops and offices – and highly advisable for private homes – to display a picture of the monarch or the president for life. They haven’t tended to be happy places.

Starmer came to political activism in the Thatcher era and some of the credible causes he stood for at the time make it inconceivable that he did not share the dislike of Thatcher not uncommon during that period.

That is the context for an article that appeared under his byline in a stridently rightwing publication as recently as last December, in which he praised Thatcher for bringing about “meaningful change” and even “setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism”.

It won’t have won over many Tories. But it put a lot of Labour backs up.

Some of Starmer’s critics have burdened him with accusations of insincerity, seeing in him a propensity to say whatever any given audience wants to hear. Bigging up Maggie in the Sunday Telegraph is the kind of thing that hands them ammunition.

The truth is that Margaret Thatcher is not a saint. She doesn’t intercede with the Almighty in Heaven on behalf of control of the M2 money supply. Touching the hem of her garments does not cure those suffering from the king’s evil. The veneration of her relics is not compulsory.

Yet somehow she has been elevated to the status of deity in the cult that was still in government until a couple of months ago, with Liz Truss even cladding herself in quaintly anachronistic pussybow blouses, as befits a true votary.

I’d put a decent wager on every one of the six people running for the Conservative leadership styling themselves a Thatcherite at some point in the coming campaign. The invocation of the sacred name still has the power to find the selectorate’s G-spot.

Britain has now rejected these people, and Starmer has pledged his administration to a decade of national renewal. God knows we need that.

Taking down Thatcher’s portrait is the perfect symbolic starting point; the question now is whether he will take down her political legacy.

David Osland is a long-time leftwing journalist and author. Follow him on Twitter at @David__Osland

Image: Margaret Thatcher. Source: Nationaal Archief: entry ad2e0288-d0b4-102d-bcf8-003048976d84. Photographer: Rob Bogaerts for Anefo, available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

UK

How state violence has devastated the lives of disabled people


The government’s relentless attacks on benefit claimants is still continuing, reports John Pring, whose book The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence is published by Pluto this month.

In August, I spent a week or so visiting 12 campaigners I have grown to respect so much over the last decade. Some of them were disabled people, but all had one thing in common: they had a relative whose death was caused, or at least accelerated, by the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

I travelled across the country, to London, to Milton Keynes, to Nottinghamshire, to Stockton-on-Tees and to the far north-east of Scotland. Everyone I visited has lived through state violence that ripped a hole in their lives.

The evidence I detail in The Department shows how the DWP’s actions caused hundreds, and almost certainly thousands, of deaths of disabled people over the last 15 years. All of them had relied on the state for financial support, for social security. All of them were betrayed by the DWP.

Most of the deaths were linked to the processes the DWP has used to assess the eligibility of disabled people for various benefits, particularly the notorious work capability assessment. My research in the National Archives suggests the origin of these tragedies lies in the late 1980s, and particularly in a memo written by Secretary of State for Social Security John Moore to John Major, then the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It discusses the need to “tackle the rising expenditure” on disability benefits.

From that date onward, it is possible to trace how civil servants, politicians and the private sector began to pick away at the threads of the social security safety net. As I write in my book, that memo set successive governments on a path that would lead to countless deaths through what academics have called “slow bureaucratic violence”.

The violence was certainly slow. None of this happened overnight and in fact it took many years for the worst of the violence to erupt in the austerity years of the early 2010s. But The Department shows exactly how the everyday actions of bureaucrats, ministers and private sector executives combined to cause that terrible violence.

My book details research I’ve carried out over the last decade, but it was built on firm foundations laid by the disabled people’s movement in the early 2010s, particularly those activists who fought to highlight the impact of austerity on disabled people. Using freedom of information requests, I squeezed bits of truth from a resistant and dishonest DWP, and in more recent years uncovered the evidence in the National Archives that showed the origins of this violence.

Woven between the results of this research are the awful stories of some of the disabled people who lost their lives. Among them were Errol Graham, who had recently been sectioned and starved to death after his benefits were stopped because he failed to turn up to an assessment; Michael O’Sullivan, whose suicide was triggered – according to a coroner – by being wrongly found fit for work; and James Oliver, who was terminally ill and living in squalor but still didn’t qualify for personal independence payment because of the lies written about him in his assessment report.

These tragedies showed how this violence has devastated the lives of disabled people across boundaries of race, sex and class. But The Department also shows how the DWP has attempted to cover up and justify its actions, and how it ignored and resisted appeals from disabled people and their allies to make its systems safe.

