Labour in Wales: where now for the left?

By Peter Rowlands

AUGUST 15, 2024

The election result in Wales gave us little to celebrate. True, there are no Tory MPs left in Wales, and Labour now has 27 out of 32 MPs, but the result was even more disproportionate than the overall UK result, with Labour in Wales gaining 84% of the seats for 37% of the vote. On that basis, enthusiasm  is difficult.

The result in Wales was the second worst on a national/regional basis in the UK, with an overall fall of 4% from the 2019 election, compared to a 5% drop in London and 2.5% in the North West. Everywhere else showed an increase in the Labour vote, but not by much, except in Scotland.

There are of course no regional governments in England, except in London. The worst results for Labour were therefore where there were Labour governments, which is no coincidence and explains some of the result. In London the Tory vote held up, with more Independents, although the Reform vote was low at 9%, probably reflecting the greater size of the ethnic minority electorate than elsewhere.

In Wales, Reform did well at 17%, particularly in the old coal valleys in South Wales, as they did in similar areas in England. There were also substantial increases for Plaid Cymru and the Greens. The Reform vote was, however, not as high as in some parts of England, notably the East and West Midlands, and the North East. The upheaval in the Welsh leadership following Gething’s appointment was also a factor, as was the mismanaged introduction of the 20mph speed limit.

So there were reasons for Labour’s poor performance in Wales, That, however, should not detract from there being a serious problem for Labour in Wales, which the left must address. How can that be done?

Before considering that, it would perhaps be appropriate to assess the state of the left in Wales. At Senedd level, despite being instrumental in removing Gething, the left have not, it would appear, sought to oppose, or put up an alternative to, the appointment as First Minister of someone from the centre right. Eluned Morgan’s only positive feature politically is that she is a woman, and therefore much-needed in leadership positions within the Party. This process has not resulted in any of those that originally resigned being reinstated to cabinet positions, presumably in order not to offend the more pro-Gething element, and it can therefore be assumed that the relatively left period under Drakeford since 2018 has come to an end, and that a Morgan-led Welsh Government will prove amenable to the wishes of Labour at Westminster.

At the rank and file level, there appears to have been a renewed surge of members leaving the P arty, highlighted perhaps by the exit of Darren Williams, for many years the secretary of Welsh Labour Grassroots.

All of this indicates that the left is relatively weaker in Wales than it has been even in recent times, although  that will become clearer when the results of internal ballots are revealed next month. It could also mean that what should have been a great opportunity for the left, namely the new electoral system with 36 extra Senedd members, will largely benefit the right.

My own view is that the left should fight at every level to restore its strength, in Wales and the UK as a whole. Labour cannot win the next election without policies that are well to the left of those being currently pursued, despite some positive features. At the moment, with a number of leading left MPs suspended, the outlook for the left at a UK level, as in Wales, is not promising.

In Wales the tasks of the left remain fairly obvious – more devolution, more resources for the Welsh Government, defending steel jobs at Port Talbot, promoting the NHS and opposing the rise of Reform in the old coal valleys are the main ones. But whether the left has the strength, at various levels, to meaningfully address those issues remains to be seen.

Unlike anywhere in England, Wales does have an alternative pole of attraction for the left in the shape of Plaid, and while I would regard any such movement in this direction as a failure to face up to the main issue, it would be understandable. We should remember that Labour was dominant in Scotland until only about 15 years ago.

What I have written is not optimistic, but let us hope that in these volatile times the current situation represents a passing phase, from which the left will be able to regroup and fight back, in Wakes and the UK as a whole.  

Peter  Rowlands is a member of Swansea West CLP.

Image: Eluned Morgan AM. Source: Eluned Morgan AM. Author: National Assembly for Wales from Wales, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

UK

Migrant Champions Network condemns outbreak of racist & Islamophobic violence

16th August 2024Leave a Commenton Migrant Champions Network condemns outbreak of racist & Islamophobic violence

“Communities up and down the country are bearing the brunt of this race to the bottom on migration policy, and the open Islamophobia expressed by some politicians and parts of the media.”

The Migrant Champions Network have released a public statement condemning the Racist and Islamophobic violence sweeping the UK in August. You can read it in full below:

The violent, terrifying scenes we have seen on our streets over recent days must serve as an urgent wake-up call. We need action, accountability and fundamental change.

As local councillors from across the UK, and across the political spectrum, we know that these racist, Islamophobic and anti-migrant attacks do not represent the strength and solidarity that exists in our communities.

