Tuesday, January 23, 2024

The UK needs to break with neoliberalism to deliver economic growth

19 January, 2024 

'Political parties incessantly talk about low economic growth but none are willing to address the major issues'

This week, the UK economy narrowly avoided tipping into a recession, but sustainable economic growth remains elusive. The modest rates of economic growth were halted by the 2007-08 banking crash. Between 2010 and 2021, the real economy grew by just 1.2% a year. Under the weight of Brexit, never-ending austerity and low investment, the economy is growing at the slowest rate for two centuries. Masses don’t have the purchasing power to revive the economy.

Political parties incessantly talk about low economic growth but none are willing to address the major issues, which include low household incomes and investment. None of these can be addressed without equitable distribution of income and wealth, and curbs on corporate power.

In 2010, the UK had 54 billionaires with wealth of £58.1bn. By 2023, it grew to 171 billionaires with wealth of £684bn. Just 50 families have more wealth than half of the population, comprising 33.5m people. The richest 1% are wealthier than 70% of the population combined. They own 36.5% of all financial assets, with a value of £1.8tn.

The concentration of wealth means that governments rely upon a small section of the population to build a sustainable economy. The last 40 years have shown that such a task is virtually impossible. The inequalities have emboldened the super-rich to discipline elected governments by demanding laws and policies that promote their interests. Rather than curbing the power of the wealthy elites, the government has reduced the income of low and middle income families through austerity, real cuts in wages, state pension and benefits. Without good purchasing power, people can’t buy goods and services, and economic stagnation follows.

A large proportion of the population has been pushed into poverty as part of an economic experiment to produce a docile and obedient workforce. In 1976, at the height of trade union membership, workers’ share of the gross domestic product (GDP), in the form wages and salaries, was 65.1%. At the end of September 2023, after the onslaught of anti-trade union laws, fire and rehiring of workers on low pay, zero-hour contracts and more, workers’ share of GDP has declined to around 49% of GDP.

Ministers boast that since 2010, GDP has grown by 24%, but the benefits have hardly trickled-down. The average real wage has returned to the 2005 level. In 2023, the annual median wage in money (nominal) terms were £29,669; and mean wage was £35,404. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that a single person needs to earn £29,500 a year to reach a minimum acceptable standard of living. A couple with two children need to earn £50,000 between them. Some 19m adults have annual income of less than £12,570. Nearly 50% of the population is teetering on the edge of economic survival and does not have the reserves to boost economic revival. The standard of living of the poorest Britons is 20% lower than their counterparts in Slovenia.

The purchasing power of low and middle income families is under constant attacks by corporations using their market political and financial power to extract profits from a captive population. A sustained economy can’t be built without checking the monopolistic power of corporations.

The Balanced Economy Project reported that the average profit mark-up by the world’s top 20 companies, whose market value is equivalent to the GDP of France, Germany, India, Brazil, South Africa and the United Kingdom combined, is 50% compared to 25% average for smaller firms. This gets multiplied several times in the supply chain. The tech industry is dominated by few companies and its mark-up is currently at around 75% or more, and has been as high as 1,000%, meaning they charged people for goods and services ten times as much as the cost of producing them.

The finance industry piles on the pressure on cost-of-living crisis through speculation on virtually everything whilst producing little or nothing. For example, hedge funds made £1.5bn profit by speculating on food prices by betting on the Ukraine-Russia war. In 2022, investment banks made $20bn by trading and financing commodities like oil, gas and metals. High commodity prices are a major reason for higher inflation and poverty.

In the UK, unchecked corporate profiteering is the real reason for inflation and poverty. Shell, BP, British Gas, National Grid, coal and energy companies have excelled at profiteering. Gas producers and electricity generators are expected to make £170bn “excess” profits. Research by Unite reported that FTSE 350 companies hiked their profit margins by more than 89%. Between 2019 and 2021, agribusiness corporations increased profits by 255%. Pharmaceutical companies have raised prices of vital medicines by over 10,000%. Internet and mobile phone companies operate as a cartel and every year increase prices by inflation plus 3.9%, regardless of their cost. Water companies in England enjoy a monopoly and since privatisation in 1989 have hiked prices by 40% in real terms.

Despite £75.2bn subsidy in the last 10 years, rail companies find new ways to pick people’s pockets. The companies were keen to close all ticket offices and force people to use machines at stations. Evidence shows that for many journeys ticket machines are charging double online price. Of course, not everyone can afford to go online.

The vast wealth of the corporations and their controllers has not been used to improve wages and working conditions. It has been used to fund political parties, legislators and think-tanks to demand special privileges. For example, they demand that return on wealth in the form of dividends and capital gains be taxed at lower rates than wages. Their ability to dodge taxes by shifting profits and incomes to low/no tax jurisdictions remains unchecked. As the Post Office scandal shows, their power is used to silence victims and critics.

Economic crisis management policies are devised to hurt the poor and enrich the rich. Consider the case of a person suffering from some ailment. S/he visits a physician who dusts an old book and prescribes the same medicine, regardless of the cause of the ailment. The patient may survive but is in worst condition than before and picks up more ailments.

That is the case with the government’s inflation management policy. The current bout of inflation is caused by profiteering by corporations. It is not caused by higher wages, which are lagging prices. But instead of removing cash from those flushed with it through taxes on wealth, return on investment, dividends and capital gains, the government uses the old neoliberal remedy of hiking interest rates. This hurts small businesses, raises mortgage costs, rents and prices, further depleting the spending power of the low and middle income families. Their lack of spending power erodes possibilities of building a sustainable economy. Meanwhile the rich with financial assets get richer, profiteering continues unchecked, inequalities widen and banking corporations continue to create money.

The UK economy has suffered from chronic levels of underinvestment compared to other major economies. It has fallen from 23% of GDP in the late 1980s to around 17% from 2000 onwards, compared to 20-25% in major industrialised economies. This inevitably has a knock-on effect on the rates of productivity.