The stories of those who died are not only heart-breaking and shocking: they are also crucially important, because the new Labour government is about to embark on its own series of reforms of the social security system – of the work capability assessment (which killed Stephen Carré, Jodey Whiting, Mark Wood, David Barr and Roy Curtis), of the sanctions system (which killed David Clapson) and of personal independence payment (which killed Philippa Day).

My visits last month, delivering copies of my book to the families, showed none of them had recovered from the trauma caused by the DWP.

Anne-Marie O’Sullivan, who has fought with such tenacity for more than a decade to expose the truth about her father, Michael, told me that the “toxicity” within the department remains. “I would clear them all out and start again,” he said. “I feel embarrassed for them, that they can inflict so much cruelty and suffering on vulnerable people and their families who are left behind.”

When I asked Anne-Marie if anything surprised her about what she had learned about the DWP, she said: “I was probably shocked by their dishonesty, by their lack of compassion, their lack of professionalism. They knew people were dying but they didn’t value a claimant’s life. They also placed no value on the claimant’s family, because the person who died was a benefit claimant.”

Mo Ahmed, whose sister Faiza took her own life in 2014, hours after a toxic jobcentre interaction with a DWP work coach, says he will never be the same person he was before her death. “I don’t think I will ever be the same Mo, because my sister was taken away from me and she shouldn’t have been. I have a little boy who is four who will never see his auntie. I have as much closure as I will ever get. I don’t think I will ever get over that.”

But The Department does not argue that this is a scandal of the past.

I am now hearing of the same pressures being caused by the rollout of universal credit that I heard all those years ago when the DWP was rolling out the work capability assessment in the early 2010s. There is the same complacency, the same secrecy, the same dishonesty within the DWP. Only last month, I reported how three deaths of disabled people who took their own lives were linked to flaws within universal credit, despite the DWP previously dismissing fears about the safety of ‘vulnerable’ claimants as ‘misplaced’.

It is not too late to address these concerns, to make universal credit and other parts of the social security system safe, but I fear no-one – including Labour’s new Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall – is listening.

The Department is published by Pluto Press. For more information about the book, visit: https://www.thedepartmentbook.com/ John Pring is editor of the Disability News Service Website: www.disabilitynewsservice.com. Twitter: @johnpringdns



UK

Badger cull not over yet


SMILE

By Kevin Flack

The Labour Government’s announcement that the badger cull will end in this Parliament is good news for the future of farming and the protection of wildlife. It fulfils a manifesto commitment that said, “We will work with farmers and scientists on measures to eradicate Bovine TB, protecting livelihoods, so that we can end the ineffective badger cull.”

So why are so many animal campaigners and the authoritative Badger Trust not celebrating yet? This is because under current licences around another 50,000 badgers are to be culled this year across a swathe of western and midlands regions, with the same expected next year. Indeed, on the Labour announcement, culling could continue till 2029. This poses the question that if culling is ineffective, as recognised in the manifesto and previous announcements by well-respected Shadow Secretaries of State like Luke Pollard and Sue Hayman (a smallholder herself), why on earth is it continuing?

For those who plead legal reasons based on contracts already signed, surely the answer is to fulfil the payment obligations of those contracts but exempt those involved from actually culling any animals. Perhaps the most unscientific element of continuing the cull is that no one knows how many badgers are left out there. As the Badger Trust has stated, “They haven’t counted them and haven’t tested them but continue to slaughter them.”

Compensation payments from public money also continue to be paid to those farmers whose cattle contract Bovine TB – £80 million a year at present, showing that culling really isn’t having a serious effect. Last year 19,570 badgers were culled, bringing the overall total to 230,125. From “moving the goalposts,” as Tory Secretary of State Owen Patterson famously claimed, they may indeed have left the pitch altogether in some areas.

The cull would not have continued if some evidence did not exist that it was having an effect – one report showed a maximum reduction of 16% of Bovine TB in cattle herds where culling was taking place, although how much of this was down to culling, and how much to other factors, is unknown. Other scientific evidence outweighs this – detailed information on this aspect can be found in the Badger Trust’s 2024 report, Tackling Bovine TB Together.

Much is down to appeasing the National Farmers Union (NFU) which, under pressure from some of their members, wanted the previous government to be “seen to be doing something.” The NFU is, after all, probably the strongest union in the country when the Conservatives are in office. But way back in 2018, a Tory government inquiry showed that culling was not the answer.

It is credit to Labour Minister Daniel Zeichner and his team that they have confronted the NFU, even if the end of the cull has been delayed. It bodes well for Labour’s overall agricultural policy when Keir Starmer has been extremely close to them, with a farm visit in Wiltshire with NFU leader Minette Batters – ennobled in the government’s first list of new peers – happening in the very first week of his Labour leadership. 