But this violence is very real, and it does not come from nowhere. For decades, the far right has been emboldened by politicians from various parties, who have scapegoated and demonised people who move. Migrants are at the heart of all our communities – yet when the chips are down, those in power know they can always score some quick, easy votes by targeting people who move, whether they are people seeking asylum or people who have lived here for decades.

Now, communities up and down the country are bearing the brunt of this race to the bottom on migration policy, and the open Islamophobia expressed by some politicians and parts of the media.

This is an emergency. While these scenes aren’t unprecedented – communities across the country have fought back against the far right countless times before, and won – the events of recent days must serve as a wake-up call. The Government must ensure that local authorities have the resources to protect their communities. We must end the use of crowded, substandard hotels and instead resource local authorities to provide asylum accommodation in the community.

And everyone, but especially those in elected positions, must show leadership and speak up for the values of solidarity and justice. Members of Parliament and local councillors have a responsibility to stand firm in the face of far right hatred, and act as a mouthpiece for the messages that matter.

We have more in common than that which divides us. These violent and racist attacks must mark a turning point, and an end to the emboldening of the far right by those seeking to profit from division and hate.  

---

• The Migrant Champions Network is a network of local councillors from across the UK – and across different political parties – working together to fight for the rights of all migrants. You can follow the Migrant Champion Network on Twitter/X.
• This statement was originally published by the Migrant Champions Network.
• If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.

UK

Diane Abbott: The racist violence has shed an unforgiving light on the long-standing anti-immigrant narrative

Featured

15th August 20241 Commenton Diane Abbott: The racist violence has shed an unforgiving light on the long-standing anti-immigrant narrative

“With this hostile, dehumanising coverage of immigration and asylum, it should not have been a surprise for politicians and the media when the racist violence erupted – but it was.”

By Diane Abbott MP

The racist violence, that exploded all over England this month, has shed an unforgiving light on the long-standing anti-immigrant narrative in Britain. This has been constant, angry and almost fact-free.

The obvious point is that for decades, men and women commonly described in the media as “immigrants” had not emigrated from anywhere. They were British citizens who happened to be non-white but for years “immigrant” had been a commonly accepted euphemism in politics for black or South Asian.

In recent years, politicians began to talk about “illegal” immigrants. But many of the men and women described like that were asylum seekers, and there is no such thing as an “illegal” asylum seeker. Everyone has the right to claim asylum. In fact, despite what you might imagine from the ranting of some politicians, the majority of asylum claims (75%) in Britain are successful. Furthermore, far from the United Kingdom taking in a wholly disproportionate number of asylum seekers, the UK is home to approximately 1% of the 27.1 million refugees across the world.

Yet decade after decade, the framework for talking about immigration has been relentlessly hostile. A column in The Sun Newspaper by Katie Hopkins with the title “Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants“ may have been a little extreme but its tone was typical of right-wing media.

With this hostile, dehumanising coverage of immigration and asylum, it should not have been a surprise for politicians and the media when the racist violence erupted – but it was.

The media then responded in different ways. The Guardian covered the violence in a reasonably balanced way. The Telegraph could not bring itself to recant its consistently anti-immigrant coverage. So, despite the reality that most of the racist violence was white, it managed to design a front page which made it look like Asian and white violence were evenly balanced. The Express bowed to the facts and on the days following the racist violence had a front page that featured a huge picture of anti-racist demonstrators with the headline “United Britain stands firm against the thugs,” but the Daily Mail front page was the most remarkable.

This is a newspaper which for years had featured front-page headlines like “Migrants: How many more can we take?”,  “Migrants spark housing crisis” and “1 million more migrants are on their way”. But in the days after the racist violence, it read like it had been taken over by an anti-racist collective. A notable Daily Mail front page had a huge picture of demonstrators with the headline “Night anti-hate marchers faced down the thugs” It may have been only temporary, but for a few days the right-wing media had to swallow their anti-immigrant propaganda.

Over the years, the media has played a key role in whipping up hatred and fear of migrants. But ultimately, migration is a political question, and politicians bear much responsibility for the social climate in which the racist violence this month occurred. Remarkably, the right-wing politicians like Suella Braverman, who had been most vehemently anti-immigrant, fell completely silent. She had claimed that “the Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge now,” but faced with violent right-wing extremists threatening people up and down the country, Suella had nothing to say.