In the OECD league table of investment, the UK occupies 27th place for private investment, 23rd for public investment, and 35th spot overall out of 38 countries. This is despite a plethora of subsidies and tax incentives. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, poor purchasing power of the masses is a major disincentive for investment. Secondly, the private sector prioritises short-term gains and does not have the appetite for long-term risks. That is why the state invested and launched information technology, biotechnology, aerospace and other industries. The blind faith in markets has been counterproductive.

Now any mention of borrowing to invest sends neoliberals to a cold sweat, but that is what is needed as we are on the cusp of the fourth industrial revolution. After the Second World War, the government rebuilt the economy, launched the National Health Service and the welfare state by borrowing. In 1946, public debt hit 270% of GDP . The private sector was direct beneficiary of this policy as the state bought its goods and services, and that stimulated private investment. The expanded economy provided employment and boosted tax revenues. By 1976, the public debt declined to 49% of GDP. Without restoring the investment role of the state, the UK economy is unlikely to be revived.

In order to revive the economy, the UK needs to make a decisive break from neoliberal policies. Workers’ share of GDP needs to be increased through a higher living wage and secure employment. Equitable distribution of income and wealth needs to be aided by progressive taxation. The tax perks of the rich need to be withdrawn. For example, there is no justification for taxing returns on wealth, in the form of capital gains and dividends, at a lower rate than the returns on the investment of human capital (wages). Giant corporations need to be broken-up to encourage competition and reduce their ability to exploit people and hold governments to ransom. Industries in which no effective competition is possible, such as water, rail, energy, need to be brought into public ownership. All large business entities should have employee and consumer elected directors to ensure that people’s voice is heard.

There is no invisible hand of fate and our destinies are governed by the visible hand of politics and institutions of government. People have the power to secure emancipatory change. We are many, they are few.

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.

In an age of mass protest, why aren’t we winning?

NO GLOBAL MASS REVOLUTIONARY ORG.

 

Mike Phipps reviews If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution, by Vincent Bevins, published by Wildfire.

Based on 200 interviews in a dozen countries, this is an ambitious book which perhaps tries to cover too much. In 2013 Vincent Bevins was a young journalist working in São Paulo in Brazil. He became an eye-witness reporter of the mass movement that sprang up in protest against a rise in the city’s public transport charges – and of the police’s brutal response.

The campaign actually won. Moreover, Brazil’s then President Dilma Rousseff, although condemning a destructive minority, praised on national TV the spirit of the protests, which “proved the energy of our democracy.”

There was just one problem. During those three critical weeks of protest, the President’s poll ratings fell from 57% to 30%. They never recovered.

The movement evaporated. Had it been primarily about advancing the socioeconomic needs of ordinary people, or was the agenda one of institutional change? Its success may have depended on this ambiguity – but it also highlighted the dilemma facing all such successful campaigns. Was the next step to engage with – and risk being coopted by – institutional politics, or to risk irrelevance by maintaining a party-free, consensus-based grassroots movement?

From this first-hand experience, Bevins tries to explore a wider problem. From 2010 to 2020, more people took part in protests than at any other time in human history – the Arab Spring, student direct action in Chile, democracy activism in Hong Kong and Ukraine, to name a few. Why, asks Bevins, has success proved so elusive, in many cases the outcome being the opposite of what the protesters wanted?

Bevins describes the processes whereby the right regained the initiative – in particular, in Brazil, which he knows best. There this was done on the basis of a highly selective anti-corruption drive, backed by state institutions and a pliant media, yet based on deceit and led by law-breaking officials whose main priority was to stop former President Lula from running for a further term. It’s more difficult, however, to explain why this could happen.

Certainly, the structurelessness of mass single issue campaigns organised on a horizontal basis may hobble their effectiveness. Better-funded NGOs and political parties, often with a different agenda, can take control of events. The capacity of social media for distorting reality is also relevant. Victories achieved by the left are unlikely to be permanent. The right is well resourced and endlessly inventive at defending its own interests.

For the left, power is elusive. It includes electoral representation, but is not reducible to that alone. It is tied into a wide and not always obvious network of institutions and processes. When left wing Presidents in Peru and Brazil are elected, they face being impeached out of office, in processes backed by the police and most mainstream media. In Guatemala last year, the newly elected left wing President was nearly prevented by institutional obstruction from taking office at all. But in Argentina, when a right wing extremist is elected with minimal support in Congress, he is allowed to bypass the elected legislature and rule by decree.

Clearly the odds are stacked against progressive change. One response from the left is to reject engagement with the formal power structures. Official politics is a sewer. The abandonment of alternative economic policies by most democratic socialist parties and their capitulation to neoliberalism makes it easier to dismiss all official parties as the same  – a ‘caste’, as Podemos characterised the political elite in Spain in its successful insurgent phase.

But this populist grandstanding gets you only so far. In truth, not all political parties are the same and a belief that they are leaves the left ill-prepared when it needs to work with forces to its right, as in Spain and Portugal recently. Then new problems emerge: compromise, corruption, capitulation. This itself feeds an anti-politics populism, which tends to favour a well-funded and resourceful far right.

Events in Chile in 2019 express these contradictions. When the right wing President Piñera declared a state of siege in response to student protests against high public transport fares, neighbourhood assemblies sprang up across the country to discuss their grievances with the government. As protests escalated, Congressional leaders proposed a ‘peace accord’ – a referendum on a new Chilean constitution.

Most of the protest leaders rejected the deal outright. The only radical leftist to sign it was the former student leader Gabriel Boric who was widely denounced for his stance at  the time.

Yet in 2021, Boric was elected Chilean President at the age of 35 amid much jubilation on the left. Was this a vindication of his position of two years earlier? That’s more complicated: in 2022, the left’s new constitution was put to a referendum and roundly defeated. Was this the wrong priority, not tied to the immediate economic needs of the Chilean masses? Certainly, the momentum of Boric’s government stalled. But he remains President: the fight goes on.

Bevins’ book doesn’t address all these issues. One lesson he draws from the failed movements of the last decade is that there is no such thing as a political vacuum. If you take away the power from those who have it and don’t seize it yourself, then someone else will. That’s true, as far as it goes.

One activist told the author: “Organize. Create an organized movement. And don’t be afraid of representation. We thought representation was elitism but actually it is the essence of democracy.”

