Sunday, May 26, 2024

CANADA

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

House of Commons committee recommends feds tackle 'excessive' profits in food sector

The federal government should consider policies to tackle “excessive net profits” in the food industry, the House of Commons committee studying food prices said in its latest report. 

The committee recommended the government look into ways to address these profits in "monopolistic and oligopolistic sectors in the food supply chain," which it says are driving up prices for farmers and consumers.

In a report presented on Thursday, the committee detailed its research into the causes of food inflation and insecurity in Canada, including the high-profile testimony of grocery executives over the past several months.

The leaders of Loblaw, Metro, Sobeys-owner Empire, Walmart Canada and Costco have all faced questions from MPs over the size of their profits amid high food inflation, which the grocers say they haven't unduly profited from.  

The committee report offered a number of recommendations that range from lowering the barriers to entry for new companies to Canada, to making legislative changes to strengthen competition law regarding mergers. 

The committee also recommended that the government discuss with the provinces and territories legislation to make the grocery code of conduct mandatory.

It comes on the heels of an announcement from Loblaw that it plans to sign on to the code after months of pressure on the country's largest grocer to participate.

The industry-led code is intended to help level the playing field for smaller companies in the industry. 

It's meant to be voluntary, but in recent months pressure has grown on the government to make it law instead as not all of the major grocers appeared to be willing to sign on.

In December, Loblaw and Walmart told the committee they were concerned it would increase prices for Canadians. And earlier this year, the committee wrote a letter to those two grocers, saying if they didn't sign on, it would recommend that the code be made mandatory.

Last week, Loblaw announced that after months of discussions it was ready to sign on to the code as long as all stakeholders do.

"The code now is fair, and it will not lead to higher prices," said president and CEO Per Bank. 

At the time, Walmart said the company is reviewing the latest draft of the code. 

The grocer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither did Costco. 

The Retail Council of Canada declined to comment on the report. 

Michael Graydon, CEO of the Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada association and chairman of the interim board for the code, said the group is "very supportive" of all the committee's recommendations. 

When it comes to the code, "our industry's desire is a fully inclusive code that involves all stakeholders. That remains our goal and so (I) am hopeful that can be achieved," he wrote in an email. 

Francis Chechile, a spokesman for Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay, said the government has been clear that it supports an industry-led code, but that after years of work, "it's well past (time) that all major retailers join the Code."

The government is calling on the remaining large retailers to sign on to the code as their participation is vital to its success, Chechile said in a statement.

"In the meantime, we are exploring all available federal options, including legislation. As key aspects of the Code would fall under provincial jurisdiction, we have encouraged provincial and territorial governments to do the same.”

The committee's report references research the Competition Bureau released last year that noted the Canadian grocery sector has become increasingly concentrated through a series of mergers and acquisitions in recent decades.

The Competition Bureau is currently investigating the use of restrictive clauses in the grocery sector, controls in lease agreements that it claims hamper competition in the industry. 

And industry minister François-Philippe Champagne has said he’s seeking a foreign grocer to strengthen competition in the Canadian market.

The report's recommendations include that the government should empower the Competition Tribunal to dissolve or prohibit a merger if that merger would result in excessive combined market share. It also recommends that the law be strengthened by shifting the burden onto merging companies to prove that their deal won't hurt competition. 

A spokeswoman for Champagne's office highlighted recent changes the government has made to the Competition Act, saying bills C-56 and C-59 "have already addressed concerns such as curbing excessive profits, strengthening competition law, and facilitating fair market access."

The best way to lower prices and help smaller players is to increase competition, spokeswoman Audrey Milette said in a statement, adding that having more players in the market is one way to put downward pressure on prices. 

"We will continue to stand up for Canadians by working with provincial and territorial partners to make life more affordable and continue to hold corporations accountable."

Though grocery inflation has moderated significantly from its highs, reaching just 1.4 per cent in April, prices have risen 21.4 per cent over the past three years. The resulting squeeze on consumers' wallets combined with higher interest rates has led to public pressure for the government — and the grocers — to act. Some consumers have launched a boycott of Loblaw, the biggest of the Canadian grocers, to voice their frustrations. 

The grocers, especially Loblaw, have been expanding the number of discount grocery stores in their portfolios to meet increasing demand from Canadians for lower prices. In turn, their discount stores have been major drivers of overall sales growth. 

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 24, 2024.


Competition Bureau probes alleged anticompetitive conduct by Loblaws, Sobeys owners

Canada's Competition Bureau has launched investigations into the parent companies of grocery chains Loblaws and Sobeys for alleged anticompetitive conduct, court documents reveal, with Sobeys' owner calling the inquiry "unlawful." 

The Federal Court documents show the Commissioner of Competition launched the probes on March 1, saying there's reason to believe the firms' use of so-called property controls limits retail grocery competition. 

The commissioner claims the controls that the grocery giants have baked into lease agreements are designed to restrict other potential tenants and their activities and are hampering competition in the grocery market.

The Competition Bureau revealed its investigation into the use of property controls in the grocery sector in February.