Others paid lip service to the undesirability of attacking mosques, assaulting black and brown Britons or trying to set fire to hotels full of asylum seekers. But they quickly pivoted to talking about a “culture of silence” on the effects of immigration and straightforward anti-Muslim rhetoric. One leading conservative politician said that any Muslim shouting “Allahu Akbar” should be arrested. The phrase is the equivalent of a Christian shouting Hallelujah. It is pure Islamophobia to suggest that a Muslim saying a similar phrase should be put in the hands of the police.

But Labour politicians’ responses were the most interesting. From the beginning, you did not have to be a political scientist to understand that the violence was racist. The violence was targeted at mosques rather than churches, at non-white Britons rather than whites, and the rioters shouted endless racist slogans. But throughout the racist violence, in all his public statements, Keir Starmer refused to mention racism and Islamophobia – instead, he spoke about “thuggery” The racist violence for the Prime Minister was occurring in a social and political vacuum. His Home Secretary Yvette Cooper may have mentioned race in the final days of the violence but, like her boss, she was much more comfortable talking about “thuggery.”

The Labour Government insisted on seeing the racist violence as a purely criminal justice matter. In recent days, Yvette has been talking about the rioters’ lack of respect for the police. But the Labour Government has flatly refused to talk about the intrinsically racist and Islamophobic nature of the violence. It is entirely clear why not. It may be these are subjects that they would rather not talk about. But it may also be down to the fact that in a number of constituencies won by Labour in this year’s general election the new, far right and nakedly anti-immigrant Reform Party came second. It may then have been a worry for them that if the Labour government called out the racist and Islamophobic nature of the violence, some Labour candidates in tight marginals risk losing votes to Reform in the next general election.

Politicians of all parties have been talking about the need to look at the causation of the violence. It is true that many of the communities where the racist violence occurred are economically marginalised. But the fundamental cause for the violence was racism. Sadly, not acknowledging this openly, does not make the racist violence less likely to recur.

---

• You can follow Diane Abbott on Facebook, Twitter/X and Instagram. 
• If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.

UK

Southall revisited

 

Labour Hub Editors

Frank Hansen joins a protest against racism in a place where the fascists were driven off the streets over 40 years ago.

AUGUST 16, 2024

On Saturday August 10th,  I took a trip to Southall Town Hall (now the ‘former Town Hall’) to a attend a Stand Up to Racism rally to show solidarity with those under threat from the extreme right.  There is not much of a direct threat from the fascists in Southall as they were literally kicked out of there in 1981 and haven’t really been back since – although Reform UK did have the gall to stand  in the recent election, where they got 5.5% of the vote compared with 49% for Labour and 9.1% for George Galloway’s Workers Party.

I took a bus to Southall – I then planned to go via the Elizabeth Line to the rally outside Farage’s office in Victoria. As soon as I got off, the politics began. Acton Vale was choc-a-bloc with over 100 cyclists on a Free Palestine  bike ride – they had started in Mile End and were working their way around London. They received a warm reception from local people on their way to Ealing Broadway. Here are some photos I took of the day.

Going to Southall Town Hall was both symbolic and nostalgic.  As some may remember, in April 1979 the National Front held an election rally in Southall. It was met by a mass protest which culminated in the death of Blair Peach, who was killed by the police – there is a plaque commemorating him nearby. 

In those days, the police’s main role seemed to be to defend the NF and their ‘freedom of speech’ (that is, provocation) and many police were sympathetic to them. In the 1970s, a friend of mine used to repair TVs in Southall and recalls that when he visited a police flat they tried to recruit him to the NF!

With Thatcherism on the rise,  the extreme right thought they could do what they wanted in Southall and the local police provided no real protection for the community. There really was “two-tier policing” in those days! 

So the local community continued to organise to defend itself. In 1981, racist skinheads turned up, smashing shops on their way to an ‘Oi gig’ at the Hamborough Tavern. The local community rose up and managed to stop the fascist rampage in its tracks.

Ironically the police are now being attacked by the extreme right who are being arrested for violent racist attacks – including on the police itself, as the racists chant  “You’re not English anymore.” The police can thank the likes of Farage and former Home Secretary Braverman for empowering and unleashing racism and fascism against them.

The Town Hall rally was a fairly modest event – although welcomed by locals. Many of the people there had participated in the events of the 70s and 80s – including Southall Black Sisters and Southall Youth Movement members plus John McDonnell MP from nearby Hayes. 

Walking to Southall station, it was clear that a massive private sector development was underway with many tower blocks of flats and offices going up – no doubt spurred on by the station being a hub on the Elizabeth Line with fast links to London and Heathrow and the local council’s keen willingness to do deals with landlords and property developers.