That’s more helpful. It was echoed elsewhere: “Any revolution with no organized labor party will just give more power to the economic elites.”

One Egyptian activist was blunter: “In New York or Paris, if you do a horizontal, leaderless, and post-ideological uprising, and it doesn’t work out, you just get a media or academic career afterward. Out here in the real world, if a revolution fails, all your friends go to jail or end up dead.”

That sounds bleak, but learning the lessons from these experiences is essential, win or lose. “You can learn more from a failure than from a success – if you recognise it as such,” argued the late Mike Marqusee. This is something that we in the UK, where we have not faced death or been thrown jail in the aftermath of the Corbyn movement’s defeat in 2019, must remember.

This book is well worth reading. It may not have all the answers but it is at least asking the right questions, ones we should all be grappling with.

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

http://www.threads.net/@labour_hub

UK

Power to the people? The first Labour government a century on

 

JANUARY 22, 2024

A hundred years ago today, Ramsay MacDonald formed the first ever Labour government. Richard Price assesses its achievement.

We’ve become used to thinking that we live in politically exceptional times. By the end of this year, we will in all likelihood have had four general elections and six prime ministers in nine years. Yet the six years following the end of the First World War were even more frenetic. Britain had four general elections and four different prime ministers covering seven periods in office.

Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour government – the sixth in this sequence – was not the first government in the world with working class credentials. In 1871, the Paris Commune had briefly brought a coalition of Proudhonists, Blanquistes and Jacobins to power. Chris Watson’s Australian Labour Party government was in office for seven months in 1904. In November 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in the former Tsarist empire. Six months later, Mensheviks in Georgia proclaimed independence from the Soviet Union. Germany’s social democrats came to power on the back of the November 1918 revolution.

Yet there was no doubting the symbolic importance of the first Labour government that took office a century ago on 22nd January 1924. George V wrote in his diary: “Today 23 years ago dear Grandmama died. I wonder what she would have thought of a Labour Government.”

The Manchester Guardian noted that a majority of the members of the new government “are drawn from the humblest rank of society.” Peter Clark’s recent book, The Men of 1924, points out that its social composition was a sharp break with the past. Replacing the Tories were a group of men, the majority of whom had left school by the age of 15, and headed by the illegitimate son of a farm labourer and a housemaid. Five members of the government had started work by the age of 12, three had started working down coal mines before their teens, another was born to a single mother, one had been a foundling, and three were of Irish immigrant heritage.

The window of opportunity for Labour to form a government was the product of several years of extreme political instability. The end of war saw the rapid contraction of war industries, causing an initial recession, accompanied by the growth of trade union militancy. A short boom was followed by a sharp recession in 1920-21, accompanied by rising unemployment, which touched 23.4% in May 1921. Trade union membership, which had peaked at 8.3 million in 1920, fell back to 5.4 million in 1923. Deflationary trends saw prices fall.

Internationally, the Russian Revolution threatened to upend the international order. Germany, with the Ruhr occupied by France, was gripped by economic crisis. Ireland achieved independence at the cost of a bloody civil war. British rule was increasingly challenged in India.

For the only time in British history, there were three general elections in three successive years. The two parties of the British ruling class, the Tories and the Liberals, were riven by internal splits and feuds, and the growth of Labour’s electoral support inaugurated a decade of three-party politics, in which political calculations became much more complex.

At the 1922 general election, Labour made net gains of 85 seats and became the official opposition for the first time. Ramsay MacDonald became Party leader, which now became an official title, in addition to being Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. He still retained some credit with the growing anti-war wing of the Party for his stance during the First World War. Anti-war MPs had lost their seats in the Khaki election of 1918, but the pendulum was beginning to swing, and by the mid-1920s, Labour was moving towards the kind of semi-pacifism it would hold to for the next decade.

The election saw the victory of five Red Clydesiders, who supported MacDonald for the leadership – something they would subsequently regret. Among the new intake were more MPs who weren’t sponsored by unions. Many were Independent Labour Party socialists, who tended to lean to the left of their trade union colleagues. At the same time, there was a steady drip-drip of Liberal defectors joining Labour.

While Churchill and his close ally Lord Birkenhead claimed that Labour was ‘unfit to govern’, Labour stressed its moderation and fiscal responsibility, promising to address “the difficulties of employers”. J.R. Clynes, who led the party up to the 1922 general election, and became deputy leader to MacDonald after, rejected the idea that there was any “mysterious reservoir of wealth” that could fund wage increases.

Meanwhile, the Labour leaders were fighting a war on their left flank against the influence of the Communist Party among the Labour left, and throughout the mid-1920 they took a series of administrative measures against it. Despite a membership of below 4,000 at the end of 1923, CP members were active as individuals in local Labour parties. But Labour Conference in July 1923 decisively rejected the latest attempt at Communist affiliation by 2,880,000 to 366,000.

After only eight months of the Tory ministry, Premier Andrew Bonar Law resigned, having been diagnosed as terminally ill. Stanley Baldwin, who took over, wanted to reverse Tory policy in favour of protectionist tariffs on imports, and incautiously called another election on 6th December 1923 to win a mandate. Labour’s main manifesto pledge was a capital levy on all individual fortunes in excess of £5,000. 

It was a serious miscalculation on Baldwin’s part. Protectionism was unpopular – the public feared it would lead to higher food prices – and when the votes were counted the Tories had lost 86 seats. Labour gained 49 and the Liberals gained 43, leaving the Tories as the largest party, but unable to command a majority. Remarkably, this large number of seats changed hands without any major shift in the main parties’ support in the country. The Tories were down only 0.5%, Labour up 1% and the Liberals up 0.9%.

The parliamentary recess ran for five weeks, for the rest of December and well into January. In the days following the election there was talk of a coalition, and MacDonald’s support for a cross-party government of the centre was canvassed. As in the Blair years, there was some talk of a Labour-Liberal realignment of the centre, but it came to nothing. But by the middle of December the National Executive, the Executive of the Parliamentary Party and the TUC had ruled out a coalition. For the time being, Baldwin remained in office.