Last year, Zeichner had already said firmly that, “I speak to a lot of farmers and unlike her (then DEFRA Secretary of State Therese Coffey) I don’t just tell them what they want to hear, I have to have answers.” In Wales, the Labour government ended culling in 2012 and has managed to significantly reduce Bovine TB outbreaks by other methods.

Brian May’s BBC2 documentary on the issue the week of the announcement was a good scientific exposé of the cull from someone who has not only engaged farmers in the debate but even taken the matter into the heart of the beast – Conservative Party Conference. This is important, because however overwhelming the animal welfare side of the argument, it is the science that must prevail. Professor Rosie Woodruffe and others who sat on the Conservative Government’s Independent Scientific Group on Bovine TB have come to the conclusion that culling badgers isn’t the answer  – these scientists are no bunny huggers, they culled hundreds of badgers themselves as part of their trials.

Bovine TB is mainly spread from cattle to cattle – and even cattle to badger – and the threefold way forward is clearly proper testing, better biosecurity and cattle vaccination. The government’s aim is to make England Bovine TB -free by 2028 using these methods.

 It would be churlish not to welcome the announcement of the end of the cull, but if it is “ineffective,” as Labour rightly claims, why on earth is it not immediate?

Kevin Flack is a member of a rural Constituency Labour Party and writes a monthly column on rural politics for Labour Briefing.

Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hellie55/24033275099 Author: hehaden. Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic CC BY-NC 2.0

BADGERS ARE RELATIVES TO WEASELS

WEASELS RIPPED MY FLESH FRANK ZAPPA (1970)

 

Challenges for the left in the twilight of neoliberalism


Mike Phipps reviews The Long Retreat: Strategies to Reverse the Decline of the Left, by  Boris Kagarlitsky. published by Pluto.

Boris Kagarlitsky should be no stranger to socialists here, having published nearly 20 books in the English language. His activism in Russia has frequently brought him into conflict with its different regimes. Most recently, the Putin apparatus designated him a ‘foreign agent’ and in February 2024 he was sentenced to five years detention in a prison colony. Jeremy Corbyn MP is one of the leading figures in the subsequently-created Kagarlitsky Solidarity Committee.

A pessimistic premise

The premise of Kagarlitsky’s new book, published just as he began his jail term, is pessimistic. The author warns: “Unfortunately, at the same time as public dissatisfaction with capitalism around the planet has reached an unprecedented scale, the left movement has finished up at the lowest point in its entire history. If this is not true on the organisational plane, then it is certainly the case on the ideological and moral level.”

That weakness allows not only right-wing populist forces to fuse economic grievances and culturally reactionary politics, but also helps corporate elites “to curtail, and if possible to end altogether, the participation of the masses in politics while preserving the formal institutions of parliamentarism, free elections and other conquests of liberal democracy.”

Kagarlitsky’s diagnosis of the state of the left is especially severe. He attacks a “culture and psychology in which belief in the possibility of major political successes is almost absent (and when such successes suddenly occur, the left is completely unready to take advantage of them). Meanwhile, enticing utopias have taken the place of realistic programmes for changing society and the economy. The combination of morally exalted utopianism with an absolutely mundane pragmatism, which preoccupies itself not just with ‘minor matters’ but with the pursuit of petty short-term gains, has ensured a fatal inability to devise any kind of strategy.”

The retreat is not just political, but intellectual too. Kagarlitsky is disapproving of the growing volume of literature that advocates ‘solutions’ – technocratic fixes – to society’s problems while remaining agnostic about the structural economic changes needed. He writes: “From the sphere of the possible and necessary, socialism is shifting once again to the sphere of the ideal and desirable, transforming itself into an ideological myth or moral principle while failing completely to provide leadership in the development of practical programmes and strategies.”

Kagarlitsky criticises the new utopianism for substituting what is desirable for a materialist analysis of what is objectively necessary and possible, based on an understanding of the current tendencies in the economic system. He singles out Rutger Bregman’s Utopia for Realists as an example of the new vogue for socialist dreaming and polemicises particularly against the idea of a universal basic income (UBI) as entirely compatible with the individualist philosophy of neoliberalism.

To be fair to Bregman, if he doesn’t discuss systemic transformation and political agency much, it’s because a lot of his ideas are indeed reformist and achievable within an overall capitalist framework. This does not make them inherently invalid, however, and the same applies to UBI.