The anti-Farage rally was much larger and more lively, 4,000 to 5,000. As for Farage’s HQ – 82 Victoria Street – you wouldn’t even notice that it was there.  I asked John McDonnell how he was going to tackle Farage inside Parliament – we agreed that just ranting at him wouldn’t work. As a mini-Trump he thrives on publicity, attention and portraying himself as a victim standing up for the ‘oppressed’ – perhaps ridicule and a few one liners from Mick Lynch would be the best approach.

All in all, it was a hopeful end to an appalling week of racist violence – where across the country the number of anti-racist rallies vastly outnumbered the fascists. 

Yet this is certainly a new era, where we have to learn lessons from the past in building a mass anti-fascist and anti-racist movement, while recognising that things have changed.  

The impact of neoliberal economics and climate change is fuelling the rise of right wing populism and fascism across the globe. In the UK, the impact of Thatcherism – deindustrialisation, a massive fall in trade union membership, inequality, deprivation and the run-down of public services – has left a fertile soil for right wing populism, particularly in ‘Red Wall’ areas. Even in Wales, where the Tories were wiped out, the Labour vote fell to 37%.  Now that Reform has a platform in Parliament, their politics need to be challenged across the country and at grassroots level. 

There is also the new challenge of what the US left call ‘surveillance capitalism’  – the rise of the Big Tech robber barons and of social media monopolies which provide ‘free services’ in order to rip off and monetise people’s behavioural information. Their business model is to stimulate as much ‘participation’ as possible – the more emotional and controversial the posts the better in terms of responses, behavioural information and profits.

While Musk is using an openly right wing agenda, using lies and disinformation, it is the business model itself that is the root of the problem. Ironically it was President Obama who accepted that these companies could be legally defined as ‘platforms’ rather than publishers which allowed them to blossom in a toxic way. They are now virtually unaccountable and untouchable – a place that politicians fear to tread in terms of regulation. 

While the left obviously needs to use social media to organise, disseminate ideas and combat the right, it also needs to develop a more sophisticated critique – as in the US -and a programme for challenging and regulating these companies so that they are, at least, more accountable and less toxic. 

Above all, we need to demand that this new Labour Government takes real measures to tackle the economic and social issues that enable right wing populism to grow. Starmer may be tough on racist crime but he’s shown little inclination to be tough on some of its wider causes. Suspending Labour MPs for demanding an end to the two-child benefit cap is hardly a good start! The recent riots should serve as a wake-up call to the entire labour movement, including the Parliamentary labour Party, that ‘things can only get better’ when a more radical economic and social programme is introduced.  

  Frank Hansen is a former Councillor in the London Borough of Brent.

All pictures c/o author.

One in ten Reform UK voters say the far right riots made them feel ‘proud’

Chris Jarvis 

16 August, 2024 
Left Foot Forward

16% said the riots made them feel 'patriotic'

DER FUHRER FARAGE

Britain was hit by a wave of violence and intimidation from the far right at the end of July and the start of August. Over the course of six days, riots took place in towns and cities across the country, with mosques and hotels housing asylum seekers among the buildings targeted.

New polling from WeThink has revealed the public’s reaction to the events. Overall, the public were most likely to say they felt ‘concerned’, ‘angry’ and ‘disgusted’ by the riots.

WeThink also broke down different people’s responses based on which political party they supported. Green, Labour and Lib Dem voters were most likely to say they felt ‘concerned’, ‘disgusted’, ‘angry’, ‘sad’, and ‘frustrated’.

By contrast, supporters of Reform UK were by far the most likely to say that the riots made them feel ‘patriotic’, ‘proud’ or ‘optimistic’.

16% of Reform voters said the riots made them feel ‘patriotic’, 10% said they made them feel ‘proud’ and 9% said they made them feel ‘optimistic’.

Respondents to the poll were asked ‘The UK is currently experiencing a wave of riots. How does this make you feel?’

Latest opinion poll shows Reform UK are ahead of the Tories

Chris Jarvis 

16 August, 2024

Left Foot Forward

Support for the Tories has fallen since the general electio


Support for the Tories continues to sit in the doldrums after their catastrophic election defeat earlier this summer.

According to the latest opinion poll, support for the Tories is now lower than support for Nigel Farage’s Reform party.

The pollster WeThink’s latest figures suggest that support for Labour is at 33%, Reform at 21%, the Tories at 20%, the Lib Dems at 11% and the Greens at 8%.