While the negotiations went on there was a right wing press campaign predicting doom, gloom and Bolshevism. As the Palace dithered as to who it would invite to form a government, railway workers’ leader Jimmy Thomas – who would cross the floor to join MacDonald’s National Government in 1931 – let it be known that Labour would introduce “no extreme legislation or violent administrative changes” and that MacDonald would not “play up to the Clyde division”. He went further, committing the incoming government to accepting the outgoing government’s budget and shelving plans for a Capital Levy.

Baldwin held on until January but when Parliament finally resumed on 22nd January Labour and the Liberals combined to vote down the King’s Speech by 72 votes, leaving the king no option but to call upon MacDonald to form a minority government. MacDonald caused amusement by attending the Palace in a frock coat of the type rarely seen since the First World War.

The election was notable for the victory of first three women Labour MPs, Margaret Bondfield, Susan Lawrence and Dorothy Jewson. Bondfield – a former shop assistant – became the first woman to serve in government when she was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

Very few Labour MPs had any experience of government. Arthur Henderson had served in both Asquith’s and Lloyd George’s wartime coalitions, with a few others in minor posts. The day after Labour took office, former Liberal Noel Buxton, who became Minister of Agriculture, told his outgoing Tory predecessor that “MacDonald’s idea is to show how respectable they are.” To demonstrate ‘continuity’, MacDonald drafted in forces outside the Labour Party. His Cabinet contained four ex-Liberals, two Tories and one ex-Tory. Labour had only three members of the House of Lords, but MacDonald declined to create significantly more.

In opposition Labour had often spoken about unemployment. Although it had fallen from its peak in 1921 to 11.9% when Labour took office, it remained stubbornly high, rarely dipping below 10% the rest of the decade. In government, Labour failed to take adequate measures. Its leaders thought the way to cure unemployment was a better foreign policy – “the re-establishment of normal peaceful conditions throughout the world” – rather than any assault on the bastions of power, wealth and privilege. To this end, MacDonald served as his own Foreign Secretary. There was no significant interventionist programme of public works, with the result that when the government fell in October 1924 it had hardly made a dent in the unemployment rate, which remained at 10.9%.

The new left in the Party was largely side-lined except for Clydesider John Wheatley at Health. Fred Jowett as Commissioner of Works was the left’s only other representative. Philip Snowden as Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved a long way from his socialist evangelism in the early years of the century to a grey, rigid orthodoxy. He too would cross the floor in 1931.

The British Empire covered about one-quarter of the world’s land surface and ruled over one-fifth of its population. But the incoming government had little in the way of progressive ideas. Right winger Jimmy Thomas was Colonial Secretary and former Liberal Imperialist Richard Haldane chaired the Committee of Imperial Defence like a ‘private empire’. While claiming to be working towards Dominion Home Rule in India, the government warned Indian Congress leaders not to take any “ill-considered or premature action.” There was one break with the past, with the diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union in February 1924. An Anglo-Soviet trade agreement followed in August.

The one piece of government legislation that had a lasting impact was John Wheatley’s Housing Act. It increased government subsidies paid to local authorities to build municipal housing for rent to low paid workers. It specified decent space standards and the provision of bathrooms. The act remained in operation until 1933 and produced 508,000 houses, all but 15,000 of which were built by local authorities. There were also a number of modest yet worthy social reforms, including increases in benefits, some improvements in welfare facilities and extension of educational opportunities.

Wheatley was also responsible for another victory for the left. In 1922 Poplar Council had been issued with an Order by the then Liberal Minister of Health that made paying unemployment relief at a scale higher than the official one illegal. Wheatley rescinded it unilaterally without consulting MacDonald.

With barely 30% of the seats in the Commons and heavily dependent on Liberal votes, MacDonald’s government was never likely to last long. Yet MacDonald’s aim was to remain in power as long as possible. In reality, the only choice available was to influence the manner of his downfall. The Parliamentary Party’s Liaison Committee, chaired by Robert Smillie, called on the government to “deal drastically and fundamentally” with some of the accumulated “great social evils” and if defeated, that it should go to the country with a clear alternative platform. Instead, MacDonald soldiered on, emphasising the government’s responsibility and moderation, and most histories of the period repeat the line that its one achievement was to show that Labour was ‘fit to govern’.

In its 25th July 1924 edition, the Communist Workers Weekly carried an open letter to members of the forces by its editor J.R. Campbell, calling upon them not to shoot strikers. The government’s Attorney General, Sir Patrick Hastings recommended prosecution under the 1797 Mutiny Act, but pressure from Labour backbenchers caused it to be withdrawn. Tories, Liberals and the right wing press responded by claiming the government was in hock to extremists.

A Tory motion of censure was defeated, but a Liberal motion in favour of a Select Committee to investigate the circumstances leading to the prosecution being dropped was carried. MacDonald treated this as an issue of confidence, and requested a dissolution of Parliament and a fresh election.

The red scare that had been generated put Labour on the defensive. It deepened with the publication of the infamous ‘Zinoviev Letter’ in the Daily Mail, four days before the election on 29th October. The letter purported to be a letter to the British Communists, urging them to take advantage of the normalisation of relations with the Soviet Union to press forward revolutionary action. It is now widely accepted to have been a White Russian forgery, with some involvement by MI5.

The election result saw sweeping Tory gains that gave them 412 seats on a swing of 8.8%. Although the Zinoviev Letter is widely credited with Labour’s defeat, the extent is debatable. Labour’s vote actually rose by just over a million votes, and its vote share by 2.6%, although this was partly due to it contesting more seats. Despite this, Labour lost 40 seats, although the big losers were the Liberals who lost 118 seats as middle class voters rallied to the Tories as the party of order.

So are there ‘lessons for today’ to be drawn in the time-honoured way from events 100 years ago? Perhaps what we should note is how contemporary so many of MacDonald’s traits seem – the scrapping of pledges to tax the rich; the marginalisation of the left of the Party, while reaching out to forces to its right; the pose of acting as an honest broker between employers and workers; the retreat in the face of witch-hunting; the absence of an over-arching narrative and mission; abiding by inherited Tory budgets.