Kagarlitsky’s excoriation of the left goes further, however. Referencing the 2022 truckers’ protest in Canada against compulsory vaccination, he says that “most members of the left intellectual and political elite also remained silent or uncritically repeated the discourse of the state propaganda” which sought to demonize the protestors as uneducated separatists. He accuses leftists of “snobbery and opportunism”, preferring to “socialise with refined members of the capital-city bourgeois establishment rather than to work with tough, harsh drivers, timber-cutters, steelworkers or farmers.”

I can’t comment specifically on the state of the Canadian left, but the broader allegation that the left generally is supposedly focused on cultural or identity issues that are of little interest to most working class people and that this has isolated them feels rather stale. Furthermore, to see mobilisations of people around far right talking points as an authentic expression of the working class is quite a slur on that class itself – especially given the sacrifice made by health workers in the pandemic. In any case, as the author admits, in France, the engagement of Melenchon’s movement with the ‘gilets jaunes’ protestors actually helped the left grow into a powerful electoral force.

It is true that neoliberalism fragments society for its own purposes, but the left’s espousal of minority rights is not an adaptation to this process, especially when combined with a mass orientation. The need for inclusivity and collectivism against racial division and supremacism is underlined by the rise of far right activism today, in the UK and elsewhere.

Kagarlitsky’s snipes at intersectionality supposedly undermining class solidarity do not really advance this discussion. His references to the “stigmatising of ‘white males’, which has become a key element in the culture wars” essentially accepts the terms of debate as framed by our enemies.

Has the left made a terrible mess of things? It’s not a picture I recognise but I suppose the validity or otherwise of this argument depends on how widely you define the left. Kagarlitsky casts the net pretty widely to include much of Latin America’s ‘pink tide’. Yet the ultimate failures of Venezuela’s Chavismo, Nicaragua’s Sandinismo, the left governments of Brazil, Peru and many other countries have complex causes that cannot easily be swept up in a blanket appraisal.

What happened in Russia?

Much of Kagarlitsky’s critique of the degeneration of the post-1917 Soviet political system is fairly orthodox. More interesting is his understanding of the imposition from the late 1980s on of a market economy, which he sees as growing organically from what had gone before – the collapse of planning into a series of internal lobbies.

He dismisses the “idealist illusion that it had been the rejection of ideological dogmas that caused the collapse of the system.” In fact, “the reality was the complete reverse. The evolution of the system created the need for the ruling circles to rid themselves of the fetters of ideology.”  In any case, the nomenklatura needed no encouragement to transform itself into a bourgeoisie.

The particular mafia capitalism that resulted was a product of the “anti-democratic reaction that was unfolding in the West combined with the results of the degeneration of the Soviet nomenklatura.” The replacement of a society based on industrial production with one oriented towards consumerism also had social consequences. “While industrial production brought people together in large collectives, consumption atomised them, causing them to perceive themselves primarily as individuals.”

The impact on mass consciousness – from the standpoint of the left which had traditionally relied on the organised working class – has been catastrophic. Society is simply falling apart. Meanwhile the elite has seen and used power, including state power, principally as a means of enhancing its wealth. For Kagarlitsky, the key question is: how is it possible to reform such a society?

A culture of consumption, contributing to widespread commercial manipulation and alienation, has been a feature of Western societies for far longer. As technocratic centrism came to dominate once radical parties, leftist intellectuals lamented the suffocating effect of consumerism on the working class, yet missed the key point, increasingly clear in the 21st century: in the long term, such a culture could not remotely guarantee the well-being of that class.

If post-war redistribution and the welfare state created conditions for greater working class prosperity and economic growth, the more recent rise of inequality and the erosion of public services are having the opposite effect, driving people into poverty and debt. For many, consuming even the basic necessities of life requires credit. “Workers did not feel the exploitation they suffered in the workplace to be as painful as the financial obligations beneath which they now laboured; work for a boss was becoming simply a means to provide financial capital with the opportunity to exploit them.”

In this light, attempts to humanise capitalism and mitigate its contradictions and antagonisms have proved pretty short-lived.

The fact that this fundamental crisis of the economic system runs alongside other crises, most notably the climate emergency, causes considerable confusion among progressives, contends Kagarlitsky. It allows big capital to advance solutions that leave its power intact, with the global working class footing the bill. Currently oil and gas corporations are willing to make the transition only if subsidised by the state. “Hence the European Union Recovery Instrument, founded in 2020, set about financing investments of 750 billion euros, needed to ensure the energy transition, on the condition that the funds would be obtained through borrowings on the international financial markets.”