In the 2024 general election, Labour picked up 33.7% of the popular vote, with the Tories in second on 23.7%. Reform polled 14%, the Lib Dems 12.2% and the Greens 6.4%.

With support for the Tories having only dropped since the general election, it doesn’t look like they’ll be returning to government any time soon…

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

10 ways we could curb undeserved executive remuneration and secure equitable distribution of income

Prem Sikka 

16 August, 2024 
LEFT FOOT FPRWARD
Columnists
Opinion

The High Pay Centre reported this week that FTSE100 chief executive salaries has soared

This week, the High Pay Centre reported that the salary of FTSE100 chief executives has soared. The average FTSE100 CEO’s pay increased from £4.42m in 2022 to record £4.98m in 2023, which is an increase of over £500,000 in one year equivalent to 23 years pay for someone on the national minimum wage. The median pay increased from £4.1m to £4.19m. The median pay of the full-time UK worker is just £28,752, unchanged in real terms since 2008.

81% of FTSE 100 companies paid their CEO bonuses in accordance with a Long Term Incentive Payment plan though the same bonuses are rarely given to employees whose brains and brawn generate wealth. The number of CEOs collecting more than £10m has increased from four to nine. These include AstraZeneca CEO collecting £16.85m; Relx, £13.64m; Rolls Royce, £13.61m; BAE Systems, £13.45m and £10.64m at HSBC.

Higher profits may be good news for executives and shareholders, but not necessarily from a social responsibility perspective. Water companies dump raw sewage in rivers and seas, which boosts profits and executive pay whilst creating health hazards for people. HSBC has a long history of egregious business practices. In December 2021, it was fined £64m for “serious weaknesses” in monitoring of money laundering and terrorist financing scenarios. In January 2024, it was fined £57.4m for “serious failings” over its measures to protect customer deposits. In May 2024, £6.28m fine for failing to give due consideration to customers when they fell into arrears or were experiencing financial difficulties. Rolls Royce is facing a £350m lawsuit over bribery and allegation allegations after previously paying a fine of £497m to settle charges of “12 counts of conspiracy to corrupt, false accounting and failure to prevent bribery”. None of these practices disrupt the executive gravy train.

FTSE 100 firms spent £755m on the pay of 222 executives, but that is not enough for some. The claim is that UK executive rewards are much lower than the US standards and unless the UK executive pay rockets the country risks a brain drain. Such claims are never mobilised to support UK workers even though their median pay has fallen significantly behind workers in other European countries. Ministers and newspapers routinely claim that wage rises for workers, even for those on the minimum wage, are inflationary but that logic is never applied to executive pay.

Executive pay is detached from economic growth, productivity and wage levels for workers. Thomas Piketty argued that today’s chief executives are a generation of “super-managers” who, for the first time in history are able to become independently wealthy by running a public company for a handful of years. They do not necessarily produce wealth but get a disproportionate share. Just look at the UK finance industry which routinely hands mega pay packets to directors. Between 1995 and 2015 it made a negative contribution of £4,500bn to the UK economy, and is routinely involved in scandals.

Executives at poorly performing companies collect megabucks even when they are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. In theory, remuneration committees staffed by non-executive directors are supposed to check misguided rewards but they have shown no inclination to so, especially as their own lucrative appointments depend on the benevolence of executive directors. The Post Office scandal has once again shown the ineffectiveness of non-execs. The remuneration committee continued to approve bonuses even though the company was engaged in illegal prosecution of postmasters.

The High Pay Centre reported that the typical CEO’s pay is equivalent to 120 times the annual pay of the average full-time worker. This fuels inequalities, concentration of wealth and power and damages social fabric. The rich can fund political parties and think-tanks; lobby policymakers and use social media; own TV and radio stations to advance their interests, whilst the rest of the population can’t and is increasingly excluded from social consumption. Inequalities have severe implications for access to good housing, education, food, pension, healthcare, transport, justice, security, democratic institutions and much more. Households on low income have shorter life expectancy, higher stress, infant mortality, health and psychological disorders.