At the time, deputy commissioner Anthony Durocher told a House of Commons committee that property controls can be a barrier both for independent grocery stores and chains looking to expand, as well as for foreign players looking to enter Canada.

That’s why in a report last June, the bureau recommended the government limit their use in the grocery sector in order to help boost competition and make it easier for new supermarkets to open.

Industry minister François-Philippe Champagne has said he’s seeking a foreign grocer to strengthen competition in the Canadian market.

Loblaw Cos. Ltd. and Sobeys parent Empire Co. Ltd. are two of the three major Canadian grocery companies and each owns a number of grocery chains across the country.

Details of the investigations are contained in a pair of court applications lodged by the commissioner on May 6. 

Sobeys owner Empire has pushed back against the investigation, saying in a separate court application that the probe gave the commissioner "the appearance of a lack of independence" amid public criticism from federal politicians over grocery pricing and retailers' conduct. 

Loblaws' parent company is co-operating with the bureau's review, said spokeswoman Catherine Thomas on behalf of George Weston Ltd.

"Restrictive covenants are very common in many industries, including retail. They help support property development investments, encouraging opening of new stores and capital risk-taking," she said.

The commissioner applied in the Federal Court to order Empire and George Weston to hand over records about real estate holdings, lease agreements, customer data and other records. 

In the court documents, the commissioner describes Empire and George Weston’s holdings in real estate investment trusts, or REITs. In both cases, the companies’ own grocery banners are significant tenants for the real estate companies.

Through a subsidiary, Empire holds a 41.5 per cent interest in Crombie Real Estate Investment Trust, and Empire is an anchor tenant in the majority of Crombie’s properties, the documents say, adding that Empire’s ownership interest in Crombie puts it in a position to exercise influence over the REIT. 

George Weston has a controlling ownership interest of 61.7 per cent in Choice Properties Real Estate Investment Trust, and Loblaw accounted for more than half of Choice Properties’ rental revenue in 2023, the documents say — and Choice Properties and Loblaw have a strategic alliance under which the REIT has agreed to “significant restrictions” limiting “its ability to enter into leases with supermarket tenants other than Loblaw.” 

The commissioner's probe is focused on the companies' operations in Halifax, but also more broadly across the country. 

The documents show the inquiries are zeroing in on two types of property controls in contracts and commercial leases used by the grocery retailers "in many markets in Canada." 

Restrictive covenants in private contracts, the commissioner says, "limit or restrict" how a piece of land can be used and can apply even after changing ownership. 

The covenants can "leave restrictions or exclusions on competitors that extend beyond ownership of the land, sometimes for decades," the applications say. 

The probes are also looking into "exclusivity clauses" in commercial lease agreements that "limit or restrict" who a landowner can lease to and which products can be sold by other parties close to another leaseholders' business. 

"According to market participants, property controls are widespread in the retail grocery sector, impacting where and how businesses can compete in the retail sale of food products," the commissioner claims. 

The property controls, the commissioner says, may give the companies "the ability to exclude actual or potential competitors from selling food products within certain geographic areas or to dictate the terms upon which they carry on business." 

“This is a novel case,” said Michael Osborne, chair of the Canadian competition practice at law firm Cozen O’Connor.

Previous cases alleging abuse of dominance involved companies with significantly more market power than George Weston or Empire have individually, said Osborne.

Therefore, the Bureau will have to argue that the companies are jointly dominant because they're using the same tools and together represent a large portion of the market, he said. 

“The Bureau has never brought a joint dominance case before.” 

Sobeys parent Empire claims the commissioner was wrong to start the inquiry because it doesn't have a "dominant" market position.

In a separate application in Federal Court that has yet to be decided by a judge, the company denies that property controls are anti-competitive and says they "are not unique to the grocery sector, but have been widely used for decades in a range of retail and other sectors across the country."  

Empire also claims the inquiry was launched for an "improper purpose," claiming the grocery sector has been the subject of an "inordinate" amount of attention from politicians. 

The company says the Competition Commissioner must make decisions independently and "free from political interference and direction." 

Empire says the decision to launch an inquiry, amid a wave of criticism over rising grocery prices, raises "at least the appearance of a lack of independence of the Commissioner."  

The company's lawyer declined to comment since the matter is still before the courts. 

Competition Bureau spokeswoman Sarah Brown confirmed the formal investigations launched March 1 and said the Bureau had filed a motion to strike Empire’s application for judicial review. 

She declined to comment further, citing ongoing court proceedings.

The bureau is using new tools it gained from recent amendments to the Competition Act that broaden the scope of the kinds of agreements it can look into.

Canada’s major grocers have recently been under public and political pressure as food prices have risen by double digits over just a handful of years.

The grocers have denied allegations of so-called greedflation, but the government has called on them to take action to stabilize food prices. All three major Canadian grocers have also agreed to participate in an industry-led code of conduct meant to help level the playing field for suppliers and smaller grocery retailers.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 24, 2024.

 

Canadians feel grocery inflation getting worse, 18% are boycotting Loblaw: poll

Almost two-thirds of Canadians feel that inflation at the grocery store is getting worse, a new poll suggests, even as food inflation has been steadily cooling.

A new Leger survey found that almost 30 per cent of Canadians believe food inflation has been primarily caused by grocery stores trying to increase profit margins. Another 26 per cent think it’s mostly due to global economic factors, while one in five blame the federal government

Inflation on groceries was 1.4 per cent in April and helped drive overall inflation lower to 2.7 per cent, Statistics Canada said.

However, even low inflation still means prices are going up. And over the past three years, grocery prices have risen 21.4 per cent, according to the agency.

The major grocers have said they did not unduly profit from inflation, amid political and public pressure over the rising cost of food and other necessities.

A group of consumers organized a boycott of Loblaw-owned stores in May over frustrations with higher prices and industry concentration.

Seven out of 10 Canadians polled said they are aware of the ongoing boycott, and 58 per cent said they support it, but only 18 per cent say that they or someone in their household have joined the boycott.

The poll highlights rural and urban residents’ differing views on the boycott, and suggests it’s more difficult for those living outside an urban area to participate in a boycott of Loblaw-owned grocery stores.

Urban residents polled by Leger were more likely to say they support the boycott than suburban and rural residents, and were more likely to be participating in it as well.

About half of Canadians say it seems unfair that the boycott targets only Loblaw, and almost two-thirds of respondents don’t think the boycott will have an effect on grocery prices. Urban residents were more likely to say they think the boycott will help lower prices, with almost three-quarters of rural Canadians polled saying they think the boycott won’t impact prices.

For those taking part in the boycott, 40 per cent say they are turning to a “big box grocery store” such as Costco or Walmart, 31 per cent said they are turning to another national grocery chain like Sobeys or Save on Foods, and 23 per cent said they are shopping at an independent local grocery store.

Rural boycott participants were more likely to be shopping at an independent store than participants in urban and suburban areas.

Leger surveyed 1,519 Canadians between May 17 and May 19, asking about grocery inflation, the Loblaw boycott and grocers’ profits. Online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 22, 2024.

This is a corrected story. A previous version misstated the statistic on how many Canadians were boycotting Loblaw in the headline.


 

Ukraine's Early Decentralization Attempts

2024, Ukraine’s Decentralization: Challenges and Implications of the Local Governance Reform after the Euromaidan Revolution

11 Pages
UK

The Levellers, Labour and defending democracy under threat – by Beth Winter MP

“The period saw an explosion of political discussion in inns and taverns of the growing towns. The rise of the printing press and production of political pamphlets – some of which survive – tell us much of the development of Leveller ideas through argument and discussion.”


The following article is based on a speech Beth Winter gave to the Levellers Day event at Burford on Saturday 18th May at a panel discussion on Democracy Under Threat, with Gawain Little of the GFTU and John Rees, author of The Leveller Revolution.

The theme of today’s discussion – of democracy being under threat – is as true today, as it was when the Levellers organised in the 1640s.

Just then, as now, there was a titanic struggle between two major factions, to rule the country – the Royalists and the Parliamentarians. We too today have a struggle between two great established parties of state, to rule the country – the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.

We know that that only reflects one dynamic. It is to a great extent about who holds executive power. Who occupies the offices of state. The Conservatives defeat we would welcome. Labour’s victory would be a step forward.

But we recognise too, that in either result, there are factors that limit how it affects the wider population.

Labour defeating the Conservatives does not guarantee there will be a change in the balance of class forces. It does not necessarily mean a transformative redistribution of power and wealth.

In the 1640s, the victory of the Parliamentarians over the Royalists demonstrated the forward march of society. The continued shift from a rural country governed by feudal power to the earliest beginnings of an increasingly urbanised country with developing industry.

This change that began gathered its own momentum as the early urbanised population and the beginnings of a socialised working class, in London and the other growing towns such as Norwich, Cambridge, Bristol and Newcastle, shared their ideas for progress and wanted to go further than their leaders wanted them to.

That discussion and debate was reflected within the Parliamentarian cause as it is in the Labour Party and increasingly outside that party in the wider labour and progressive movements today.

Democracy was under attack by Charles I. Today, democracy is under attack by the Conservatives.

Parliament sought to shackle Charles’ powers. But sought to do so in agreement with him. Today, Labour will challenge Conservative powers. But how much will it transform them?

In the 1640s, the Levellers, and also the True Levellers –known as the Diggers – organised amongst the rank and file of Parliament’s New Model Army.

Those like John Lilburne and Thomas Rainsborough, wished to change society a great deal more than Oliver Cromwell, or Henry Ireton did. They wanted the revolution that the civil war reflected to go further than the so-called ‘Grandees’ of the New Model Army.

The period saw an explosion of political discussion in inns and taverns of the growing towns. The rise of the printing press and production of political pamphlets – some of which survive – tell us much of the development of Leveller ideas through argument and discussion.

The pamphlet, ‘The Case of the Armie Truly stated’, which formed the basis of a later series of manifestos entitled, ‘An Agreement of the People’, was advocated by the Levellers at the Putney Debates, whilst Ireton advocated a more moderate ‘Heads of Proposals’ that sought accommodation with the king.

Some of those demands in key Leveller texts set out the basic tenets of a modern democratic process.

Extending suffrage and the right to stand for election to all ‘freeborn’ men, was set out as, “all men of the age of one and twenty veers and upwards (not being servants, or receiving alms, or having served in the late King in Arms or voluntary Contributions) shall have their voices; and be capable of being elected to that Supreme Trust”.

An end to political corruption and excessive high pay, described as, “to the end all publick Officers may be certainly accountable, and no Factions made to maintain corrupt Interests”.

Using taxation for the public good, “the raining of moneys, and generally to all things as shall be evidently conducing to those ends, or to the enlargement of our freedom, redress of grievances, and prosperity of the Common-wealth”.

And since the scale of military mobilisation of the English Civil War meant that an estimated one in seven men were recruited into the armed forces – they became the first mass great mass of public servants – and much of the Leveller agitation – as we see with public servants today – was around wages. In the 1640s, the New Model Army was left unpaid for several months, leading to agitation that became a political concern to Parliament.

In the pamphlet, ‘The Case of the Armie Truly Stated’, the Levellers argued, “the Soldier hath had no pay constantly provided, nor any security for Arreers given them, & that hitherto they could not obtain so much, as to be paid up equally with those that did desert the Army, …  It was declared, that it should be insisted upon resolvedly, to be done before the Thursday night after the sending the Remonstrance, and its now many moneths since.”

And these demands to improve pay and living conditions continue today. And as the movement organises today to advance its cause, so does the establishment create new measures to hold us in check.

The reverses for the progressive movement and the challenges facing us – as did the Levellers – are clear.

The corruption of ministers is a source of discussion today – just look at the Covid-19 fast-track contracts , or look at the ‘revolving door’ of leaving a ministry and securing a job in the city or on the board of a FTSE-100 company.

The use of taxation for good, as we continue to debate how public money is spent, and how much is available to government, and how much is levied on the super-wealthy, rather those on low incomes – is alive today.

And on the withholding of pay – as with the New Model Army – the public servants of the day – we have seen railway workers, teachers, nurses and doctors, civil servants and postal workers have their pay cut over many years of Conservative Government.

And the opportunity to express our opposition, just as Leveller pamphlets were suppressed and the protests at Putney, or at Burford, are today clamped down on through the Elections Act, the Strikes Act and the Public Order Act.

So whilst we can oversimplify the comparisons – and we should be thankful Britain is not in civil war – there are parallels today between the struggles of the past and the campaigns we will wage in the future.

We want to throw out this Conservative Government. But we will not be satisfied without real change in Westminster and Whitehall.

We campaign for real change, for transformative change, for the extension power and wealth to our own class, as did the Levellers so that we can decide our own futures and not wait for those on high to decide it for us.

And so in concluding, and with democracy under threat, it is worth recalling perhaps the most famous quote of the Levellers – that put by Thomas Rainsborough during the Putney Debates:

‘I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he, and therefore truly, sir, I think it is clear to every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government.’


  • Beth Winter is the MP for Cynon Valley and a regular contributor to Labour Outlook, you can follow her on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X.
  • The article is based on a speech Beth Winter gave to the Levellers Day event at Burford on Saturday 18th May at a panel discussion on Democracy Under Threat, with Gawain Little of the GFTU and John Rees, author of The Leveller Revolution.

An urgent call from Palestinian Trade Unions: End all complicity, stop arming Israel

“As Israel escalates its military campaign, Palestinian trade unions call on our counterparts internationally and all people of conscience to end all forms of complicity with Israel’s crimes.”

The Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) and other Palestinian trade union organisations have published the following statement, calling for workers around the world to halt the sale and funding of arms to Israel.

Israel has demanded that 1.1 million Palestinians evacuate the northern half of Gaza, whilst subjecting them to constant bombardment. This ruthless move is part of Israel’s plan, backed by unwavering support and active participation from the US and majority of European states, to carry out unprecedented and heinous massacres against 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza and to ethnically cleanse it altogether. Since Saturday Israel has indiscriminately and intensively bombarded Gaza, and cut off fuel, electricity, water, food, and medical supplies. Israel has killed more than 2,700 Palestinians – including 614 children – leveling whole neighbourhoods, wiping out entire families and injuring more than 10,000 people. Some international law experts have begun warning of Israel’s genocidal acts.

Elsewhere, Israel’s far-right government has distributed more than 10,000 rifles to extremist settlers in ‘48 Palestine and the occupied West Bank to facilitate their escalating attacks and pogroms against Palestinians. Israel’s actions, massacres, and rhetoric point to its intention to implement its long promised second Nakba, expelling as many Palestinians as possible and creating a ‘New Middle East’ in which Palestinians live in perpetual subjugation.

The response by Western states has been one of complete and total support for the State of Israel, without even a cursory nod towards international law. This has amplified Israel impunity, giving it carte blanche to carry out its genocidal war without limit. Beyond diplomatic support, Western states are supplying Israel with armament, sanctioning the operation of Israeli weapons companies within their borders.

As Israel escalates its military campaign, Palestinian trade unions call on our counterparts internationally and all people of conscience to end all forms of complicity with Israel’s crimes – most urgently halting the arms trade with Israel, as well as all funding and military research. The time for action is now – Palestinian lives hang in the balance.

This urgent, genocidal situation can only be prevented by a mass increase of global solidarity with the people of Palestine and that can restrain the Israeli war machine. We need you to take immediate action – wherever you are in the world – to prevent the arming of the Israeli state and the companies involved in the infrastructure of the blockade. We take inspiration from previous mobilisations by trade unions in ItalySouth Africa and the United States, and similar international mobilisations against the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930s, the fascist dictatorship in Chile in the 1970s and elsewhere where global solidarity limited the extent of colonial brutality.

We are calling on trade unions in relevant industries:

  1. To refuse to build weapons destined for Israel.
  2. To refuse to transport weapons to Israel.
  3. To pass motions in their trade union to this effect.
  4. To take action against complicit companies involved in implementing Israel’s brutal and illegal siege, especially if they have contracts with your institution.
  5. Pressure governments to stop all military trade with Israel, and in the case of the US, funding to it.

We make this call as we see attempts to ban and silence all forms of solidarity with the Palestinian people. We ask you to speak out and take action in the face of injustice as trade unions have done historically. We make this call in the belief that the struggle for Palestinian justice and liberation is not only a regionally and globally determined struggle. It is a lever for the liberation of all dispossessed and exploited people of the world.

Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, Gaza.
– General Union of Public Service and Trade Workers
– General Union of Municipal Workers
– General Union of Kindergarten Workers
– General Union of Petrochemicals Workers
– General Union of Agricultural Workers
– Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees
– Generation Union of Media and Print Workers
Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU)
General Union of Palestinian Teachers
General Union of Palestinian Women
General Union of Palestinian Engineers
Palestinian Accountants’ Association
Professional Associations Federation including:
– Palestinian Dental Association – Jerusalem Center
– Palestinian Pharmacists Association – Jerusalem Center
– Medical Association – Jerusalem Center
– Engineers Association – Jerusalem Center
– Agricultural Engineers Association – Jerusalem Center
– Veterinarians Syndicate – Jerusalem Center
Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate
Palestinian Bar Association
Palestinian Nursing and Midwifery Association
Union of Kindergartens Workers
Palestinian Postal Services Workers Union
Federation of Unions of Palestinian Universities Professors & Employees
The General Federation of Independent Trade Unions, Palestine
The Palestine New Federation of Trade Unions
Palestinian General Union of Writers
Palestinian Contractors Union
Federation of Health Professionals Syndicates
Palestinian Union of Psychologists and Social Workers


 UK

 

As Trade Unionists we must Demand Starmer Restore the Whip to Diane Abbott

“With the General Election looming, we must demand Keir Starmer restores the whip!”

By Logan Willians

Earlier this year, we saw the racist hatred faced by Diane Abbott – needless to say a bastion of the Labour Left and titan within the broader labour and social movements for decades– put under the national spotlight when it came out that the £10 million Tory party donor Frank Hester had said Diane Abbott on tv made him “just want to hate all black women because she’s there” and would later go onto state that he thinks “she should be shot”. Hester’s comments should not be dismissed as the crack pot ideas of one rogue Tory donor but, instead reflect a reactionary shift in the politics of both the establishment and British society which see’s the politics expressed by Diane as a threat that must be targeted as can be seen in Amnesty’s previous report into political targeting which placed Diane as the most targeted politician in Britain.

These racist and misogynistic attacks on Diane are not just a direct attack on Diane and the politics she stands for, they are part of a broader shift to the extreme right of British politics across both the establishment and, society more broadly. This can be seen in Lee Anderson, the former Conservative Party Deputy Chair’s claim that Islamists are ‘in control of London’ or former Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s claim that “Islamists” are “in charge” of Britain.

It is in recognition of this extreme right-wing offensive that two of the largest trade unions in Britain namely, the University College Union and the National Education Union, quickly expressed their total solidarity with Diane through various means. The UCU national executive rightfully recognised that not only had the “Tories refused to return donations from someone who spoke in deeply hateful, racist and misogynistic terms… but our Prime Minster refused to call it out and tried to suggest that a feeble apology was enough and should be accepted”. They would go on to “condemn the blatant double standards being applied to Diane Abbott by politicians on all sides of the house” as well as the “actions of this cruel and divisive government in whipping up racial and misogynistic tensions year after year for their own gain”.

They also explicitly called for the Parliamentary Labour Party whip to be restored to Diane, joining growing calls from across society and the Labour Party in support of Diane at that point, including the likes of Ed Balls, Harriet Harman and John McTiernan.

The National Education Union’s annual conference passed an Urgent Motion on the impact of racist language and violence on schools and communities. It was within this motion that the NEU recognised both the “2022 internal Labour Party Forde report which identified ‘overt and underlying racism and sexism’ towards Abbott and other Black MPs” within the Labour Party hierarchy and that the comments made by Hester towards Britain’s longest serving Black MP “normalises violence against women” and as such the Union voted overwhelmingly to offer its fully solidarity to Diane Abbott as well as strengthening its anti-fascist and anti-racist work. Following this debate NEU General Secretary Daniel Kebede would state the union “wants Diane Abbott and other women in public life to be able to do their jobs free from intimidation and threats”. He continued by stating that “comments and ideas which espouse violent, hateful rhetoric and encourage violence have no place in national public debate” as it will lead to serious consequences for the union’s members in education settings across the country.

The actions undertaken by both these Unions, in standing up and demanding justice for Diane Abbott – which must include the Parliamentary Labour Party whip being restored -reflects an understanding that the labour movement cannot stand idly by whilst the politics Diane has trailblazed within the British political sphere is tarnished and targeted by politicians and commentators who are not fit to tie the laces of Diane Abbott.  Following on from the campaigning work of the Voice newspaper, Labour Left groups and others the actions of UCU and NEU activists helped to lay down a gauntlet of action which the rest of the movement has been taking up more and more and has become urgent with the General Election being called. To give just two examples, the General Secretaries of four affiliated unions recently wrote to Keir Starmer demanding that the whip be restored, and over 15,000 people have now signed the petition on the same lines initiated by Arise – a Festival of Left Ideas and the Labour Assembly Against Austerity.

We must continue to build as broad a movement as possible in solidarity with the politics best represented in Diane Abbott’s lifetime of work; solidarity, socialism and, the core labour movement ideal that unity is strength. And with the General Election looming, we must demand Keir Starmer restores the whip!



SURGE IN SUPPORT FOR WHIP TO BE RESTORED TO DIANE ABBOTT

A GRASSROOTS PETITION CALLING ON KEIR STARMER TO RESTORE THE PARLIAMENTARY LABOUR PARTY WHIP TO DIANE ABBOTT HAS REACHED THE LANDMARK OF 15,000 SIGNATURES, WITH OVER 3,000 PEOPLE SIGNING IN LESS THAN A DAY.

Marking the petition reaching this level of support Labour member of the House of Lords Lord John Hendy KC, said, “The idea that Diane Abbott should not be permitted to stand as a Labour Party candidate in the forthcoming general election is unthinkable. It would be the ultimate insult on top of the catalogue of vile abuse she suffered at the hands of the Party recorded by Martin Forde KC in his Report. It must not happen.”

Former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP issued similar comments, saying, “I am appealing to Keir Starmer to restore the whip to Diane and let her stand as a Labour candidate. As the first Black woman MP and with her campaigning record on behalf of her community and the Labour Party, she is an iconic figure and especially inspiring to young Black women. I am just asking for her to be created fairly.”

Welcoming the surge in support for the campaign, BFAWU General Secretary Sarah Woolley said, “Diane Abbott has stood with trade unions for decades – and now workers across our trade unions are standing with Diane, a trailblazer who deserves our full solidarity. The amazing support for this petition shows what support she has out there – Labour should do the right thing and restore the whip without delay.”

The co-convenor of Stand up to Racism, Sabby Dhalu said, “Labour voters do not want a Parliamentary Labour Party that welcomes Natalie Elphicke but excludes Diane Abbott. As we enter a general election campaign Labour cannot afford to alienate Black voters. Polls show 80% of Black voters won’t vote Labour if Diane Abbott is not a Labour candidate. Labour must restore the whip to Diane Abbott.”

A similar position was expressed by Labour member of the House of Lords Shami Chakrabarti in comments to the Independent yesterday, when she said:“If the tent is big enough for her [Natalie Elphicke], I feel sure that Britain’s first Black woman MP, who has sustained more racist and misogynist abuse than anyone, will have her whip restored urgently.”

Giving a local perspective on the growing support for Diane, former Branch Labour Party and Hackney Local Campaigns Forum Secretary, Pat Corrigan, said: “Diane Abbott was democratically reselected by an overwhelming majority of Hackney North branches and affiliates. Keir Starmer should allow Diane to stand as our candidate. She is the members’ choice.”

All Hackney North and Stoke Newington Labour Party branches had voted overwhelmingly for Diane to be their candidate. She won re-election on eight occasions since she first stood for office since becoming the first Black woman MPs in British history in 1987. She opposed the Iraq War, challenged racist policing in Hackney and beyond and supports the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state.  She as a leading opponent of the immigration Act 2014, which led directly to the Windrush scandal and her speech on civil liberties, in the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008, won the Spectator magazine’s “Parliamentary Speech of the Year” award, and further recognition at the 2008 Human Rights awards.

Diane was the first Black woman to be elected to any national legislature in Western Europe, the first Black person to be included in Labour’s shadow cabinet as Shadow Home Secretary and is the longest serving Black Member of Parliament. Diane has faced levels of racism and misogyny that have shocked many across Britain. She commands respect internationally. while her commitment to be an effective voice in Parliament for Hackney residents remains unbreakable. She represents the best of Labour Party and movement values.

 She has helped transform the constituency into one of Labour’s safest seats, recording over 70% of the vote in 2019. Keir Starmer himself recognised her repeatedly as a “trailblazer”. Diane apologised swiftly and unreservedly for causing any offence after publication of a letter in the Observer last April. For 13 months she has awaited the outcome of a supposedly independent disciplinary process.

Many see a clear factional double standard in the treatment of Diane Abbott. Figures on the right of the Party have been treated far more leniently for more serious offences. Neil Coyle MP had the whip restored after initially being suspended for drunken abuse and making racist comments to a journalist. He then claimed the cost of an anti-racism course he attended on parliamentary expenses.  The MP had also reportedly previously had a complaint of sexual harassment upheld against him over an incident at a past Labour Conference.

Barking and Dagenham Council Leader Darren Rodwell remains a Labour prospective parliamentary candidate, despite ‘joking’ that he had “the worst tan possible for a black man”.

The petition is intended to show the high levels of support for Diane’s candidacy. It was initiated by the Labour Assembly Against Austerity and Arise – A Festival of Left Ideas. Commenting on behalf of the two organisations, Matt Willgress said: “Each day we see illustrations of the growing support there is for Diane to have the whip restored across the whole Labour Party and trade union movement – from Ed Balls, through to Polly Toynbee, through to John McDonnell and numerous trade union affiliates. It’s time to do the right thing and restore the whip.”

The petition has also been supported by numerous prominent figures on social media including Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Beth Winter, Richard Leonard, Richard Burgon, Apsana Begum, Jon Trickett, Nadia Whittome, Ian Lavery, ASLEF General Secretary Mick Whelan, TSSA General Secretary Maryam Eslamdoust, Grace Blakeley, Andrew Fisher, Alex Nunns, Simon Fletcher, James Scheider and Ben Sellers, plus the Labour Women Leading group. The General Secretaries of four affiliated trade unions – ASLEF, CWU, FBU and TSSA – recently wrote to Keir Starmer asking for the whip to be restored. You can read their letter in full here.

The petition can be signed here.

If Starmer wants Black voter support he should reinstate Diane Abbott

“To be clear, contempt and disrespect will be the only thing that many Black voters will feel regarding Starmer’s stance towards Black communities especially of late.”

By Richard Sudan, The Voice

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has now officially confirmed that the general election will be held on July 4th, just six weeks from now.

He announced the shock snap election outside 10 Downing Street, in the pouring rain, abruptly ending long held predictions that voters would head to the polls in autumn as many had speculated.

Scrutiny

In recent months Sunak has come under intense scrutiny over the government’s handling of numerous crises’ with many analysts suggesting that the Labour party would be heading for a landslide victory, with the Tories looking set for defeat.

Regardless, Prime Minister Sunak has now fired the starting gun on a race which was always going to be fought along bitter lines.

The Tories are increasingly viewed by observers as a party without a plan using a culture war to distract from the failure and havoc caused by 14 years of austerity.

Sir Keir Starmer has responded to the announcement by repeating his mantra that his party offers change and is ready to govern.

While this might appeal to some voters, the big question for many Black voters is just how loyal should Black communities remain to a Labour party which has recently shown near total contempt to a voter base that has traditionally  provided rock-solid support?

To be clear, contempt and disrespect will be the only thing that many Black voters will feel regarding Starmer’s stance towards Black communities especially of late.

After four years in charge of Labour Keir Starmer monumentally dropped the ball regarding plans for a long-awaited race equality act announced earlier this year.

Forced

Years in the making, the eventual unveiling of the plan seemed last minute and forced, offering little more than low-hanging fruit. Much of the plan is already enshrined in law and can be enforced under existing equalities legislation.

To rub salt into the wound, Black media,  including The Voice, were subsequently prevented from attending its launch, which was widely viewed as a disaster.

Another major issue for many in our communities is the treatment of Black MPs, in particular Diane Abbott.

Where Labour have failed to make sufficient progress in numerous critical areas, Abbott has remained a champion for many issues including the safeguarding of Black children, the challenges faced by Black boys and the underachievement of Black students in school.

In addition to this, Abbott has been a life-long anti-racism campaigner, and has opposed many of the wars which have made Labour unpopular over the years.

Abbott was also a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn who many feel is the closest Black people and other communities on the margin have had to a potential ally in Downing Street.

Reinstated

With the election now around the corner many will be watching to see if Abbott will be reinstated by Labour or if she will remain suspended – which many view as unjust – subjected to a never-ending investigation. 

Critics say the process is designed to prevent her from standing for Labour in the constituency she has represented since 1987. They are right.

It’s not just about Abbott, but her fate will provide a litmus test for many undecided voters as to whether they can trust Labour in government, or whether their support will be taken for granted.

Indeed, a poll conducted previously by The Voice showed 80% black voters could ditch Labour over the treatment of Abbott.

This was then followed by the Frank Hester scandal and the Tory Party donor’s comment that Abbott made him hate all black women.

The outrage which ensued sparked important conversations about the safety of black women in Britain.  Here was a chance to show some leadership and stand unequivocally with Abbott.

But the lack of solidarity towards Abbott from Starmer and Labour following the revelation of Hester’s words, and the sublime opportunism displayed by fundraising from her treatment, instead left a bitter taste in the mouth for many.

Culture war rhetoric

Many Black voters will also be alarmed at Starmer’s increasing willingness to cosy up to the Union Jack, embrace culture war rhetoric, while offering no bold reassurance that Labour will protect existing equality policies while pushing bold new ones.

The wider picture beyond this is that Black communities have been hit the hardest by a cost of living crisis which was exacerbated by the pandemic.

We need a prime minister who challenges inequality at the root particularly around, housing, employment, health and the criminal justice system.

Black voters will be unlikely to turn out for the Conservatives.  The party’s long track record of anti-Black racism is well-documented.

Disillusioned Black voters who abandon Labour won’t switch to the Tories, they’ll just stay home.

Disaster

This could prove a disaster for Labour, as the party might not be as far ahead in the polls as analysts suggest and the black vote in marginal seats could yet prove critical.

Starmer still needs the Black vote, whether he likes it or not.  Right now,  I think he’s on course to see it drastically slashed, but if he is serious about winning the election and serious about a second term he has 6 weeks to win it back.

The immediate reinstatement of Diane Abbott could be a start. A concrete commitment and plan to tackle entrenched inequality evidenced in the Black British Voices survey could be another step. 

Committing to ending the hierarchy of racism within Labour, shown by the Forde Report would be another.  Finally confronting the undeniable reality of institutional racism within the police is vital. 

Black voters are watching and will consider their options carefully before making their choice.  The stakes are too high for anything less.


  • This article was originally published by The Voice on May 23rd, 2024.
  • Richard Sudan is a journalist for The Voice, Britain’s only Black national newspaper. You can follow him on Twitter/X here.
  • You can sign a petition to Keir Starmer calling on him to restore the whip to Diane Abbott here.
UK

Constituents launch election campaign to ‘clean Parliament of climate deniers’

‘As a country, we face urgent threats on climate and nature. We need to make policies that follow the scientific evidence.’ 



Yesterday


MP Watch, a grassroots network of constituents that scrutinise MPs and aim to make them more accountable, has launched its election campaign. The campaign aims to let constituents know if they have an MP who denies climate change exists, so they are able to vote accordingly.


The campaigners list several MPs who are associated with denying the climate emergency exists, including Jacob Rees-Mogg, Craig McKinlay, Esther McVey, Mark Jenkinson, Andrea Jenkins, Liz Truss, and Suella Braverman.

At the heart of the campaign launch is a film that lays bare the climate record of Steve Baker, Conservative MP of Wycombe, who the group describes as “climate denier number one.”

Baker was first elected as an MP in 2010 and was re-elected in 2019 with just a four thousand majority. An ardent Brexiteer, Baker was chair of the pro-Brexit group of MPs, the European Research Group (ERG), until he resigned when he was promoted to Brexit minister in 2017. He resigned from the post a year later, following the resignation of David Davis over concerns about the government’s strategy on Brexit.

The campaign film was put together by climate activist and filmmaker Guy Ducker. One of a series of clips relating to the MP’s history on climate change in the film refers to how in 2021 Baker became a trustee of the oil-funded climate sceptic group, Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). In September 2022, Baker left the climate denial group for a ministerial post in Liz Truss’s government, who made him minister of state for Northern Ireland, a post he still holds today.

Baker is a leading member of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, made up of backbench Conservative MPs, including former government ministers, who oppose many of the government’s Net Zero policies. The campaign film references a newspaper report about Baker sharing a paper, produced by GWPF, saying that the climate emergency does not exist.

Baker raised eyebrows this week when, during an interview with Victoria Derbyshire on the BBC, he said he would not cancel his holiday plans for his party’s general election campaign, despite admitting he will likely lose his seat.

For over two years, over 50 Wycombe constituents who form Steve Baker Watch, one of a number of groups within MP Watch targeting specific MPs, have asked Baker to change his climate position.

Rather than softening his position, the MP accused the environmental campaigners of “child abuse” and referred to them as “clowns,” which the film exposes.

Gemma Rogers, co-founder of the Steve Baker Watch, says she hopes the film will help seal a victory against Steve Baker.

“He treats us like mugs,” said the NHS worker. “He thinks he can head off to Westminster and quietly join the climate-denying Global Warming Policy Foundation and not explain it to constituents. Even though he was elected on the Conservative manifesto of 2019 which included sticking to the Paris Agreement.

“We think MPs should be held accountable for their actions. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. We need him out at the next election and replaced by an MP that will truly represent us on climate,” Rogers added.

MP Watch campaign head Jessica Townsend described the aim of the campaign, as to “clean up parliament at the next election and to finally get rid of the pollution of climate misinformation.”.

“As a country, we face urgent threats on climate and nature. We need to make policies that follow the scientific evidence. Yet at this dangerous time, some in Westminster are playing politics on the issue. Frankly, it beggars’ belief.”

Image credit: YouTube screen grab