Kagarlitsky concludes: “Those who will have to pay back the loans will be the generation of Greta Thunberg, people who support this agenda enthusiastically but show no inclination to discuss its financial component.” Failure to do so will lead the left to fall in behind the agenda of capital, for whom the energy transition is simply a new cycle of creative destruction. This is already creating enemies for the environmental movement among those required to pay for the transition.

There’s an essential truth here, but posing the issue in this provocative way may not take the debate very far forward. It’s absolutely right that the just transition cannot be achieved without confronting the power of capital, but it is ultimatistic to suggest that failure to call for the overthrow of that power condemns large sections of the climate justice movement to apparently colluding in the heightened exploitation of the working class. Is it really the case that climate justice activists are unwilling to consider who should pay for the transition?

Ukraine

I also found Kagarlitsky’s chapter on the war between Russia and Ukraine unconvincing. Kagarlitsky is right to suggest the roots of the conflict were primarily economic rather than ideological, but to attribute the war to the crisis of neoliberalism in general doesn’t tell us much.

Nor can the war be seen as a “mistake” that “then took on the form of a catastrophe.” As I have suggested elsewhere, from Russia’s standpoint, the war represents “the collective interests of the Russian ruling class: expanding the sphere of influence in which oligarchic capitalism can operate and fending off the threat from the West, whose anti-corruption rhetoric resonates with a growing professional class.” In short, it feeds real material interests and is neither an accident nor merely the whim of a dictatorial Putin.

Kagarlitsky notes on both sides the growth of a state presence in the economy, while recognising that this involvement may not operate in the interests of society. For that, economic and social changes will be necessary, “which in turn require that new people and forces come to power. Consequently, the events of 2022 once again confirmed that the left has a chance of gaining power when the old elites have not only exhausted their potential, but have also brought matters to an obvious breakdown, when the question is no longer one of constructing a new world, but of restoring at least the minimum necessary conditions for social reproduction.”

Despite the presence of right wing nationalists on both side, Kagarlitsky distinguishes between the way, in Ukraine, the need to oppose the external threat has brought about a greater cohesion in society, while in Russia the opposite has occurred. Increasingly, people are indifferent to the regime’s attempts to whip up chauvinistic sentiment for what many see as a pointless conflict.

A fighting spirit

There’s a lot more in this book and some of its ideas are more original than others. A short review can engage only with some of them. Whatever one’s assessment of Boris Kagarlitsky’s politics, one cannot but admire his courage in publicly opposing Putin’s war. It’s a principled stand which surprised some on the left, given his earlier support for the so-called People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk established in the Donbass in May 2014. For this stand he is now paying a heavy price.

Yet he continues to maintain a remarkable fighting spirit, highlighted in Patrick Bond’s Foreword. On being re-arrested earlier this year, Kagarlitsky posted to Telegram: “I continue to collect data and materials for new books, including descriptions of prison life – now in Moscow institutions. Anyway, see you soon! I am sure that everything will be fine eventually. We will see each other again both on the channel and in person. We just need to live a little longer and survive this dark period for our country.”

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


How significant is the UK partial arms embargo on Israel?

An analysis from Campaign Against the Arms Trade on the government’s decision to suspend 30 out of its 350 arms export licences to Israel – plus some proposed activities from Labour & Palestine.

Campaign Against the Arms Trade report:

The Foreign Secretary David Lammy made a statement to Parliament on the results of a review of arms export licences to Israel, announcing the suspension of 30 export licences for use by the Israeli military that could be used in Gaza. However, he stated that the ‘Open General’ licence relating to the F-35 combat aircraft, 15% of which is produced in the UK, and for which Israel is one of the recipient countries, would be exempted.

This statement came on the same day that Danish news outlet Information, together with NGO Danwatch, revealed that, for the first time, it has been possible to definitively confirm the use by Israel of an F-35 stealth fighter to carry out a specific attack in Gaza.

The attack took place on 13th July, on an Israeli-designated ‘safe zone’ in Al-Mawasi in southern Gaza, killing 90 people and injuring at least 300. The Israeli military claims that the target of the attack was Mohammed Deif, head of Hamas’s military wing. The attack involved three GBU-31 2000lb bombs, which have a ‘lethal radius’ of 360m, and are thus certain to kill large numbers of civilians when used in highly-populated areas. Such attacks are clear violations of the International Humanitarian Law principles of proportionality and distinction, and are likely war crimes.

The use of F-35s by Israel in the attack on Gaza has been confirmed since the beginning of the war, including their use to deliver 2000lb bombs. However, it has rarely if ever been possible to establish which type of aircraft was used to attack which targets. In this case, Danwatch uncovered an article describing Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant personally going to an F-35 base to thank the pilots involved, and the Israeli military has since confirmed in response to a request by Information and Danwatch that an F-35 carried out the attack.