Successive governments have shown little interest in equitable distribution of income. To appease corporate elites they have resorted to voluntary approaches. Voluntary corporate governance codes such as the Cadbury, Greenbury, Hampel and others have failed to check undeserved executive pay. They are content to rely upon non-execs and shareholders. The shareholder-centric model of corporate governance expects geographically dispersed shareholders to check undeserved executive pay. However, shareholders of listed companies have only a short-term interest in companies and are rarely focused on curbs on excessive executive pay or social justice. Some 57.7% of the shares of UK listed companies are held by overseas beneficiaries and they have no incentive to curb social squalor in the UK. The nine shareholders of Thames Water have shown a voracious appetite for dividends, and none for curbing sewage dumping or executive pay. In family-owned large companies, of which BHS is a good example, it is unrealistic to expect members of the family to vote against the pay of another family member. Even if shareholders vote against executive pay, their vote under UK Companies Act 2006 is advisory rather than binding. At Pearson 47.6% of shareholders voted against executive remuneration policy but it made no difference. It is hard to think of any court case where shareholders have sought to enforce Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, which requires directors to have regard for the interests of employees, and withhold executive pay or demand a more equitable outcome for employees or consumers or other stakeholders.

A different approach based on democracy and stakeholder empowerment is needed. Here are some suggestions:In the case of banks, insurance, water, rail, energy, internet, mobile phones and many other businesses customers can be identified with certainty and should be empowered to shape corporate governance. Unlike shareholders, workers and customers have a long-term interest in the wellbeing of a company and need to be empowered.
Around 35% – 50% of the members of unitary boards of large companies should be elected by workers and/or customers, or companies could choose German style two-tier boards with the supervisory board elected by workers and/or customers.
Executive remuneration contracts should be made publicly available so that all details are clear.
The remuneration of each executive at large company must be the subject of an annual binding vote by stakeholders, including shareholders, employees and customers. This should encourage directors to ensure that workers receive a good share of the wealth created. Customer vote on executive pay would help to curb predatory practices such as profiteering, dumping sewage in rivers and shoddy services.
The vote on fixed executive salary can be the subject of a simple majority vote by all stakeholders, with at least 50% turnout. Bonuses should only be given for extraordinary performance and subjected to extraordinary approval. At least 90% of the stakeholders must support it, on a 50% turnout.
If 20% of the stakeholders vote against the director remuneration policy, the board must receive a warning to mend its way. If the same happens in the next year then the stakeholders should have the option to trigger a resolution at the general meeting on whether the executive and stakeholder directors, with the exception of the managing director and/or chairman, need to stand for re-election. If this resolution is supported by 50% or more of the eligible stakeholders then a meeting to consider re-election of directors must be convened.
Stakeholders should be given the right to cap executive remuneration. This could be in the form of a multiple of pay ratio (e.g. x times the average wage), or an absolute limit (e.g. not exceeding a specified amount) or in any other form that stakeholders see fit.
The Companies Act must provide a framework for claw back of executive remuneration to ensure that directors are held responsible for any trail of destruction left behind.
Golden handshakes, hellos and goodbyes have all become a way of inflating executive remuneration and must be prohibited. Golden handshakes bear no relationship to any notion of performance and are retained by the executives even though the appointment may turn out to be disastrous. The culture of golden handshakes can encourage a job-hopping mentality and lack of motivation to deliver the long-term welfare of a company. Golden goodbyes are often rewards for dismissed CEOs for poor performance. Payments outside of performance benefit only the executives and not any stakeholder. Such payments must be prohibited, as is the case in Switzerland.
In the case of companies with deficits on employee pension schemes, their directors must not receive any increase in remuneration unless they have reached a binding deficit reduction agreement with the Pensions Regulator.

The above suggestions may not prevent all exploitative practices but provide a sound basis for curbing undeserved executive remuneration and securing equitable distribution of income.

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

Image credit: Marc Barrot – Creative Commons

 

The Distasteful Nonsense of Olympism

by Binoy Kampmark / August 17th, 2024

Ekecheiria, also known as the “Olympic Truce,” is a quaint notion dating to Ancient Greece, when three kings prone to warring against each other – Iphitos of Elis, Cleosthenes of Pisa and Lycurgus of Sparta – concluded a treaty permitting the safe passage of all athletes and spectators from the relevant city-states for the duration of the Olympic Games.  The truce had a certain logic to it, given that many of those granted safe passage would have been serving soldiers or soldiers in waiting.

In 1894, the founder of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Pierre de Coubertin, fantasised about the Games as a peace promoting endeavour which, when read closely, suggests the sublimation of humanity’s warring instincts.  Instead of killing each other, humans could compete in stadia and on the sporting tracks, adoring and admiring physical prowess.  “Wars break out because nations misunderstand each other.  We shall have no peace until the prejudices which now separate the different races shall have been outlived.  To attain this end, what better means than to bring the youth of all countries periodically together for amicable trials of muscular strength and agility.”