Richard Price is a member of Leyton & Wanstead CLP.

Image: Ramsay MacDonald. https://picryl.com/media/ramsay-macdonald-cropped-975b23. Creator: National Portrait Gallery London | Credit: National Portrait Gallery London via Picryl.com Copyright: public domain PDM 1.0 DEED Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal

  


http://www.threads.net/@labour_hub

 

Thérèse Coffey: lone voice against the Wakanda genocide

By David Osland

JANUARY 20, 2024

Brexiteers talk freely of ‘Brussels’ as a shorthand label for unaccountable European Union bureaucracy, while critics of US foreign policy frequently employ ‘Washington’ by way of an easily understandable synonym.

There is even a technical term for such figures of speech. Metonymy is defined as “the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant.” Put more simply, the reference is to the part but implies the whole.

So when Labour’s Yvette Cooper spoke of “the Kigali government” in this week’s Commons debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, she must have had the reasonable expectation that MPs would take that as a reference to the dictatorship of Paul Kagame. What else could she even have meant?

Step forward Thérèse Coffey, a Tory politician whose stint in the cabinet will be long remembered for her failure to tackle water companies dumping sewage in Britain’s rivers.

“I was somewhat astonished by the speech of the shadow home secretary, who cannot even get the name of the country right, talking about the Kigali government when we are talking about Rwanda,” the princess of poo boldly declaimed.

The comment is a strong early contender for the 2024 Failed Attempted Zinger of the Year Award. Unkind observers have even seized on the remark to suggest her grasp of African politics is not all it might be. But I for one will never forget she was often an outspoken lone voice against the Wakanda genocide.

Coffey is the product of a fee-paying school, who secured a place at Oxford University, before she was required to withdraw on academic grounds. But her humiliating display of ignorance raises issues beyond her personal intelligence.

The Rwanda bill comes too late in this parliamentary term to be dubbed flagship legislation, because the Tory Titanic sank some time ago. Think of it as life raft legislation instead.

It is a calculated appeal to the presumed indelible racism of the Conservatives’ target demographic, in the probably forlorn hope of mitigating annihilation at the next general election.

Not only is this rancid attempt to send asylum seekers to deportation camps on another continent in obvious breach of international law, but it has already cost the taxpayer £240m, with another tranche of £40m already lined up. That is far more than the meagre £200m Sunak allocated to fund the NHS winter emergency.

Yet not a single asylum seeker has yet been sent to “the Kigali government” – see what I did there, Thérèse? – and the likelihood that any ever will be is increasingly remote.

Even the very object of the bill is blitheringly incoherent. Westminster – gotta love metonymy, right? – can no more declare that Rwanda is safe than it can rule that black is white or that cats are dogs.

It is true that a thousand years ago, King Cnut placed his throne on the beach and commanded the waves to turn back. But at least he was doing this to teach a lesson to sycophantic courtiers.

Sunak doesn’t even have that excuse. Indeed, this week he has found sycophantic courtiers in short supply.

Worse still, Kagame is getting sniffy about the money and is threatening to send it back. Let no one ever say that African military strongmen do not adhere to basic moral standards. Even if the Tories don’t.

That brings me to Labour’s moral standards on this issue. If you Google hard enough, you can find frontbenchers condemning the Rwanda scheme on ethical grounds. But that critique has rarely been front and centre.

The objections have instead focused on cost and practicality. They are legitimate, as far as they go. But they don’t go far enough. Such is callow electoral expediency.

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill now goes to the House of Lords, at which stage Green peers will make a doomed attempt to gut it and Labour peers will see it through, in the hope of prolonging Tory agony.

It then returns to the Commons. Any MPs under the misapprehension that “Kigali” is an independent sovereign state should recuse themselves from the vote on grounds of stupidity. They are not sufficiently well informed to offer considered judgement.

David Osland is a member of Hackney North & Stoke Newington CLP and a long-time left wing journalist and author and writes for Labour Research magazine. Follow him on Twitter at @David__Osland

Image: Thérèse Coffey. 

Source: https://api20170418155059.azure-api.net/photo/CsHBoP4f.jpeg?crop=MCU_3:2&quality=80&download=true. Author: Chris_McAndrew, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

http://www.threads.net/@labour_hub




Shell urged to improve environmental targets in biggest climate resolution to date, as activists hold ‘Go To Hell Shell’ event in London



20 January, 2024 


'The time is over for oily corporations to operate with impunity.'



A group of 27 investors, owning around 5 percent of Shell’s shares, is demanding the multinational improves its environmental targets. The resolution is the biggest such drive to date and was coordinated by the activist group Follow This.

Similar motions have been organised by the group at Shell meetings since 2016. Last year, a resolution put forward by Follow This won the backing of 20 percent of shareholders in what was an eventful AGM where protesters tried to storm the stage.

However, support for the upcoming resolution has drawn the largest number of investment managers, said Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This. It includes Europe’s largest asset manager, Amundi.

The group calls on Shell to align its ‘medium term’ greenhouse gas emission target with the Paris Agreement, to limit global warming. The resolution will be brought to a vote at Shell’s annual general meeting later this year.

The bid to shore up pressure on Shell’s climate commitments comes as its CEO, Wael Sawan, aims to boost the company’s profits, partly by increasing fossil fuel production and slowing down investments in renewables. In October 2023, Shell announced it was to cut at least 15 percent of its low-carbon solutions division workforce and scale back on its hydrogen business.

When Sawan took the helm in January 2023, he promised to revamp Shell’s strategy to focus on higher-margin projects, steady oil output and grow natural gas production. The organisational changes will see 200 jobs cut in 2024, and 130 positions put under review. Staff were reportedly told details about the cuts this week.

On the shareholder resolution, Shell described it as being “unrealistic and simplistic” and “broadly unchanged” from the resolution filed by Follow This last year. “It would have no impact on mitigating climate change, have negative consequences for our customers, and was against the interests of the company and our shareholders,” the company said.

As the oil giant faces criticism over its climate policy and faces calls for stronger targets, environmental campaigners are gathering in the capital today – January 20 – to protest how Shell is pushing forward with their fossil fuel and extraction plans, and “bringing in hordes of wealth whilst we face wildfires, droughts and floods.”