The use of such advanced aircraft in intensive combat operations requires a constant supply of spare parts, and the US Defense Department says it has been moving at “breakneck speed” to increase the supply since the start of the war. This supply will certainly include spare parts from the UK.

Exports of parts for the F-35, whether for their manufacture or for spare parts, do not require individual export licences as they are covered by an “Open General” licence, and their supply is thus not recorded in regularly-published government information on export licences.  In his statement, David Lammy highlighted concerns around disrupting the global supply chain for the F-35, which the UK and its allies also use. However, there is nothing to preclude the government from simply removing Israel from the list of approved recipients for the Open General licence.

Sam Perlo-Freeman, Research Coordinator for Campaign Against Arms Trade said: “The government’s statement today that it is suspending 30 arms export licences to Israel is a belated, but welcome move, finally acting upon the overwhelming evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. But exempting parts for Israel’s F-35 is utterly outrageous and unjustifiable.

“These are by far the UK’s most significant arms supplies to the Israeli military, and just today we have confirmation that they have been used in one of the most egregious attacks in recent months. The government has admitted that there is a ‘clear risk’ that Israel is using fighter aircraft among other weapons to violate international humanitarian law. How can this ‘clear risk’ not apply to the F-35s? The only right and legal course of action is to end the supply of F-35 parts to Israel,along with the rest of UK arms sales.

And from Labour & Palestine:

(1) MODEL MOTION FOR LABOUR CONFERENCE – Uphold international law for Palestinians

Available online here.

Conference notes:

  • On July 12th, UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, said “Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse in Gaza… civilians are being pushed into ever deeper circles of hell.”
  • On July 19th, the International Court of Justice ruled Israel to be unlawfully occupying Palestinian land in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. It demanded Israel withdraws immediately, dismantles illegal settlements and pay reparations. It confirmed Israel is guilty of violating Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. 
  • The ICJ’s January finding that South Africa’s claims concerning the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide – and related prohibited acts identified in the Genocide Convention – are plausible.

Conference welcomes the decisions of the Labour government to restore UNRWA funding and abandon Tory attempts to block the International Criminal Court from holding Israeli leaders accountable for crimes against Palestinians.

Conference believes Britain has a moral and legal obligation not to assist violations of international law. We must commit to the application of international law, including abiding by rulings and judgements of the ICJ and ICC.

Conference believes the new Government should:

  • Support an immediate and permanent ceasefire.
  • Impose a full arms embargo until Israel complies with international law.
  • End trade with illegal settlements and all other trade that aids or assists Israel in maintaining its illegal occupation.


This motion is being circulated jointly by Labour & Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Available online here.

Rules and deadlines for Contemporary Motions for 2024 can be found at https://labour.org.uk/annual-conference/information-for-delegates/ If you wish to submit a motion on behalf of your organisation please do this before 5pm, Thursday  September 12th.
 


(2) LIVERPOOL EVENTPalestine – What should the new UK Government do?


Central Liverpool venue. Saturday September 21st, 16.30. Register here

With the Palestinian Ambassador to the UK: H.E Husam Zomlot.

Plus: Richard Burgon MP, Kim Johnson MP, John McDonnell MP, Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, Hugh Lanning (Labour & Palestine,) Fraser McGuire (‘Arise,’) Jess Barnard (Labour NEC member,) Maryam Eslamdoust (TSSA General Secretary,) Mick Whelan (ASLEF GS) & Matt Wrack.(FBU GS.)

On the eve of Labour Conference, join us in-person in Liverpool in solidarity with the Palestinian people & discuss the next steps in building our movement and putting our demands on the new UK Government.

Hosted by Labour & Palestine, with Arise – a Festival of Left Ideas. Refreshments provided. Sponsored by over 200 individual donations – thanks to all! Free event but solidarity donations essential to hosting costs.
 


(3) ACTION ALERT – Call on Keir Starmer to stop arms sales to Israel!


Add your name here // FB share here // RT here

In line with international law, and the ICJ ruling on there being a case of plausible genocide in the Gaza war, there should be an embargo on arms sales to Israel.

Add your name here // FB share here // RT here
 


(4) NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION – September 7th, 12.00, Central London.
More information here

We must keep taking to the streets for Palestine. Join us as we once again march through London to demand – end the genocide, stop arming Israel, no Middle East war, no to Islamophobia!

Why War, Peace & Palestine are Trade Union Issues

Palestinian trade unions have called on unions internationally to do everything in their power to end complicity with Israel’s war crimes and we’ve seen many acts of solidarity in workplace days of action for Palestine.

By Jennie Walsh, Stop the War

The trade union movement has been at the heart of Stop the War’s work since its foundation in 2001 in response to George W Bush’s declared “war on terror”. We have worked with trade unions ever since, in recognition that war and peace are class issues and that internationalism is the very essence of trade unionism. It is through the power of organised working people that we have the capacity to change society. 

This is why it’s vitally important that trade unionists engage in politics and political campaigns that are not directly related to saving jobs or increasing wages, and why Stop the War is holding a fringe meeting at this year’s TUC Congress to debate these issues. 

Let’s not forget that trade unionists were deeply involved in the protests against the Vietnam war, in the campaign against apartheid in South Africa and the civil rights movement in America. And thousands of trade unionists were murdered by General Pinochet’s henchmen in Chile.

As we watch the genocide in Gaza play out on our screens in real time, we see how war, peace and Palestine are trade union issues. British-made bombs and components are raining down on ordinary working people and on children.

And not just in Gaza. In Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, hundreds of thousands of people have paid with their lives as endless wars and needless slaughter continue.

Palestinian trade unions have called on unions internationally to do everything in their power to end complicity with Israel’s war crimes and we’ve seen many acts of solidarity in workplace days of action for Palestine and union banners aplenty on the national Palestine marches. Hundreds of workers and trade unionists blockaded the Foreign Office to demand the new Labour government ends its complicity in the genocide and immediately suspend all arms to Israel.

Labour has pledged to raise military spending by 2.5 per cent, in line with Tory plans. There’s always more money for bombs, while the rest of us face austerity. Every pound spent on militarisation is a pound less for tackling the cost of living and housing crises, rebuilding our crumbling schools and hospitals and reducing NHS waiting lists. Working people need welfare not warfare.

Stop the War has drafted two model resolutions for trade union activists to take to their branches – on Gaza and on Ukraine. The war in Ukraine can only be brought to an end through ceasefire and peace negotiations, not by the UK pumping another £3 billion worth of weaponry into the country. The resolution urges that the billions of taxpayers’ money being used to arm Ukraine are only serving to escalate and prolong the war and should be used instead on improving the lives of people here who are living in poverty and deprivation. 

On Palestine, the resolution calls on union executive bodies to add the union’s name to those calling for an immediate ceasefire and support the call from Palestinian trade unions to coordinate solidarity efforts with other unions in the UK and internationally. It also calls on them to support the national Palestine marches and affiliate to Stop the War and Palestine Solidarity Campaign, to help us build the movement needed to force Keir Starmer to back peace and justice around the world.


For the sake of Palestinian lives, International Law must be upheld

“Israel’s operations have enforced human suffering on a vast scale. The UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates 1.9million – over 90 per cent of Gaza’s population – have been displaced.”

Ben Folley, writes on Labour and Palestine’s model motion, which highlights the urgent need for International Law to be upheld and respected for the sake of Palestinian lives.

Israel’s relentless military assault on the Palestinian people of Gaza is fast approaching the milestone of a full year and with no end in sight.

The war directed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has seen the collective punishment of a whole people, with civilians deliberately targeted by Israel’s military tactics and repeatedly subject to Israeli airstrikes and ground force attacks.

The approach of targeting civilians was clear from the start of the Israeli action, when Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, said on 9th October 2023, ‘I have ordered a complete siege of Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel.’

That message has been emphasised by other hardline members of the Israeli Government in subsequent remarks. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said, in the same month, ‘hundreds of tons of explosives should enter the region instead of aid’ whilst another minister, Bezalel Smotrich argued in recent days that, ‘it might be justified and moral’ to starve the population of Gaza.

Israel’s operations have enforced human suffering on a vast scale. The UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates 1.9million – over 90 per cent of Gaza’s population – have been displaced, some multiple times, by Israeli-demanded evacuation orders.

The quantity of explosive ordnance used by Israel – approximately 70,000 tons of bombs in the first six months – has been described as far exceeding the volume of bombs dropped on Dresden or Hamburg in passages of World War Two.  

The impact of that is that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency recently estimated two in every three buildings in Gaza are damaged, citing the United Nations Satellite Centre. These have included hospitals and other health centres, schools and nurseries, and residential homes as well as key infrastructure supplying energy and water.

And the scale of the assault means Palestinians are dying in huge numbers. The attacks on them are responsible for over 40,000 reported deaths with estimates of a further 10,000 missing under the rubble, and over 90,000 injured in Gaza.

That human suffering is why human rights organisations and from the UN General Secretary down have been calling for an immediate ceasefire for months and why calls for the suspension of arms sales licenses to Israel are growing louder.

Israel’s actions have been challenged at the UN and in international legal fora. The UN General Assembly has called for a ceasefire, whilst South Africa has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice, which ruled there was a plausible case of genocide taking place. The International Criminal Court chief prosecutor too has sought arrest warrants for Netanyahu and others over responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Labour in opposition demanded that the Conservative Government publish legal advice on whether Israel had broken international humanitarian law. Since assuming office, Foreign Secretary David Lammy has said he has requested advice but campaigners have been concerned about the delay to any decision on UK arms sales to Israel, as Palestinians continue to die.

Labour members at conference have demonstrated their solidarity with the Palestinians at annual conference time and again. This year, with Palestinians dying in their thousands and Labour now in power, the need to demonstrate that solidarity is more urgent than ever.

You can view the text of the model motion below: 

Uphold international law for Palestinians

Conference notes:

  • On July 12, UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, said “Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse in Gaza… civilians are being pushed into ever deeper circles of hell.”
  • On 19 July, the International Court of Justice ruled Israel to be unlawfully occupying Palestinian land in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. It demanded Israel withdraws immediately, dismantles illegal settlements and pay reparations. It confirmed Israel is guilty of violating Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. 
  • The ICJ’s January finding that South Africa’s claims concerning the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide – and related prohibited acts identified in the Genocide Convention – are plausible.

Conference welcomes the decisions of the Labour government to restore UNRWA funding and abandon Tory attempts to block the International Criminal Court from holding Israeli leaders accountable for crimes against Palestinians.

Conference believes Britain has a moral and legal obligation not to assist violations of international law. We must commit to the application of international law, including abiding by rulings and judgements of the ICJ and ICC.

Conference believes the new Government should:

  • Support an immediate and permanent ceasefire.
  • Impose a full arms embargo until Israel complies with international law.
  • End trade with illegal settlements and all other trade that aids or assists Israel in maintaining its illegal occupation

  • This motion is being circulated jointly by Labour & Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
  • You can follow Labour & Palestine on Twitter/X and Facebook
  • Rules and deadlines for Contemporary Motions for 2024 can be found here. If you wish to submit a motion on behalf of your organisation please do this before 5pm, Thursday 12 September.
  • The National March for Palestine takes place on Saturday, 7th September, assembling in Central London from 12PM

Coalition Statement: Stop Met Police threats over Saturday’s March for Palestine 

“We urge the Metropolitan police to avoid causing disruption and accept that the march should go ahead at the normal.”

The coalition organising demonstrations for Palestine has published a statement in response to the Metropolitan Police’s threats of restrictions against the demonstration, with the statement supported by left MPs and leading trade unionists.

We are concerned that the Metropolitan Police are threatening to place restriction orders on next Saturday’s Palestine protest, delaying the start time by one and a half hours to 2.30pm and refusing us Pall Mall as an assembly point. 

No explanation has been given for these moves, made at 4pm on Friday after the police themselves cancelled a meeting to discuss the demo on Thursday morning. 

The normal assembly time of 12pm and the assembly point has been public for days. 

Changing the start time of the demonstration, which is marching to the Israeli Embassy, from the normal 1pm to 2.30pm is completely unpractical and will cause major problems, especially for people coming from outside London.

The organisers first informed the police of their plans on 8 August, more than three weeks ago. We worry that these kind of delays and late challenges and conditions to the plans of what are entirely peaceful demonstrations are forming a pattern. We urge the Metropolitan police to avoid causing disruption and accept that the march should go ahead at the normal, planned time and from Pall Mall as announced.

Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Palestinian Forum in Britain
Friends of Al-Aqsa
Stop the War Coalition
Muslim Association of Britain
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Signed by:
Apsana Begum MP
Baroness Christine Blower 
Richard Burgon MP
Ian Byrne MP
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Lord Bryn Davies
Maryam Eslamdoust, TSSA General Secretary
Alex Gordon, RMT President
Fran Heathcote, PCS General Secretary
Lord John Hendy
Imran Hussain MP
Daniel Kebede, NEU General Secretary
Ayoub Khan MP
Ian Lavery MP
John Leach, RMT Assistant General Secretary
Clive Lewis MP
Mick Lynch, RMT General Secretary
Andy McDonald MP
John McDonnell MP
Iqbal Mohammed MP 
Grahame Morris MP
Zarah Sultana MP 
Jon Trickett MP
Mick Whelan, ASLEF General Secretary
Sarah Woolley, BFAWU General Secretary


  • The National March for Palestine takes place on Saturday, 7th September, assembling at 12PM.