Panting over torsos, sinews and muscles, de Coubertin gushingly wrote his “Ode to Sport” in 1912.  Sport was peace, forging “happy bonds between the peoples by drawing them together in reverence for strength which is controlled, organised and self-disciplined.”  It was through the young that respect would be learned for “one another,” thereby ensuring that “the diversity of national traits becomes a source of generous and peaceful emulation.”  Sport was also other things: justice, daring, honour, joy and, in the true spirit of eugenic inspiration, the means to achieve “a more perfect race, blasting the seeds of sickness”.  Athletes would, accordingly, “wish to see growing about him brisk and sturdy sons to follow him in the arena and [in] turn bear off joyous laurels.”

The Olympic Charter also states that Olympism’s central goal “is to place at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”

In the 1990s, the IOC thought it prudent to revive the concept of such a truce.  As the organisation explains, this was done “with a view to protecting, as far as possible, the interests of the athletes and sport in general, and to harness the power of sport to promote peace, dialogue and reconciliation more broadly.”  In 2000, the IOC founded the International Olympic Truce Foundation, adopting the dove as a signature symbol of the Games.  By the London Olympics of 2012, the 193 nations present had signed onto an Olympic Truce.

From such lofty summits, hypocrisy and inconsistency will follow.  The IOC, hardly the finest practitioner of fine principle, has been prone to injudicious standards, rampant corruption and tyrannical stupidity.  The IOC recommendation to ban Russian athletes took all but four days after the attack on Ukraine in February 2022 on the premise that Russia had breached the sacred compact of sporting peace.  In the mix, Belarus, designated as arch collaborator with Russian war aims, was also added.

During the 11th Olympic Summit held on December 9, 2022, the IOC Executive Board noted that the Olympic Games would not “address all the political and social challenges in the world.  This is the realm of politics.”  Having advocated that platitudinous, false distinction, the Executive Board could still claim that the Games “can set an example for a world where everyone respects the same rules as one another.”

The IOC did make one grudging concession: Russian and Belarusian athletes could compete as Individual Neutral Athletes (AINs) subject to meeting eligibility requirements determined by the Individual Neutral Athlete Eligibility Review Panel.  Each athlete’s participation was subject to respecting the Olympic Charter, with special reference to “the peace mission of the Olympic Movement”.

These statements and qualifications, intentionally or otherwise, are resoundingly delusional.  The Games are events of pompous political significance, with athletes often being administrative and symbolic extensions of the nation stage they represent.  Authoritarian regimes have gloatingly celebrated hosting them.  They have been staging grounds for violence, notably in the killing of 12 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Games by the Palestinian terrorist group Black September.

They have also been boycotted for very political reasons.  The United States did so in 1980 for the Moscow Games, along with 64 other nations, in response to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.  The Soviet Union returned the favour at the Los Angeles Olympics held in 1984, giving President Ronald Reagan a chance, in an election year, to speak of the “winning” American ideal and “a new patriotism spreading across our country.”

In keeping with the erratic nature of such a spirit, it was appropriately hypocritical and distasteful of IOC practice to permit the Israeli athletic contingent numbering 88 athletes to compete at the Paris Games. All this, as slaughter and starvation continued to take place in Gaza (at the time, the Palestinian death toll lay somewhere in the order of 39,000).

Permitting Israel’s participation prompted Jules Boykoff, an academic of keen interest in the Games, to suggest that “the situation is more and more resembling the situation that led the IOC forcing Russia to participate as neutral athletes.”  The body’s “approach to ignore the situation places its selective morality on full display and throws into question the group’s commitment to the high-minded ideals it claims to abide.”

These ideals remain just that, a cover that otherwise permits political realities to flourish.  Predictably, the Paris spectacle, both before and after, was always going to feature the tang and sting of resentment.  Far from being apolitical exponents of their craft, various members of the Israeli Olympic team have been more than forthcoming in defending the warring cause.  Judokas Timna Nelson-Levy and Maya Goshen have been vocal in their defence of the Israeli Defense Forces.

Palestinian participants have also done their bit.  During the opening ceremony, boxer Wasim Abusal wore a shirt showing children being bombed, telling Agence France-Presse that these were “children who are martyred and die under the rubble, children whose parents are martyred and are left alone without food and water.”  Such views are not permitted for Russian or Belarusian athletes, who must compete under the deceptive flag of neutrality.

The organisers of the Paris Games also found it difficult to keep a lid on an occasion supposedly free of political attributes. The Israel-Paraguay football march was marked by scornful boos as the Israeli national anthem was performed.  Reports also note that at least one banner featured “GENOCIDE OLYMPICS”.  Three Israeli athletes also received death threats, according to a statement from the Paris prosecutor’s office.

It’s such instances of political oddities that permit the following suggestion: make all athletes truly amateurish by abolishing their associations with countries.  Most nation states, soldered and cemented compacts of hatred, based upon territory often pinched from previous occupants, are such a nuisance in this regard.  If Olympism is to make sense, and if the ravings of the physique obsessed de Coubertin are to be given shape, why not get rid of the State altogether, thereby making all participants neutral, if only for a few weeks?Facebook

Twitter

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

 

The End of the World

A review of Nuclear War: A Scenario, by Annie Jacobsen

by Sheila Velazquez / August 16th, 2024

I remember the day World War II ended. I was five. Our tiny apartment was filled with adults in various stages of euphoria, and inebriation. My one-month-old brother slept through it all in a basket on the kitchen sink.

My Uncle Jack was there on leave from the Coast Guard, which, during the war, escorted Navy ships carrying our troops, munitions, and supplies to Europe, protecting them from U-boat attacks. Jack was my hero. Each time he came back, there were gifts for my mother and for me. I still have the Turkish leather trinket box with the harem girl figure on the top.

The room was so small that we kids were sent outside. We felt the excitement and played as hard as our parents partied, long into the night, eventually finding our way back to our beds when we had nothing left. Several times we would hear one of the adults shout, “Never again!”

My memory of the Korean conflict relies mainly on my prayers for Nickie, my schoolgirl crush, the son of the butcher who owned the neighborhood grocery store. He came back a different person. As did my neighbor, Tony, who I did not recognize at first because his face had been completely transformed by plastic surgery.

During this conflict, schools held drives to help the war effort, although because of the post-war industrial boom, they were not as necessary as they had been for WWII. But we kids collected wire coat hangers and aluminum foil peeled from gum wrappers for the cause.

My understanding of war came from these men and women who had served and the images captured by Pathé News that were shown between the feature film and cartoons at the Saturday matinee. I wonder if today’s kids even think about war, or are they too distracted by the trivia created to keep them from serious thought.

I remember the 60s, from moving back to the States from Puerto Rico just before the Cuban Missile Crisis, through the war protests and Chicago convention riots. Actual journalists covered it all. We were outraged. But where is the outrage now?

And now the book report. I recently read Nuclear War: A Scenario, by Annie Jacobsen. Jacobsen draws on interviews with various military leaders and scientists to describe a scenario in which we come to the brink and beyond. Mistakes are made, leaders misspeak, communications are misinterpreted. The insanity of power and testosterone are in full force. Buttons are pushed, and Jacobsen fully lays out the steps that would occur as this doomsday action is set in motion. She documents the failures of our defenses, from ineffective warning systems to outdated equipment. So many things can go wrong, and would.

One of the most startling themes of the book is how if the United States were to retaliate in kind by an attack from another, in her example North Korea, another country, in her example Russia, could detect missiles over the Arctic Circle as being directed at them, leading to exchanges between the United States and both countries.

Nearly seventy times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Jacobsen lays out a picture of the destruction a one megaton bomb would cause, including how many would die instantly, and the effects at various distances from the bomb site. She writes of the nuclear winter that would destroy the ozone layer and life on earth itself, of the almost nil chance of survival anywhere on the planet, and the pain and suffering of those few who managed to hang on for a short time. As Nikita Khrushchev once noted, following nuclear war, “the living would envy the dead.” Nuclear War is a well-researched and frightening read.

We need new goals similar to the anthems of the 60s, of Peace and Love. All the petty bickering of the day over issues that in the end make no real difference in our lives must be kicked to the curb. We need to get off our phones and stand in the town square, gathering our communities together to force real change that will make the future better for all children and families, across the globe, and to ensure that there is a future.

This book should be required reading for politicians, policymakers and media who control and report on the fate of our planet and the human race. We may only have one chance to get this right.Facebook

RedditEmail

Sheila Velazquez lives and writes in Northwest Massachusetts. Her work is informed by decades of experience with unions, agriculture, public health, politics and her support of populism. She welcomes contact by email: simplelifestyle101@yahoo.com. Read other articles by Sheila.