The demonstration is being organised by Fossil Free London, which campaigns to make the UK capital inhospitable to the fossil fuel industry and the banks that fund it.

The ‘Go To Hell Shell’ event is taking place outside the company’s HQ. The campaigners are using the demonstration to film their “Go to Hell, Shell” music video to the tune of Ray Charles’ song “Hit the Road Jack,” with the lyrics updated to reflect what they refer to as Shell’s role in driving the climate crisis.

Left Foot Forward asked Fossil Fuel London their thoughts on the calls for Shell to align its greenhouse emission target with the Paris Agreement. Joanna Warrington, an organiser with the activist group, said:

“Shell is surely getting pretty used to the pressure of climate shareholders. We have crashed their AGMs in our hundreds twice already and the pressure just keeps on coming. It will not stop, because our collapsing ecosystem demands change.

“The time is over for oily corporations to operate with impunity. And no efficient fuels, greenwash announcements, or even shareholder Paris Agreement resolutions will be enough to protect human life until we shut down Shell.”

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward
Right-Wing Watch

How the Right sabotaged ‘responsible capitalism’



20 January, 2024 

The sabotaging of 'responsible capitalism' takes us to America, where, as culture wars rage, businesses seen as socially and environmentally progressive are under attack.



“When Google does great things for the world, I applaud. When it goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying taxes, it’s wrong,” said Ed Miliband in 2013, as he argued the case for ‘responsible capitalism,’ in that the ‘right messages are sent out from the top.’ The then Labour leader had even set out a five-point plan for more responsible capitalism, calling for business ethic that empowers long-term shareholders and a finance system not based on short-term profits.

Today, the notion of ‘responsible capitalism’ broadly encompasses a company’s or investor’s environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) agenda. It is sometimes referred to as ‘clean capitalism,’ ‘conscious capitalism,’ and even ‘woke capitalism’ (the latter being used derogatively, mainly by conservatives who oppose it.)

You would think that everyone would applaud the move to make society fairer, workplaces more diverse, and emissions cut? But no, alas, there is a right-wing, anti-ESG backlash going on. And, as so often with the Right’s extreme agendas to curtail what’s good and progressive in society, the sabotaging of ‘responsible capitalism’ takes us to America, where, as culture wars rage, businesses seen as socially and environmentally progressive are under attack.

In 2020, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, with $9.42 trillion in assets, announced it was squarely behind ‘purpose-driven’ investing. Sustainability will be at the “centre of our investment approach,” said BlackRock chief executive Larry Fink. Investors and corporate American quickly followed suit, launching ESG-focused plans, and signing up to Net Zero carbon schemes. But four years later, and BlackRock’s position on purpose-driven investing has shifted somewhat. In November 2023, Fink announced the decision to continue to work with big energy companies and described a $550m investment into one of the world’s largest carbon capture project as “an incredible investment opportunity,” rather than focusing on its environmental merits. Fink even said he was no longer using the term ESG because it had become ‘weaponised.’

While capitalism is always inevitably profit driven and there is a suspicion of ‘green washing’ in some recent corporate announcements, the current shift in focus and sentiment, has owed a good deal to US Republican politicians’ relentless pounding of big banks and investment managers for being ‘too woke’ or ‘hostile’ to fossil fuel.

In the first six months of 2023, Republican lawmakers in 37 states introduced an incredible 165 pieces of anti-ESG legislation, a report from Pleiades Strategy, the strategic research and advisory firm uncovered. The proposals sought to employ a range of tactics, including combatting federal investment rules and imposing limits on public contracts.

Connor Gibson, who co-authored the report, described the trend as ‘rampant.’

And, as so often when discussing the action of the Right, the war on responsible capitalism has associations with right-wing think-tanks. The report found that the majority of the anti-ESG legislative proposals bore strong resemblance to model bills created or circulated by four influential right-wing think-tanks – the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Foundation for Government Accountability, and the Heartland Institute.

Additionally, advocacy for many of the bills was led by groups with fossil fuel interests, including the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), which, since 2012, has reportedly accepted at least $8.8m from organisations linked to fossil fuel billionaires Charles and the late David Koch. The TPPF began its assault on ESG in 2020, and was behind an innovative anti-ESG bill passed in Texas in 2021, which sought to punish fossil fuel disinvestment.

Meanwhile in New Hampshire, Republican lawmakers have gone even further, seeking to make using ESG criteria in state funds a crime. A bill was introduced that would prohibit the state’s treasury, pension fund and executive branch from using investments that consider ESG factors. ‘Knowingly’ violating the law could lead to 20 years imprisonment. Yes really!

But despite their best efforts, just 22 of the 165 proposed anti-ESG bills progressed, and many that passed were watered down. Frances Sawyer, founder of Pleiades Strategy and co-author of the report, described how the ‘dark-money-funded attacks on the freedom to invest responsibly’ had hit deep opposition from business, labour, and environmental advocates. “Our report shows that the effort to weaponise government funds, contracts and pensions to prevent companies and investors from considering real financial risks is not a winning platform,” she commented.

While their punitive anti-ESG proposals might not be securing the legislative support they might hope for, the right-wing Republican movement against ‘cleaner capitalism’ is having an impact. In 2023, the launch of funds citing ESG attributes plummeted. A report by the FT on how money managers are pulling back support on climate and social shareholder proposals revealed that just 3 percent of the 257 resolutions on environmental and social issues the advocacy group ShareAction examined in 2023 won majority support. This was down from 14 percent in 2022 and 21 percent in 2021.

The sector’s four largest players by assets managed – BlackRock, Fidelity, Vanguard, and State Street – were among the most reluctant to back environmental and social resolutions, one of which called for an assessment of workers’ rights at Amazon. Claudia Gray, head of financial sector research at ShareAction, described the findings as ‘deeply concerning.’

Concerningly, at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, ESG was barely heard. As Gillian Tett reports in the FT, even if companies are engaged in sustainability drives, most executives are reluctant to use the term ESG, especially if they are in America. ‘…anyone advocating for sustainability in a company now needs to present this to colleagues and shareholders as an initiative about resilience-building and reputation-building — rather than just doing good,’ writes Tett.

The US’s anti-ESG backlash is causing something of a transatlantic rift. In the UK and Europe, financial institutions are increasingly expected to disclose the environmental and social impacts of their investments, compared to the US, where Republican politicians criticise financial institutions for being too vocal on ESG issues.

Just this week, investors, including Europe’s largest asset management firm, Amundi, and the UK’s biggest pension scheme, the government-backed National Employment Savings Trust (Nest), backed a resolution filed by the Dutch shareholder activists at Follow This, which calls for the oil giant Shell to align its medium-term emissions reduction targets with the 2015 Paris agreement.

While the anti-responsible capitalism movement might not be so pronounced here in Britain as it is in the US, it has gained a footing, with the right-wing media, unsurprisingly, in the driving seat.

On January 14, the Daily Mail published a painfully anti-ESG story that could have come straight from Fox News, which loves to shout about companies advocating for ‘non-woke, anti-ESG’ proposals.

‘Millennials and Gen Zers ditch ‘woke capitalism’: Support plummets for socially-conscious ESG funds as TikTokers bash ‘scam’ diversity targets and ‘greenwashing,’ was the Mail’s sensationalising headline.



The report cites a US study (though it doesn’t exactly promote the fact it’s a US study) that shows younger generations had begun to allocate their money ‘more like baby boomers, who are keener on turning a profit than lofty principles.’

What the Mail’s story fails to touch on is that you would expect a drop-in support for responsible capitalism, after the Republican focused campaign to discredit and diminish it.

And, if we thought the war against responsible capitalism had yet to arrive in Britain, then we should cast our minds back to last summer when Nigel Farage’s blasted bank account dominated the news cycle, not just for days, but weeks. The former UKIP leader’s battle with Coutts Bank over the closure of his account, snowballed into an assault on ‘woke capitalism,’ driven, not just by Farage but by the national right-wing media.

‘…. Treatment of Nigel Farage is disgraceful – too many firms have let woke extremism become their official creed,’ splashed The Sun.

‘You don’t need to be a Nigel Farage fan to be outraged by him being stripped of his account by hyper-woke bank,’ was another headline in the Murdoch newspaper.

One would hope, but not expect, there to have been some kind of acknowledgement of their misjudgement by the said media, when it was eventually confirmed in an official investigation, that the decision to close Farage’s bank account was lawful, that Coutts had a “contractual right” to shut the accounts, and had done so because the bank was losing money by keeping him as a client.

Naturally, that part of the story did not dominate the frontpages for weeks. In fact, it barely got a mention.

In his evaluation of whether the anti-ESG movement as seen in the US has made its way to the UK, Ben Carr, Associate Director of the MHP Group, sees the Farage/Coutts drama, and Sunak’s rolling back of climate policies, as evidence that such a backlash might have started in the UK.

“Away from climate change and looking at the governance pillar within ESG, the recent Coutts debanking saga is further evidence that a broader ESG backlash may be emerging in the UK,” writes Carr.

In an episode discussing the Republican movement against environmental, social and governance investing, the Politico Energy podcast argues that the US is looking to take its message to the UK. Politico’s Jordan Wolman refers to a conference in London that took place November, where high-profile US conservatives known for pleading anti-ESG sentiment, spoke about what they determined to be their wins in the US in getting Wall Street to back off from their sustainability commitments and pledges. For Wolman, the fact that such Republicans are speaking at the UK conference, is testament that they want to push their agenda in Britain.

The climate journalist also spoke of how the UK defence secretary had warned that ESG could be undermining investment in the UK. In September, Grant Shapps criticised ESG for excluding companies and that ethical investing is harming Britain’s economy and risks undermining the defence sector.

‘Ethical investing is a threat to Britain’s defence industry, warns Shapps,’ The Telegraph splashed.

Wolman also noted how Rishi Sunak had rolled back on some key climate targets. “The backlash per se might not but as clear cut in the UK, but ‘the foundation could be there,” he warned.

Alongside government ministers criticising ESG investment, and Sunak’s decision to boost North Sea oil and gas production, as well as the rolling back of the 2030 ban on petrol and diesel cars to show the government is ‘on the side of motorists,’ the growing list of anti-green headlines in Britain has included the targeting of specific companies.

In April 2023, the Telegraphtook aim at John Lewis, which has long been considered a bastion of ‘responsible capitalism’ for its employee-owned business model. The John Lewis Partnership (JLP) model was introduced in 1929, when one of the founder’s sons realised that while himself, his brother, and father earned £26,000 a year, the rest of the staff shared £16k between them. The rationale was that such a model results in low staff morale, and it is “wrong to have millionaires before you have ceased to have slums.” Both would have a negative impact on business.



‘John Lewis’s happy-clappy partnership model has become a millstone,’ was the headline of financial columnist Matthew Lynn’s piece that argued, for all their virtues, worker-owned businesses have ‘fatal weaknesses.’ I won’t bore you with too much detail on the apparent weaknesses, but they comprised of the same-old ‘slow to embrace change,’ ‘no mechanism for ousting managers and replacing them with tougher executives,’ and so on.

Fortunately, the inference pedalled by the likes of Lynn that ‘responsible capitalism’ has met its demise and is no longer fit for purpose, doesn’t really translate into what’s actually happening.

While the real-world impact of the anti-ESG backlash is difficult to assess, the continued success of companies which embrace responsible capitalism cannot be ignored.

Just look at Timpson, the much-loved British cobbler. In 2022, the company’s chairman, Sir John Timpson, received the FIRST Responsible Capitalism Award for his record of helping those who have fallen victim to misfortune, and specialising in recruiting staff from marginalised groups. In 2023, Timpson announced its profits had surged ‘way beyond their expectations.’ So much for responsible capitalism not working.

Even in the US, the originator of the anti-ESG movement, businesses known for their conscious capitalism are going from strength to strength. The outdoor clothing company Patagonia, for example, won global admiration and headlines when it announced it was transferring ownership to a charitable foundation committed to saving the planet. This is despite the Republican drive to come after business over social issues.

It could be said that Ed Miliband was ahead of his time in his push for ‘responsible capitalism.’ And while we never got to see the benefits of his plan, fortunately the pillars of environmental, social and corporate governance are not being actively sabotaged by the political Right in Britain. That said, we should never underestimate the influence of right-wing Republicans on UK Conservatives, and there are worrying signs that the anti-ESG movement has taken a leap across the Pond.

Right-Wing Media Watch – The media jihad against Ed Davey

The right-wing media is holding no prisoners in its smear campaign to force the Liberal Democrat leader to resign.

‘Ed Davey has called on so many others to resign. Will he now take his own medicine?’ was The Telegraph’s headline this week.

The Evening Standard, owned by Russian-British businessman and Johnson appointee to the Lords in spite of a murky past, Evgeniy Lebedev, went even further. The newspaper devoted an entire frontpage to the smear campaign. ‘Sir Hypocrite’ the newspaper splashed.

GB News went further still, with the station’s biggest presenters, Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Lee Anderson, launching full-scale tirades against Davey. Such was the ‘biased’ coverage, that the Lib Dems have accused GB News of ‘misleading’ viewers over the minister’s involvement in the scandal.

Meanwhile, the Express took exception to the party’s complaint to Ofcom about the channel’s coverage of Davey’s ‘failure to grasp the Post Office scandal.’ The newspaper devoted an entire story to how Lee Anderson ‘brutally slapped down’ (the right-wing media love machismo interviews) the Liberal Democrats after they announced they had written to the media regulator demanding an investigation into GB News.

Davey’s ‘crime’? He was the minister responsible for the Post Office from 2010 to 2012, during the coalition government, and “he did nothing to address the plight of wrongly -accused sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses…” as The Telegraph put it.

I was of the impression that the Post Office failings ran from 1999 to 2015, when over 700 sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted. From 1999 to the present day (when the most widespread injustice in British legal history has finally got the full-spectrum media fever coverage it deserves, thanks to an ITV drama) there has been a total 20 Post Office ministers – 8 Conservative, 8 Labour, and 4 Liberal Democrats.

Why then, is Ed Davey being singled out as the only offender?

Cynics might believe it has something to do with the fact that the Lib Dems have played a leading role in exposing the Murdoch empire’s wrongdoings. The fevered calls for Ed Davey to resign seemed to be initiated by The Times.

‘Ed Davey can make history – by resigning, was the newspaper’s headline on January 9.

In December, News Group Newspapers agreed a six-figure settlement with former Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne whose political career ended with a conviction for perverting the course of justice. The former Liberal Democrat minister had accused News Group Newspapers of ‘knowingly orchestrating unlawful information gathering in the UK.’

On the settlement, Huhne said he believed it, “vindicates my long-standing claim that News Corporation directors and managers targeted me to get rid of a political opponent.”

“They had two objectives: corporate espionage to help Murdoch’s bid for Sky, and bull-dozing pesky politicians out of the way.”

Huhne was not the only Lib Dem minister who claimed that News Corp had not hacked him just for tabloid titillation but as an attempt to remove him as a critic. Vince Cable and Norman Lamb made such claims.

Cable was removed from his position as business secretary by the then prime minister, David Cameron, after journalist and presenter Robert Peston was leaked a tape in which Cable had told a constituent that he had “declared war” on Murdoch and expected to win.

Could it be that history is repeating itself, and the Murdoch media is using the Post Office scandal to whip up furore against Ed Davey in a bid to get revenge on those ‘pesky’ Lib Dems?

I wouldn’t put it past them.

Woke bashing of the week – National Trust’s communications head hits back at media’s accusations of virtue signalling

The National Trust (NT), one of Britain’s best-loved institutions with over five million members, is a constant target of the woke bashers. For three years the self-styled ‘anti-woke’ insurgents, Restore Trust (RT), have ran a bitter campaign designed to infiltrate the charity, and rid it of what it describes as a ‘woke’ agenda, including policies on rewilding and social inclusion.

Celia Richardson, director of communications, has had enough and is hitting back at the persistent slurs, which are heavily promoted by the right-wing press.

During her three years as comms head, Richardson says she has been forced to insist that NT has not been captured, as The Sun worded it, by “shrill, demented, wokery.”

Talking to Prospect Magazine, Richardson explained how when RT emerged following the publishing of an academic report into the Trust’s links with colonialism and slavery, the organisation met with Restore Trust, which began loudly arguing that the charity had lost its way. She continued how the group gained thousands of members and received a ‘huge amount of sympathetic media coverage.’ How it appointed paid staff and directors, including Neil Record, who chaired the climate change sceptic campaign group, Net Zero Watch, and the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Richardson spoke of how RT was ‘cherry-picking facts to create a story that wasn’t true,’ and that some of the outrage was based on misinformation. “They’ve often said that we have hidden objects because of their link to slavery, when in fact they’ve been on loan to another museum or gallery,” she said.

The Comms director continued how the accusations about being ‘woke’ were particularly difficult to deal with. “Journalists will always talk about wokery because it’s easy. The charity commission chairman has asked people not to complain to them about charities being ‘woke’ because it doesn’t mean anything. Charities are there to do virtuous things.”

She gave the example of the Right attacking the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for rescuing migrants in the English Channel.

“If you benefit this community, it’s good work, it’s charitable—but if you benefit this community, it’s woke virtue signalling. It’s the luck of the draw who decides what’s woke and what’s not,” she added.

Fortunately, the anti-woke zealots’ war on the NT has proven fruitless thus far, with three consecutive failures to wrest control of the charity’s council via getting their own candidates elected. After its third failure, the group’s director, 24-year-old Zewditu Gebreyohanes, announced she was stepping down to focus on her work at Legatum Institute, a right-wing think-tank that pushes for a free-market pro-Brexit vision while enjoying privileged access to ministers and the media.

Perhaps Gebreyohanes finally realised that RT’s crass cries of anti-wokery, and failed bid to take over the NT were making her look foolish?


Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch