From Boeing machinists to cannabis workers, unions are mobilizing across U.S. industries

By Robert Forrant, UMass Lowell

Sept. 27, 2024 

THE CONVERSATION


City workers rally at City Hall in Los Angeles in August. 

File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo


What do violinists, grocery store clerks, college dorm counselors, nurses, teachers, hotel housekeepers, dockworkers, TV writers, autoworkers, Amazon warehouse workers and Boeing workers have in common?

In the past year or so, they've all gone on strike, tried to get co-workers to join a union, or threatened to walk off the job over an array of issues that include retirement plans, technology replacing workers and lagging wages as inflation increased.

The array of Americans who are organizing unions extends to the tech, digital media and cannabis industries. Even climbing gym employees have formed a union.

This is happening as U.S. workers in general are finding themselves in an increasingly precarious position. As a labor historian, I believe mobilization is the result of economic disruption caused by the relocation of jobs, the impact of new technologies on work and the erosion of income stability. It's become very unlikely that today's workers will have the same employer for decades, as my father and many men and women of his generation did.

Greatest generation of jobs

My father, a butcher, worked for the same company for 40 years and raised a family of seven on his union-secured wages and benefits. While back in the 1950s and 1960s many working-class Americans took that kind of job security for granted, it's no longer the case. Some career coaches consider keeping a job for many years as a character flaw.

The upsurge in labor organizing is in part a way for workers to gain some sort of say about what happens to their jobs. It's also helping employees plan for the future.

Union members are increasingly using strikes to demand higher wages, better benefits and increased job security. Why should it be, some low-income earners are asking, that in my family we must hold down two or three jobs to make ends meet, while CEO pay goes through the stratosphere?

There were 33 major strikes involving nearly a half-million workers in 2023, the most since 2000. Many labor scholars attribute much of this uptick in organizing to several long-term trends. They include stagnating wages, high out-of-pocket health spending costs -- even for those with insurance coverage -- and growing concerns over job insecurity caused by the expanded use of labor-saving technology.

Precarious work

In many industries, large numbers of the reliable jobs that paid enough for workers to be in the middle class have dwindled. That's largely due to technological advances that replaced labor with automation and manufacturers moving to lower-income places, including Mexico, China and other foreign countries, as well as southern states such as Alabama and Tennessee. These trends have left behind a Rust Belt strewn with decaying buildings that once housed bustling factories and increasing numbers of what are sometimes called "precarious" jobs, which are poorly paid and lack sick leave, vacation time and other basic protections.

This isn't new.

I've researched how New England's textile industry fled cities such as Lowell, Mass., as early as the 1920s for nonunion locations in South Carolina, while precision metalworking plants in Springfield, Mass., sent work to Mississippi and South Carolina starting in the 1950s.

But faced with mounting economic uncertainty, public support for unions is increasing. A 2024 Gallup Poll found that 70% of Americans approve of them -- close to the 71% level seen in 2022, which was the highest approval rating that unions had gotten in half a century.

Support is even rising among Americans who identify as Republicans, a political party that has historically frowned on organized labor: Gallup found it stood at 49% in 2024, down from 56% two years earlier but up from a low point of 26% in 2011.
Advertisement





Hotel workers strike

On Labor Day weekend in 2024, more than 10,000 hotel workers represented by the UNITE HERE union and employed by 24 hotels from Boston to the West Coast to Hawaii went on strike. Their labor actions disrupted travel plans during a busy time.

Most hotel work stoppages lasted for three days and intended to pressure the companies that own hotels as part of a larger labor contract negotiation strategy. Later in September, workers kept walking off the job at other hotels to pressure management to improve pay, expand health insurance coverage, boost retirement benefits and agree to resolve important job security issues.

Although the hotel industry has been booming since 2023, UNITE HERE contends that employment has decreased by nearly 40%, while wages have stagnated. On the picket line, workers have described living paycheck to paycheck and working one or two additional jobs to cover recent rent hikes.

Hotel workers have more bargaining power today because, according to an industry study, 79% of the 450 hotels surveyed looking to hire people said they could not fill open jobs.

That strike shows no sign of ending. Thousands more hotel workers were joining in by late September.

Boeing strike

Unlike the hotel workers' brief rolling work stoppages, the Boeing strike hasn't let up since it began Sept. 13. About 32,000 workers, mainly in Seattle and Portland, Ore., have walked off the job.

Boeing workers declared the strike even though the International Association of Machinists District 751 leadership in Seattle wanted to accept a deal from Boeing's management. But on Sept. 12, 94.6% of all rank-and-file workers rejected the tentative contract their leadership recommended the union accept.

The Boeing strike started the next day; it could last a long time. On Wednesday, the workers rejected what the company had called its "best and final offer" to settle the strike.

This is the eighth time these workers have gone on strike since their union formed in the 1930s. Its two most recent strikes, in 2008 and 2005, lasted 57 days and 28 days, respectively. Boeing's management, already reeling from the company's numerous operational and safety problems, has announced several cost-cutting measures, including furloughs for some nonunion employees.

Boeing's nonunion backup plan

Boeing has assured its shareholders and the public that the strike would not hinder production of the 787 Dreamliner jets at the company's nonunion factory in South Carolina.

International Association of Machinists union members have never forgiven Boeing for deciding to build that assembly plant. Operational since 2011, it now employs roughly 6,000 workers. Most of them would have been union members had Boeing built that plant or expanded production in Washington or Oregon, because the existing labor agreement would have covered the new workers.

However, the agreement did not extend to South Carolina.

At the time of the decision, a Boeing spokesperson said, its contract with the machinists' union "acknowledges our right to locate work elsewhere, and that's what we chose to do in this case because we just couldn't get the terms from them that we needed."

Dockworkers could be next

The timing of the hotel and Boeing strikes makes them perhaps more visible than they might have been because union members' votes are coveted by both major parties in the 2024 presidential election.

Meanwhile, 25,000 dockworkers who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association are planning a possible shutdown of ports from Boston to Houston on Oct. 1, over the union's concern for job loss due to automation.

How job security issues are addressed following this wave of strikes could set the tone for what other hospitality, manufacturing and transportation unions seek when their contracts are up for negotiation again.

Robert Forrant is a professor of U.S. history and labor studies at UMass Lowell.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Mexico’s Sheinbaum to take reins of nation facing huge challenges


By AFP
September 28, 2024

Mexican president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum celebrates after her election victory - Copyright AFP Gerardo Luna

Daniel Rook

Claudia Sheinbaum will be sworn in on Tuesday as Mexico’s first woman president, taking charge of the violence-plagued Latin American nation at a time of mounting security, economic and diplomatic challenges.

The 62-year-old former Mexico City mayor and ruling party heavyweight will face immediate tests from cartel violence, frictions with key international allies and a backlash against controversial judicial reforms.

A scientist by training, Sheinbaum won a landslide election victory in June with a pledge to continue the left-wing reform agenda of outgoing leader Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a close ally.

Sheinbaum’s relations with the United States, Mexico’s main trading partner and a key ally in areas including security and migration, will depend to a large extent on who wins the US election on November 5.

Sheinbaum could probably develop “a quite good relationship with Kamala Harris because they’re very much alike,” said Pamela Starr, a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Southern California.

“They’re both women who will be the first female president of their countries. So they’re both interested in advancing women’s issues and women’s rights. They’re both very much on the same page when it comes to climate change. And they’re both very much progressives,” she said.

Relations with Donald Trump, if he wins, would “be much more difficult, in part because he doesn’t have as much respect for female leaders as he does for male leaders,” Starr said.

And because Sheinbaum is not a populist, “he won’t see a kindred soul in her like he saw in Lopez Obrador,” she added.

Trump’s vow to deport significant numbers of undocumented people would present a major challenge for Mexican-US relations, according to experts.

In that case, “passions on both sides of the border will become inflamed and the relationship could be put to a severe test,” said Michael Shifter, an expert at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington.

Even before taking office, Sheinbaum has found herself engulfed in a diplomatic row with Spain, another key economic partner, after she refused to invite King Felipe VI to her inauguration, accusing him of failing to acknowledge harm caused by colonization.

-‘ More pragmatic’ –

While Sheinbaum’s presidency is unlikely to usher in a radical change of direction for the world’s most populous Spanish-speaking country, home to 129 million people, she is expected to bring her own style of leadership, experts said.

“She’s more pragmatic and less ideological than Lopez Obrador,” Starr told AFP.

Lopez Obrador leaves office due to the country’s single-term limit, enjoying an approval rating of around 70 percent.

He hands Sheinbaum the reins of a nation where murders and kidnappings occur daily and ultra-violent cartels involved in drug trafficking, people smuggling and other crimes control vast swaths of territory.

In the northwestern state of Sinaloa, cartel infighting has left dozens of people dead in recent weeks.

Gender-based violence is another major issue with around 10 women or girls murdered every day across the country.

“Sheinbaum’s chief challenge will be tackling Mexico’s deteriorating security situation,” said Shifter.

“Lopez Obrador mainly relied on rhetoric to address spreading cartel activity, but Sheinbaum will likely be data-driven and technocratic in her approach to this vexing problem and will try to improve the effectiveness of the police,” he added.

Lopez Obrador prioritized addressing the root causes of crime such as poverty and inequality — a policy that he calls “hugs, not bullets.”

In his final weeks in office, the self-proclaimed anti-corruption fighter pushed through controversial reforms including the election of all judges by popular vote.

Critics warned the changes would make it easier for politicians and organized crime to influence the courts.

The reforms upset foreign investors as well as key trade partners the United States and Canada.

Once in office, Sheinbaum is likely to seek ways to allay the concerns, Shifter said.

“By all accounts she is pragmatic and understands that Mexico cannot afford to antagonize both governments and alienate investors,” he added.


In Acapulco and across Mexico, violence poses huge test for new president

By AFP
September 28, 2024


A member of the National Guard at the police headquarters in Acapulco 

- Copyright AFP ANWAR AMRO

Samir TOUNSI

Gunfire, murders and threats — insecurity is part of everyday life across much of Mexico and one of the main challenges awaiting Claudia Sheinbaum when she becomes president on Tuesday.

A shooting this month in the Pacific resort city of Acapulco left two people wounded in a seafront bar. In late August, a human head was thrown in front of the establishment.

When contacted about the incident, a bar manager cut the questioner short.

Locals speculated that he had refused to pay “rent” to one of two local gangs.

Farther back from the seafront, the El Progreso neighborhood is one of those most affected by violence in Acapulco.

A man was killed in a cobbler’s shop a few days ago, a resident said. “It’s a daily occurrence,” he added with a sigh.

“Six murders in Acapulco” was the headline in the newspaper El Sur on September 10.

“That’s a total of 26 crimes this month, presumably linked to organized crime,” the local newspaper said, without naming the two rival gangs involved in extortion and drugs.

Acapulco, once a playground for the rich and famous, has lost its luster over the last decade as foreign tourists have been spooked by bloodshed that has made it one of the world’s most violent cities.

The insecurity is hardly unique to the city in the southern state of Guerrero.

Spiraling criminal violence, much of it linked to drug trafficking and gangs, has seen more than 450,000 people murdered in the Latin American nation since 2006.

But in the heart of El Progreso, the mood on a recent day was one of celebration at the municipal police headquarters.

Under a blazing sun, Mayor Abelina Lopez Rodriguez handed out new uniforms to officers.

Giving a speech, she made no mention of violence, preferring to talk about year-end bonuses instead.

“Acapulco is a paradise,” she told AFP.

“We must continue working to create better opportunities for our police officers and for society,” added Lopez Rodriguez, a lawyer by profession.

“Peace is built in hearts,” she added.

Corruption comes from another level of government, her entourage explained off-camera.

“Of course” municipal police can be infiltrated by gangs, the new head of public security, Eduardo Bailleres Mendoza, told AFP.

He wants officers to undergo random drug testing “to prevent staff from also being victims of the use of toxic substances” — and thus susceptible to the influence of organized crime.

A municipal police officer earns just 14,000 pesos ($710) per month, he said.

– Drones and bombs –

On the eve of the Independence Day holiday weekend in mid-September, hoteliers were optimistic.

Tourists will come, they said.

But when the area has been in the headlines recently, it has not been for good news.

In nearby Coyuca de Benitez, at the foot of the Sierra Madre mountain range, a candidate was murdered on the eve of June 2 municipal elections.

Some 150 kilometers (90 miles) north of Acapulco, the inhabitants of Santa Rosa de Lima said they are living under pressure from local cartel La Familia Michoacana.

The gang has been using drones against communities that resist extortion.

“On April 21, they lobbed bombs, more than 20. Several hectares of forest were burned,” said Azucena Rosas Garcia, leader of the mountain community of San Antonio Texas.

She showed images that she said were recovered from the memory card of a downed drone. An investigation was opened months later.

Suddenly, as she spoke, armed men drove by in a red pickup truck.

They were self-defense militias, explained Victor Espino, a local community leader who said that he himself was arrested by the police in possession of a weapon.

“When it suits them, the law exists. When it doesn’t suit them, they don’t apply it,” the avocado farmer said.

“They don’t defend us, nor let us defend ourselves,” he added.

Nearly 200,000 people have been murdered in six years under outgoing President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who prioritized tackling the root causes of crime — a strategy he calls “hugs, not bullets.”

President-elect Sheinbaum, who comes from the same left-wing party, has pledged to continue that approach while improving coordination between security forces and state prosecutors.

In the northwestern state of Sinaloa, cartel infighting has left dozens of people dead in recent weeks, underscoring the magnitude of the task facing Sheinbaum.

The End of AMLO’s Six-Year Term and His Legacy: Debates on Progressivism and Socialism


Below, Pablo Oprinari, editor of La Izquierda Diario Mexico and leader of the Socialist Workers Movement (MTS), provides a comprehensive critical overview of the six-year term of former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

Pablo Oprinari

September 27, 2024

LEFT VOICE USA

Photo: Beatriz Gutierres Muller

On September 1, Andrés Manuel López Obrador gave a long speech to mark the end of his government. His extensive address was intended to make clear what he considers his legacy in Mexico and to look forward to constructing a progressive tradition in the country. Inevitably, this was interspersed with bitter criticism of the opposition and a defense of his controversial judicial reform, which allows judges to be voted on democratically instead of appointed. He also criticized the U.S. government, which he nevertheless considers a “good friend and neighbor,” and he repeatedly mentioned the family and its importance to Mexican culture and society, in phrasing with strong traditionalist and nationalist overtones. This was perhaps the final speech given by the strongman to his followers at the Zócalo, Mexico City’s massive central plaza. In 2006 he spoke as the leader of an opposition that denounced former Mexican president Felipe Calderón’s electoral fraud. Since 2018 he has led an administration that came to preserve political stability and restore the relationship between rulers and ruled. In this speech he made a lot of goodbyes, but it is open to speculation what place AMLO will occupy for his party.

AMLO ends his term with a more than 60 percent approval rating. This allowed Sheinbaum to win the presidency with more votes than he won six years ago. It also gave him the opportunity to hold his lavish and propagandistic farewell speech on September 1, something unprecedented in the last decades. It is also true, however, that other Latin American progressive governments ended their first terms with high approval ratings, and that the decline came later, as was the case in Argentina and Brazil. Perhaps because of that specter of decline, Obrador dedicated much of his speech to praising Sheinbaum’s character, seeking to pass on his popularity to her. At the same time, he intends to take advantage of her strength in order to implement and fast-track his reforms, such as in the judicial system. All this is causing a real national polarization, which includes student mobilizations both for and against the reforms, as well as strikes by workers, all encouraged and stoked by the right-wing opposition.
On Hegemonies, Idleness, and the Integral State

Behind the festivities lies a persistent hegemony, cultivated by the public policies deployed by AMLO’s administration. In particular, AMLO’s social programs, labor reforms, and wage increases culminated the rising expectations that his arrival generated among the masses, the working class in particular. These marked a tendency in AMLO’s administration to incorporate elements of what Gramsci called the “integral state.” Although this hegemony has important limits that contribute to its legitimacy—which we will return to later—what is certain is that AMLO’s popularity and charisma were based on representing, for the popular imagination, something seen by millions as different from the decades of previous neoliberal governments and their legacy of plundering and obscene corruption.

In the ideological field, Obradorism sought to support its progressive profile by presenting a critical and emancipatory perspective on the educational and cultural fields (which could not hide the greater precariousness in education and the budget decrease) and a decolonization framework incorporated into Mexico’s history.1 In addition, it embraced, as if they were part of Morena’s own lineage, the workers’ and social mobilizations of the previous decades. All these elements were fundamental to pacifying the class struggle, although it did not head off important resistance movements, before, during, and after the pandemic.

This hegemony rested on the weakness of the conservative opposition, which still shows no signs of recovery. This weakness resulted from the organic crisis that began in 2014, which ended up pulverizing the institutional and electoral weight of the three member parties of the Pact for Mexico, as it was called: the PRI, the PAN, and the PRD, all conservative, neoliberal parties that ruled over Mexico for decades. This allowed AMLO’s party, Morena, to win a majority in the Chamber of Deputies and a near majority in the Senate. Thus, Morena is at the center of a true reconfiguration of the party regime that, although it began in 2018, resoundingly defeated the opposition coalition a few months ago. 2 Obradorism has taken advantage of this hegemonic construction to concentrate its power and impose its legislative agenda, heightening the president’s Bonapartist tendencies and those of the armed forces, while reforms such as the judicial reform combine the popular election of judges with the reactionary proposal to establish “faceless judges,” or anonymous judges who rule on gang-related cases. On paper, this seems fair, since the fear of retribution is high in cases involving the cartels. But when this was implemented, famously in Italy in its efforts against the Mafia, it paved the way for corrupt sentences and closed-door deals, eliminating accountability from the judicial process. 3
Obradorism and the Marginalization of the Workers’ Movement

Obradorism constitutes a watershed in recent political history, particularly since it conquered and co-opted the labor movement and mass movements for the oppressed.

The narrative around AMLO and the discourse he weaponizes revolves around the “people” and the commoner. A grassroots movement was formed through AMLO and his party, one that brought together the expectations and illusions of extensive and broad social sectors. AMLO seeks to maintain a “direct” relationship with this movement, which breaks with the traditional patterns of Mexican politics. Although this went beyond the frontiers of Morena’s party structure, these movements are now subject to a leadership with a bourgeois political and programmatic perspective, which has not questioned the social and economic order of capitalism. Far from it. Although AMLO’s government had massive social and electoral support, many of its gestures and some of its policies—from the social programs to the energy and judicial reforms—generated discomfort in business sectors and U.S. imperialism itself. Yet Obradorism has preserved the profits of the big businessmen and expanded opportunities for transnational corporations, even in state-run industries.

These two points are crucial to explain the new hegemony, without simplifying AMLO’s regime by focusing only on the results of his welfare policy. To recognize the true contours (and limits) of his government’s progressive character, we must uphold the importance of a class-independent strategy as an alternative to building political power, based on the autonomous action of the working class and its alliance with other oppressed sectors. It is important to consider other experiences that arose in the region in previous historical moments, allowing for all circumstances and considering the very different conditions, from the national-popular movements of the 1930s and 1940s—particularly Argentinean Peronism and Cardenism—to the first wave of progressivism that emerged in the political spotlight after 2000.

In the case of Peronism, the subordination of workers’ organizations and the search for autonomy (class independence) were a fundamental political problem that revolutionary socialists faced. From the hegemonic viewpoint of the revolutionary actors, the working class and the oppressed did not aim to overthrow the capitalist regime but instead looked to reform it. As for Cardenism in Mexico’s 1930s, in this era we can find great lessons for the present. For example, the Mexican Communist Party tried to develop a popular front under the leadership of the Party of the Mexican Revolution, headed by Cárdenas, and in doing so they subordinated themselves to it instead of making space for their distinctly Marxist policies. On the other hand, the position proposed by Leon Trotsky and the small nucleus of Marxists organized around his ideas raised the importance of maintaining political and organizational independence from bourgeois parties, with a strategic focus on polemicizing against the latter instead of folding into them.

Nevertheless, there were profound differences between the experience of the workers’ movement under Cárdenas against the imperialist powers, particularly the United States. Cárdenas relied on the workers’ movement and the masses to carry out measures such as the oil and railroad expropriations, creating strong frictions with the imperialist powers. AMLO was far from that. Beyond some diplomatic gestures that sought to establish a sovereign image of the country, he deepened Mexico’s economic integration with the United States and went so far as to claim that the xenophobic and racist Trump was his “friend.” 4
On the Limits of the Obradorist Hegemony

Every hegemony has limits, even more so when the regional context is one of economic and social instability and developing class struggle. Furthermore, the main imperialist power—which undergirds Mexico’s new investment boom, thirsty for the advantages of “nearshoring”—is in hegemonic decline and is subject to the fluctuations of the international economy, geopolitical upheavals, and its disputes with the looming power of China. A few weeks ago, Mexican financial markets shook at the pace of the Japanese stock market and the widespread fall of international markets, and the peso is no longer at its strongest.

AMLO’s moderate stances during his term—even those seen as progressive—were limited by Mexico’s dependent capitalism and by its increasing integration with the United States. AMLO’s government, contrary to its progressive face, sustained conservative policies that were continuous with neoliberalism; they thus constantly attacked the interests of workers, women, and youth. 5

One example of this was the precarization of labor, an issue that was not questioned by Obradorism, even the outsourcing reforms, and was redoubled by the administration in the public sector. The same can be said of extractivism and the development of megaprojects, including those proposed for the industrialization of the Southeast, which constitute a process of accumulation by dispossession and is consistent with the big capital’s need to seek out new spaces for capitalist accumulation. Examples include the Mayan Train project, which violates the wishes of the peoples and communities in the Yucatán Peninsula, and the invasions of Canadian and U.S. companies into Mexico’s natural reserves. Those who opposed these policies—as is the case of the EZLN and the indigenous movement of the CNI—were persecuted and repressed, from the assassination of Samir Flores onward.

Issues as elementary, but as necessary and fundamental, as the historical demands of the women’s movement, such as the legalization of abortion, went unaddressed by the government. Meanwhile, femicidal violence continues to rise.

On the other hand, there have been the recent disputes between AMLO and the U.S. embassy, which once again showed the latter’s interventionism. These disputes do not hide the fact that, together with nearshoring, which promises a new whirlpool of investment opportunities for imperialist capital, the demands of the White House around immigration and security policies have been accepted and implemented by AMLO’s administration.

In this sense, militarization is a fundamental aspect of the U.S. relationship, and it clearly corresponds with the subordination of progressivism to the Yankee mandate. Under AMLO, the dominant role of the armed forces expanded, offering great economic benefits and broadening military influence. At the same time, an ideological operation was deployed that presented the armed forces as an armed people, allowing a rehabilitation of their image that neither Peña Nieto nor Calderón had achieved, and that could only be achieved by a “progressive” government.

Throughout this article, we’ve laid out several different aspects of Obradorism’s legacy, on the part of the Left and the critical intelligentsia, aspects that should be part of a real and deep discussion. At a time when many who come from the Left support the 4T project, or avoid criticizing it while participating in its “training schools,” a truly critical position should enter this debate and avoid the ideological justification of an economic, political, and social project that does not bet on breaking the reality of dependence, exploitation, and oppression, which has characterized Mexico for centuries.
The Struggle for a Revolutionary Socialism from Below

In other articles, we have written about the possible perspectives of the incoming government. Bourgeois hegemony can be preserved only if it is based on the passivization and numbness of the masses. Therefore, if this hegemony is broken, it will depend on sectors of workers, youth, and the women’s movement retaking the path of struggle and advancing with a perspective that questions the government, regaining confidence in their forces and in their autonomous and independent action, breaking with their subordination to the bureaucratic leaderships.

The AMLO government had to face demonstrators who put their claims and demands on the streets—education workers (from elementary school to university), state workers, and health workers, among others. Others included the industrial workers in Matamoros, who carried out a great workers’ struggle in 2019, and all who fought for their rights during the pandemic.

Following this path, we are preparing ourselves for new struggles and to progress in organizing ourselves. It is fundamental to open, from the socialist Left, an active debate that does not limit itself to discussing what exists today, but rather places at its center the project of building a socialist future.

AMLO’s progressivism has shown its limits; it is capitalism with a “human face.” It does not pretend to combat the results of this capitalist system of exploitation—such as precariousness, environmental devastation, structural violence against women, or militarization—nor to attack its deep roots, nor to break the deep dependence that subordinates Mexico to the United States. Furthermore, at any hint of economic crisis or danger to the profits of the bankers and industrialists, the working and living conditions of the masses will once again be pushed down by the same progressive government that gave so few benefits in a time of plenty.

In view of this, it is essential to update the socialist perspective. We must wage the struggle for a new social order, based on expropriating large corporations and transnationals and breaking the pacts and agreements that subordinate us (economically, but also politically, militarily, and diplomatically) to the United States or any other imperialist power. Both previous government’s and AMLO’s have led Mexico to become a source of cheap and precarious labor for transnationals, with hundreds of thousands of deaths and disappearances as a result of militarization and femicides.

Our perspective demands a true and radical social transformation that puts the whole economy in the hands of the workers, those who move the levers of production, transportation, communications, and commerce. In this perspective, technology and technological advances are not at the service of rendering us even more precarious, but at the service of living better, working fewer hours, and having the possibility of dedicating more time to leisure, culture, and recreation. We must take up the historical demands of the indigenous peoples, demands that can be met only through the revolutionary alliance of the workers of the cities and the countryside.

This is a socialist perspective from below, based on the democratic organization of the real producers of society, the workers. Together with the peasants and indigenous peoples, we will take all decisions into our hands. We will begin by democratically planning the economy according to the needs of the majority, seeking a balance with nature, and guaranteeing housing, health, education, and culture for all. Other key aspects of this perspective, such as ending repression and respecting the autonomy of indigenous peoples, will also be guaranteed. This will be infinitely superior to the current bourgeois democracy, in which the great majorities can vote only once every three or six years, but without the right to determine any of the fundamental aspects of the economy and society.

To build this material force, we need a political organization anchored in the working class, the youth, and the women’s movement, one that can achieve this goal. It is fundamental to maintain political and organizational independence in the face of Sheinbaum’s new government, as well as in the face of the bourgeois opposition. Likewise, we must bet on the victory of working-class demands, as well as the demands of the peasants, the indigenous peoples, and all the popular sectors, continuing to promote every struggle against the capitalists. We do this in hopes of overcoming the obstacles and truces that the bureaucratic leaderships want to impose.

A socialist perspective can be achieved only on the basis of a social revolution led by the working class together with its allies in the countryside and the city. That alliance will win a government by and for the exploited and oppressed of Mexico, thus retaking the revolutionary struggle begun more than 110 years ago by the insurrectionary peasants of Morelos led by Zapata with the cry of tierra y libertad (land and liberty). This is the essential debate that must be taken up among workers, poor peasants, indigenous peoples, women, and youth: what kind of society we want, and how to fight for it.

This article was originally published in Ideas de Izquierda Mexico on September 8.

Translated by Kimberly Ann.


Notes

Notes↑1 See for example: Fourth Transformation in education: from class struggle to passivization, by Sergio Mendez Moissen
↑2 An exhaustive analysis of the electoral process and its main points can be found in the article “Elections in Mexico: coordinates, contours and perspectives of Claudia Sheinbaum’s triumph.”
↑3 In other articles we have addressed the debate on authoritarianism and democracy in Mexico. Obradorism has also raised discussions about the “return of the old PRI”, both for its economic policy (in particular the weight of the State) and its authoritarian traits. For these debates, see this work by Oscar Fernandez.
↑4 In this differentiation we make, it must be mentioned that the “highly progressive national defense measures” (Trotsky) that Cárdenas carried out did not question its character as a bourgeois nationalist government nor did they assign it a “socializing” dynamic. Shortly after the expropriations, Cárdenas experienced a conservative turn in the last part of his mandate, which led him to designate Manuel Ávila Camacho as his successor instead of his friend and companion Francisco Múgica, who represented the left wing of the Party of the Mexican Revolution, in an election that privileged stability and the rise of a more right-wing sector of that party.
↑5 In fact, AMLO’s government was also far from other so-called progressive experiences in Latin America that, without questioning the foundations of capitalist dependency and exploitation, carried out certain policies that caused strong friction with imperialism, as was the case of Chavismo in Venezuela (particularly during the time of Hugo Chávez’s government), and of Evomoralism in Bolivia. Regarding Venezuela, see this article by Milton D’León.



Pablo Oprinari
Pablo is a sociologist from Mexico City and a leader of the Socialist Workers Movement (MTS).

Why the UK’s regulatory system is an expensive farce

Prem Sikka

27 September, 2024
Left Foot Forward

Accountants, lawyers and financial services experts are central to the flow of dirty money.

The UK regulatory system is an expensive farce. There is a plethora of regulatory bodies, supposedly regulating relationships between citizens and powerful economic interests and protecting people from abusive practices. Sadly, that is not the case. All too often regulators lack independence and a backbone. Conflicts of interests are endemic.

This happens with the tacit approval of the state which is primarily concerned about the welfare of big business. So much so that regulators have a secondary objective to promote growth and competitiveness of the industry that they regulate, effectively diluting the remit to protect people from harmful practices. The result is social squalor which neither promotes confidence in business nor in the institutions of government.

Examples of failures are splattered across daily newspapers. In 2017, the Grenfell fire tragedy claimed 72 lives because regulators knowingly permitted the use of flammable insulation in housebuilding. It was cheap and increased profits. There was little concern about the human consequences.

The 2024 Grenfell report noted that “there were repeated occasions on which NHBC [National House Building Council] failed to demonstrate sufficient independence and showed itself willing to accommodate the wishes of Kingspan [company that made cladding and insulation products] for commercial reasons. It also showed itself unwilling to upset its own customers and the wider construction industry by revealing the scale of the problem caused by the use of combustible insulation”.

In respect of The Building Research Establishment, the report said that much of its work was “marred by unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices, a lack of effective oversight, poor reporting and a lack of scientific rigour”. The report adds that there was a complete failure on the part of the Local Authority Building Control to ensure that the safety certificates that issued were “technically accurate”. All regulators failed and some seven years after the Grenfell tragedy almost nothing has changed.

Some 2%-5% of the world’s GDP, or around $800bn – $2trn is laundered through the banking system. The proceeds relate to crime, tax dodging, narcotics, human smuggling, terrorism, sanctions busting and more. Despite a plethora of laws, almost 40% of the world’s dirty money is laundered through the City of London and its satellites in UK Crown Dependencies. UK governments and regulators collude to cover-up criminal activities by banks. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is the lead regulator but underneath that there are at least 41 other regulators.

Accountants, lawyers and financial services experts are central to the flow of dirty money. They are regulated by 25 accountancy and law trade associations, including the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. All 25 are outside the scope of the freedom of information laws. They are supervised by the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS) housed within the FCA. Its 2018 report noted that accountancy and law trade associations are very adept at turning a Nelsonian eye. The OPBAS director said: “The accountancy sector and many smaller professional bodies focus more on representing their members rather than robustly supervising standards. Partly because they don’t believe – or don’t want to believe – that there is any money laundering in their sector. Partly because they believe that their memberships will walk if they come under scrutiny”. Little has changed since. The 2024 report said: “OPBAS has not seen any material improvement in PBSs’ [professional body supervisors] effectiveness in the core areas of supervision, risk-based approach, enforcement, and information and intelligence sharing”. Yet the charade of regulation continues.

The market of insolvency is reserved for accountants and lawyers belonging to a few select trade associations. 1,257 active insolvency practitioners (IPs) handle all UK personal and corporate bankruptcies. They are regulated by the Insolvency Service and four trade associations, which are outside the scope of the freedom of information laws. The IPs have a licence to print money and their fees run into millions of pounds. BHS liquidation started in 2016 and is yet to be finalised. Carillion began in 2018 and is yet to be finalised. The liquidation of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) began in 1991 and was finalised in 2012. Israel-British Bank’s liquidation lasted from 1974 to 2009, and magically ended when there were no more fees to extract from the carcass of the entity. The longer the duration of an insolvency, bigger the fees for IPs and smaller the chance of any recovery for unsecured creditors, which includes employee pension schemes. As of December 2023, some 20,822 corporate insolvencies were running for more than 15 years.

Time Period (years) Number of Companies in Liquidation
0 – 5 56,363
5 – 10 10,042
10 – 15 8,189
15 + 20,822


No regulator examines the reasons for the prolonged delay and its impact on stakeholders. Fines levied on IPs are pocketed by the trade associations.

Ofcom permits mobile phone and internet companies to hike bills every year, even in mid-contract, by inflation + 3.9%. The claim is that this enables companies to build the new 5G infrastructure but the problem is that most customers do not receive 5G and many areas have poor signal reception. In effect, companies are raising capital from customers rather than shareholders, whilst shareholders benefit from the resulting assets and income stream. When asked to intervene, the Competition and Markets Authority said that providers must tell customers about any mid-contract price rises at the point of sale. So, exploitation continues.

Ofgem lets energy companies profiteer. British Gas increased its profits ten-fold. BP and Shell have more than doubled their profits in recent years. Since the pandemic electricity generation companies have increased their profit margins by 198%. Electricity and Gas supply companies increased their profit margins by 363%. The failure to check profiteering takes its toll on people. Around 6m people live in fuel poverty. Some 2.3m households already owe over £1,200 on average and total energy debt is over £3bn.

The failures of Ofwat and the Environment Agency have made headlines for 35 years. Last year, water companies dumped raw sewage in rivers, lakes and seas for 3.6m hours to cause new health hazards. Over a trillion litres of water is lost each year from leaky pipes and companies have failed to make the required investment. Since privatisation Water companies have paid dividends of £85bn and funded them by borrowing nearly £70bn. Regulators do little to check abuses as revolving doors facilitate cognitive capture. 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants work in the industry they helped to regulate, with about half in senior posts. Ofwat and water company directors secretly meet to develop strategies for quelling public anger. Unsurprisingly, Ofwat’s pricing formula, codenamed PR24; guarantees water companies real returns each year.

The UK has a labyrinth of regulators as successive governments appease sectional interests by letting them act as regulators. Most are ineffective. There are about 90 main regulators, but that does not include government departments and public bodies. The government puts their number at 607. A 2005 study put the number of regulators at 674, and that does not include accountancy, law and other trade associations (see above). The total is likely to be in excess of 700.

A multitude of regulatory bodies results in duplication, inconsistency, and obfuscation. In the interests of coherence and efficiency the numbers of regulators need to be consolidated. In any regulatory system there is a concern that regulators will be captured by the regulated. That is the starting point in regulation by trade associations. No trade association should be permitted to act as a public regulator.
All regulators use the rhetoric of ‘serving the public interest’ but none let the public anywhere near their operations. Regulators like the FCA use handpicked consumer panels to give impression of public involvement. None of that ever checked the sale of fraudulent financial products, money laundering or tax dodges. This needs to be replaced by stakeholders who won’t be bullied, discarded or bought and are accountable to the public.

At water, gas, electricity, rail, banks, insurance and many other sectors regular customers are known with certainty, and they should elect at least 50% of the unitary board of the regulatory body and the regulated entity. Alternatively, there can be a two-tier board (i.e. an Executive Board for day-to-day running, and a Supervisory Board) with the Supervisory Board entirely elected by stakeholders with statutory responsibility to invigilate the executive board. Customers should also vote on remuneration pay of executives of regulatory bodies and regulated entities. This gives stakeholders a power base from which to hold regulators and entities to account.

All regulatory bodies shall meet in the open. Their agenda papers, board minutes and working papers shall be available to all. At the commencement of each board meeting, each director shall state whether since the last meeting s/he has had any meeting with any regulated individual and/or entity and shall provide complete details.

The above is not a panacea but provides the first necessary first steps for strengthening regulation and democratic accountability.

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.

Interview with Joe Powell MP: How can we clamp down on dirty money flooding through the UK?

Basit Mahmood 

26 September, 2024 

Left Foot Forward

Transparency International has identified at least £1.5bn of UK property owned by Russians accused of financial crime or with links to the Kremlin.

Labour MP Joe Powell has long been a campaigner against corrupt wealth and dirty money flowing through the UK. Elected in July, the MP for Kensington and Bayswater, also founded the Kensington Against Dirty Money campaign that has pushed national and local governments to take action on inequality by reducing corrupt wealth in the borough, going after empty homes, and investing more in social housing.

Around £350bn a year comes through Britain which is dirty money, according to former chair of the Public Accounts Committee Baroness Margaret Hodge, while anti-corruption organisation Transparency International has identified at least £1.5bn of UK property owned by Russians accused of financial crime or with links to the Kremlin.

Such sums have often led to London being described as the ‘dirty money capital of the world’, a destination of choice for economic crime and dirty money.

What can be done about it and how seriously is the government taking the issue? LFF spoke to Joe Powell at Labour conference to find out some of the answers.

Almost 52,000 properties in the UK are still owned anonymously despite a new transparency law designed to reveal their true owners, research from Transparency International UK has found.

Analysis of the Register of Overseas Entities (ROE), a new database of the real owners of offshore firms that hold UK property, shows almost half of the companies required to declare their ownership have failed to do so.

Powell believes the first step any government should undertake is to push for greater transparency so that those engaged in illicit financial flows have nowhere to hide.

He says: “The previous government allowed trust owned properties to still be anonymous, so among the first steps to take would be to include trusts in the property register. In Kensington and Bayswater 40% of foreign owned property is in trusts.”

Powell also believes that there needs to be strategy that runs across government departments focused on tackling illicit financial flows.

“There needs to be greater action to clamp down on some of the loopholes”, says Powell.

“If you own a property through a trust in the British Virgin Islands, for example, you are not required to disclose who the owner of that trust is, that is one major loophole which should be closed.”

He also called for greater support for the National Crime Agency to ensure it has the staff and resources to use the information uncovered to carry out effective enforcement action.

LFF has previously reported on how Kremlin linked Russian donors have made donations to the Tory party. One such donor is Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of a former Putin minister, the largest female donor in British political history, having donated £2 million to the Conservatives from 2012 to 2020.

Does Powell worry about Russian oligarchs using their money to influence UK democracy? “There’s clearly a strategy among some oligarchs who have interests in the UK to get involved in politics using money and influence, for me my focus is political judgement, I wouldn’t take it.”

On the topic of Kremlin linked oligarchs, what about the case of Roman Abramovich? £2.5bn from Roman Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea FC, was supposed to be used for the benefit of victims of the war in Ukraine. Currently the funds are sitting frozen in a bank account.

“There is a lack of transparency over the agreement with Abramovich”, says Powell. “We don’t know exact terms of the sale, but I’m confident Stephen Doughty (Minister for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories) understands the strength of feeling and I’m sure he will do all he can to speed things up.”

The support of the financial services sector is seen as crucial in tackling dirty money, yet is Powell worried that the sector has a culture which could resist the change needed?

“The vast majority of people working in the city do not want to handle dirty money but there are some bad actors and I think lots of times it’s too easy to turn a blind eye so one of the things that we were campaigning for was a failure to prevent money laundering offence.

“So you would put liability onto the companies to ensure they were carrying out due diligence-that would be one of the ways you could do it.”

When corrupt elites from other countries launder and stash their money in the UK, developing and poorer nations suffer most.

Powell says: “I’ve written a letter to NCA about the property empire of a former Bangladeshi minister. These people are taking money out of countries which desperately need it and this is one of the reasons having a transparent property register is so important.

He continued: “If you have foreign government ministers with official salaries in tens of thousands of dollars buying properties worth hundreds of millions of pounds then we need to be able to ask the question about how they’ve been able to do that.

“It’s bad for democracy and development for the country where the money is coming from and its bad for democracy in the UK.”

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

Donald Trump claims ‘everyone knows Farage won the UK election’

Basit Mahmood

27 September, 2024 

Left Foot Forward

'I think Nigel is great, I’ve known him for a long time. He had a great election too, picked up a lot of seats, more seats than he was allowed to have actually.'

Donald Trump has peddled yet another untruth, this time claiming that ‘everyone knows Farage’ won the UK election.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage is a close friend of Trump, and flew out to the U.S. recently to express support for the Republican following an assassination attempt on the former President.

Both share a love of conspiracy theories and have no respect for facts or the truth. Only weeks ago, Farage admitted to spreading misinformation from the likes of Andrew Tate following the killing of three young girls in Southport.

Three young girls were killed in the horrific attack which took place during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class. Within hours of the horrific attack, the far-right were spreading misinformation about the identity of the attacker, claiming that he had arrived in the UK via a small boat with a number of far-right social media accounts claiming that the attacker was Muslim, a migrant, refugee or foreigner.

Speaking to GB News’ Political Editor Christopher Hope, Trump praised Farage.

He said: “I think Nigel is great, I’ve known him for a long time. He had a great election too, picked up a lot of seats, more seats than he was allowed to have actually.

“They acknowledged that he won but for some reason you have a strange system over there, you might win them but you don’t get them.”

Trump praised Farage after his election win in Clacton saying, “Congratulations to Nigel Farage on his big WIN of a Parliament seat amid Reform UK’s election success.

“Nigel is a man who truly loves his country.”

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

Rejoiners head to London for National Rejoin March 2024, amid widespread dissatisfaction towards Brexit

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Yesterday

LEFT FOOT FORWARD


This major anti-Brexit event comes amid widespread dissatisfaction towards Brexit. In recent months, polls have consistently shown that most voters believe Brexit has been a mistake.

Saturday– September 28 – tens of thousands of people are gathering in London, calling for Britain to rejoin the EU.

Pro-EU campaigners from across Britain, Europe, and further afield, will make their way from Park Lane to Parliament Square for the third annual National Rejoin March (NRM).

The NRM is a grassroots action campaign aimed at getting the attention of politicians and the media to put Rejoin on the agenda and keep it there until the UK is back in the EU.

At Parliament Square a series of speakers will address the crowds, including Mike Galsworthy, chair of the European Movement UK, activist Gina Miller who initiated the 2016 R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union court case against the UK government over its authority to implement Brexit without approval from Parliament, and Sue Wilson, chair of Bremain in Spain, which campaigns for a strong and close relationship with the EU and to protect the rights of British migrants living in Spain.

This major anti-Brexit event comes amid widespread dissatisfaction towards Brexit.

In recent months, polls have consistently shown that most voters believe Brexit has been a mistake. A poll in May found that Brexit regret among Leave voters had hit a record high. In August an exclusive poll for LFF found that the majority of voters want the Labour government to seek closer ties with the EU. The survey, carried out by Savanta, found that 53 percent of voters believe that the UK should seek a closer relationship with the EU, compared to 20 percent who believe that the UK should seek a more distant relationship.

The damage Brexit has caused to the trade of goods between the UK and EU was highlighted in a new report by economists at Aston University Business School. The study found that the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed by Westminster and Brussels has “profound and ongoing stifling effects” on the economy. The research shows that between 2021 and 2023, many smaller producers in Britain abandoned exporting small amounts to Europe after new rules and regulations were put in place after the UK departed from the EU.

Next week, Keir Starmer will visit Brussels for talks with the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen about “resetting” Britain’s relationship with the European Union. It will be the first time that Starmer holds a formal discussion with the Commission president since he became prime minister. During a visit to Berlin in late August, Starmer said he was “absolutely clear” about his desire to restore good relations with the EU, but said this did not mean “reversing Brexit.”

Right-Wing Watch

The tentacles of the Atlas Network: Progressive politicians beware…

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Yesterday

LEFT FOOT FORWARD


As the Atlas Network and its affiliates pose a clear threat to meaningful climate action, Starmer should be wary of any association with them or their ideological allies.

With the Tories firmly locked into an internal crisis, their former allies among prominent right-wing think tanks appear to be shifting their focus towards Reform UK. The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), and the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) all joined forces with Nigel Farage at Reform’s first annual conference in Birmingham last week.

As the party embraced these think tanks, reporters from independent media organisations which have been critical of Reform, including Byline Times,DeSmog, and LFF, were denied access to the event.

One especially concerning aspect of these groups’ alliance with Reform is their mutual opposition to ‘green’ agendas and support for the interests of the fossil fuel industry. These think tanks have long opposed climate policies, framing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as placing too many costs on ordinary people. The IEA, for example, has consistently downplayed the human role in climate change, while the TPA has long been critical of the government’s green subsidies. Reform’s leader Nigel Farage, who hopes to become “the voice of opposition” in Parliament, is a vocal critic of climate science and opponent of climate action. He has called for the UK’s 2050 net zero emissions target to be scrapped entirely.

At the Reform Conference, a session entitled The Bully State: How Nanny is Taking Over Britain featured James McMurdock, a Reform UK MP, alongside George Morris Seers, the UK public affairs head of Japan Tobacco International (JTI). The ASI website declared that the conference event was to focus on how “burgeoning public health interventions” are allegedly restricting individual freedoms. “We are asking where these coercions have come from and how we can limit them,” the event page stated.

The Atlas Network

These think tanks, which seek to popularise policies and arguments that right-wing politicians can use to achieve their aims, are part of the Atlas Network. This Washington, D.C.-based coalition comprises of almost 600 free-market groups operating in around 100 countries. Founded in 1981 by British businessman Anthony Fisher, the network has been instrumental in promoting radical free-market policies and has had particular influence over the Conservative Party. Following the EU referendum in 2016, conservative think tanks in the UK and US exploited the crisis. Two UK Atlas partners, the IEA and the Legatum Institute, gained unprecedented access to ministers as they pushed for a hard Brexit. They consistently briefed Brexiteer MPs in the European Research Group (ERG). “They had lots of meetings with ministers because politicians like people promising simple answers, but often those answers were not there,” Raoul Ruparel, a former special adviser to Theresa May on Europe, told the Guardian.

These ultra-free market think tanks also have a history of opposing climate action, often working to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies. Atlas Network affiliates, including the IEA, have also used their influence to vilify climate protesters, portraying them as extremists. These groups have lobbied governments, produced white papers, and collaborated with the media to paint climate action as not only unnecessary but dangerous.

A 1991 report from Atlas member The Mackinac Institute refers to early environmentalists like EarthFirst activists and the prominent US environmentalist David Brower, as “reactionaries” who are “anti-human.” Fast-forward to 2019, and the IEA, a supposed champion of freedom of expression and the right to protest, referred to Extinction Rebellion (XR) as an “extremist group.”

“I am not saying that every member of Extinction Rebellion advocates violence, or will at some point start advocating violence. I am saying that Extinction Rebellion’s apocalyptic mindset lends itself to justifying violence, and very easily so,” wrote Andy Mayer, CEO, company secretary and energy analyst at the IEA.

Such anti-climate activist rhetoric and lobbying is often fed directly to Conservative politicians. Take Liz Truss. As foreign secretary, she held secret meetings with think tanks advocating for the UK to embrace a hardline free-market agenda. When Truss became leader of the Conservative Party, a former climate adviser to the Obama administration, warned that her leadership would be disastrous if she followed the tactics of groups like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Cato Institute, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

“One of the reasons that the politics around climate change in the US is different to the UK right now is because of this powerful force of right-wing think tanks funded by fossil fuel interests,” Jonathan Phillips, who advised the US House of Representatives’ climate committee, told openDemocracy.

As prime minister, Truss prioritised efforts to reduce high energy costs amid the cost-of-living crisis. These measures included a promise to increase oil and gas production in the UK. She also spoke of her intent to extract more fossil fuels from the North Sea and lift the ban on fracking. When Truss launched her “Popular Conservatism” faction of the Tory Party in February, it immediately attacked net-zero targets and environmental organisations, following, as DeSmog described, “the playbook established by libertarian lobby groups.”

Truss is not the only prominent figure within this faction who opposes climate policies. Lord Frost, another leading “PopConner,” is a vocal critic of climate science and serves as a director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group known for its climate change denial. Unsurprisingly, the director of PopCons is Mark Littlewood, the former managing director of the IEA. The IEA is widely credited with shaping Truss’s disastrous political platform. After the infamous mini-budget, Mark Littlewood said: “We’re on the hook for it now. If it doesn’t work it’s your fault and mine.”

Far from succeeding, the mini-budget crashed the UK economy, and its repercussions are still being felt today. But as Guardian columnist George Monbiot wrote in a piece about the Atlas Network, despite its failure, media outlets, including the BBC, continue to treat these corporate lobbyists with undue credibility. Monbiot noted how, in 2023, the IEA was platformed on British media an average of 14 times a day.

Monbiot certainly raises a valid point. Coverage of Rachel Reeves’ speech at this week’s Labour conference in mainstream media was notably influenced by references to right-wing think tanks. For example, in its report on the chancellor’s decision to keep the single-person council tax discount, the Telegraph featured analysis from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, a member of the Atlas Network. The think tank claimed that scrapping the discount would have generated £5.4 billion, significantly more than the £1.5 billion expected from the cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Yet another example of the right-wing media and right-wing think tanks working in tandem.

Atlas Network’s growing support in Europe

As well as its long-held influence on US and UK politicians and policy, Atlas has a rising presence in Europe. Just a few days before the EU elections in May, the European Liberty Forum took place in Madrid, which was organised by the Atlas Network, and attended by far right leaders. It came on the heels of another gathering of the global far right, also in Madrid, which was organised by the Spanish party Vox, and attended by Marine Le Pen, the Italian and Hungarian prime ministers Georgia Meloni and Viktor Orban, the Argentine president Javier Milei and close allies of Donald Trump such as Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a key member of the Atlas Network, and Milei’s radical austerity and deregulatory political platform is said to be heavily influenced by Atlas Network think tanks.

Meloni, leader of the far-right Brothers of Italy party, has ties to the Atlas Network and its partners. In April 2023, during her first visit to the UK as prime minister of Italy, when she met her “friend” Rishi Sunak, as she described him, Meloni gave a speech at the Policy Exchange think tank, a former member of the Atlas Network. In 2017 the Policy Exchange received $30,000 from oil and gas giant ExxonMobil. When he was prime minister, Sunak praised the think tank for laws that target green activists, and “helped us draft” a crackdown on climate protests.

Starmer meets Meloni

Last week, Keir Starmer met with the Italian leader to discuss immigration. “You’ve made remarkable progress,” in tackling migration, the PM said at a joint press conference with Meloni. Starmer’s praise of Meloni’s immigration policies raised eyebrows within the Labour Party. During several fringe events I attended at this week’s Labour Conference, the discussion referenced the controversial meeting. Delegates I spoke to largely viewed the encounter as “outrageous.” Such concern was also publicly raised among several left-wing Labour MPs.

“Why is Starmer meeting with Italian PM Giorgia Meloni, a literal fascist, to discuss immigration? What does he hope to learn from her?” tweeted Diane Abbott.

Kim Johnson, Labour MP, told the Guardian that it was “disturbing” to see Starmer seeking to learn lessons from Italy. MP Nadia Whittome tweeted that Labour should build “an asylum and immigration system with compassion at its heart” instead.

In line with George Monbiot’s critique of the media’s failure to scrutinise influential right-wing think tanks and their influence on government policy, the Starmer-Meloni meeting received little critical coverage in the UK media. The National Scot was one of the few publications to provide any critical commentary, describing how the meeting was labelled as “deeply disturbing.”

Another concern raised by speakers and delegates at the Labour conference was that as Reform UK, which is cosying up to influential anti-green Atlas Network factions, grows in popularity, its right-wing demands such as abolishing net zero, are likely to put pressure on Labour.

In an era where populism and extremism are gaining ground, Starmer puts at risk Labour’s core values by courting figures like Meloni. As the Atlas Network and its affiliates pose a clear threat to meaningful climate action, Starmer should be wary of any association with them or their ideological allies. Unlike the US with its long history of cheap energy, there is little evidence yet that the right-wing attack on green policies is gaining traction with voters. Indeed, they remain mildly supportive of a ‘save the planet’ political agenda. Immigration though, is a wholly different ball game. Inevitably politicians are attracted to the siren voices of ‘what works’ but Meloni’s immigration policy is not working and will not work. Outsourcing immigration control to the Tunisians has brought only corruption and inhumanity. Starmer would do well to steer clear of policies that are doomed to fail, both morally and practically.

Right-wing media watch – The Murdoch soap opera that could shake up right-wing media

A real-life family feud that outshines the drama of an earlier TV series based on the same family. It could only be the Murdochs. The cameras might not be allowed in the Nevada courtroom, but speculation is brewing about a legal battle that could determine the future of the world’s most powerful media empire.

The crux of the court battle is what will happen to the media empire when 93-year-old Rupert Murdoch dies. Could his children, some of whom lean a little too left for the media mogul’s liking, wrest control of the company from his chosen successor, Lachlan, the loyal Conservative son?

To prevent such a scenario, the media baron is trying to rewrite the rules of the family trust, as first revealed by the New York Times in July. The trust currently gives his four eldest children equal control of the future of his media empire following his death. But Daddy dearest wants to shake things up, pushing for Lachlan to take the reins solo, ensuring the empire stays firmly Conservative.

James, the youngest sibling, left the family media empire in 2020, because of “disagreements” over its editorial content. Disagreements, we can assume, mean that he’s not exactly on board with Fox News’ pro-Trump agenda. In 2022, he welcomed Joe Biden to his home for a fundraiser. Earlier this month, he endorsed Kamala Harris by adding his name to a list of 88 US business leaders who have thrown their support behind the Democratic nominee in what they called an effort to preserve American democracy. He has also privately described Fox’s prime talk shows as “poison” and said that the misinformation peddled on the network distorts the public discourse. A source familiar with the matter said James gathered detailed plans for taking Fox News away from pro-Trump propaganda and toward what he considered more reality-based news, as reported by CNN.

The prospect of a James Murdoch-led media empire is reportedly feared by many inside Fox News, with prominent hosts having talked openly about how they might reposition their brands to appeal to James. Liberal critics, who have long slammed Fox News as a misinformation machine, have been fantasising about a James-led revolution for years. In a 2020 NYT column, Maureen Dowd suggested that James could be the “anti-venom” to Fox’s poison.

No wonder Murdoch is doing his best to make sure his eldest son Lachlan, who has been described as “more Conservative” than his dad, remains in control of his empire. Along with James, sisters Elisabeth and Prudence oppose the change, and with all three in opposition, James could theoretically take control of the family business one day.

Could we really see a future where Murdoch-owned media outlets like the Sun become champions of progressive ideals and woke causes? It’s a nice thought, but perhaps about as likely as the Sun endorsing tofu over a full English breakfast.

Woke bashing of the week – Right-wing outrage over shrinking pints

Britons are famous for their love of pints. At 568ml, the much-loved pint is one of the largest standard beer servings globally, compared to Germany’s 500ml, the US pint at 473ml, and Australia’s 425ml schooner. From “bants with the lads” after work to enjoying a few whilst watching the football, this large measure has become a cornerstone of British culture. So, when an experiment surfaced that suggested reducing the size of beer servings to improve public health, a wave of panic was triggered among patriotic right-wingers.

The Daily Mail captured the reaction, or perhaps led it, with the dramatic headline: “Now woke scientists want to shrink your PINT – as they claim smaller servings of beer could reduce the UK’s alcohol consumption.” According to the report, “woke scientists from the University of Cambridge want to do away with the humble pint to curb the nation’s boozing.”

The Cambridge trial explored the idea that people tend to think in terms of portions, like “one beer,” “one cup of tea,” or “one piece of cake,” rather than specific quantities like millilitres or grams.

To test whether this approach would work for beer, researchers invited over 1,700 pubs, bars, and restaurants to take part in the study. The response was overwhelmingly negative, and despite being offered compensation for potential revenue loss, only 13 establishments agreed to participate.

Lead researcher Professor Theresa Marteau, director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit at Cambridge, clarified the health benefits of drinking less. “Alcohol harms health, increasing the risk of over 200 different diseases and injuries including bowel, breast and liver cancers,” she told the Mail Online.

The study also found there were concerns for the pub industry, which is already struggling. A spokesperson for the British Beer and Pub Association warned that reducing alcohol consumption must be approached carefully, as the research showed that some customers compensated for smaller beer servings by purchasing stronger alcoholic drinks. None of the participating pubs permanently scrapped the pint.

Pubs’ wariness to abolish pints in favour of more continental measures might be understandable but why did the Mail label the researchers woke? Probably because the study was perceived as an attempt to influence consumer behaviour in-line with health-conscious or socially progressive ideals. Reducing portion sizes or changing how alcohol is served could be seen as part of a broader movement toward promoting healthier lifestyles or curbing excessive drinking, which some critics interpret as part of a “woke” agenda focused on controlling personal choices in the name of public health.

There was a similar reaction when news emerged that the government was considering banning smoking outside pubs. The pint-loving, cig-puffing Nigel Farage was so incensed, that he said he’d never step foot into a pub again if the policy became law – much to the delight of left-wing pubgoers.

Ultimately, the debate is less about beer or cigarettes and more about the clash between modern health interventions and deep-rooted British cultural traditions, providing a perfect opportunity for some classic woke bashing from the patriots.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Momentum builds for UK to catch up with European neighbours and embrace a four-day working week

‘In the UK, we work some of the longest full-time working hours in Europe, we have done for decades, and we also have one of the least productive economies.’

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Today

LEFT FOOT FORWARD

Labour is facing increasing pressure for the UK to align with its European neighbours and embrace a four-day working week. Recent polling found that nearly three-quarters of Labour voters would support the government introducing a four-day working week, without any loss of pay. The study was commissioned by the progressive research organisation the Autonomy Institute, which promotes a fairer and more democratic economy. The study polled 2,048 adults and found that 72 percent of people who had voted Labour in the general election are in support of the government introducing a shorter working week.

The think-tank warns that Labour’s highly publicised New Deal for Working People (NDFWP) plans lack crucial detail and are full of ambiguities. Concerns were raised about Labour’s commitment to employment reform when it emerged in May that instead of fulfilling a pledge to end all zero-hour contracts, it would only ban “exploitative” elements of the contracts.

The think-tank’s polling found that only 24 percent of people believe all Labour’s proposals will be implemented, while 76 percent think some of them will be introduced. Increasing the minimum wage to a real living wage (£12 an hour outside London and £13.15 inside the capital) was ranked as the best element of the overall Labour package by 39 percent of respondents. Tackling insecure contracts was ranked the highest priority by 21 percent, while the “right to switch off” and not be contacted by employers outside of work hours was the top issue for 20 percent of respondents.

The study also found that 72 percent of Labour voters support the government moving the country to a shorter working week by 2030. Support for the scheme was found across the political spectrum, with 59 percent of Reform voters also backing a four-day week.

In 2023, South Cambridgeshire District Council became the first council in Britain to test a four-day week. Shorter week campaigners describe the model as “long overdue”, saying that “millions of workers in Britain are burnt out, stressed, overworked and in desperate need of a better work-life balance.”

“In the UK, we work some of the longest full-time working hours n Europe, we have done for decades, and we also have one of the least productive economies,” said Joe Ryle, director of the 4 Day Week Campaign.



“That suggests that all these long working hours we’re putting in aren’t producing good results for workers, and they’re definitely not producing good results for the economy either… It’s been 100 years since we moved from a six-day working week to a five-day week, and we feel that moving to a four-day week is long overdue,” Ryle added.

Several countries have successfully introduced trials for shorter working weeks. Belgium was the first in Europe to legislate for a four-day week, allowing employees to work four days instead of five without a reduction in salary. Germany, which already has one of the shortest average working weeks in Europe at 34.2 hours, began a six-month trial of the four-day workweek in February 2024 with 45 companies participating.

Following the success of other European trials, Portugal joined the growing list of countries experimenting with a four-day workweek. As part of a government-funded pilot announced in June 2023, 39 private companies are participating in the initiative in partnership with the non-profit group 4 Day Week Global.

Will Stronge, director of research at the Autonomy Institute, said that the UK works longer full-time hours than nearly all of its European counterparts and “has not experienced a meaningful reduction in working hours since the 1980s.” He noted that while Labour’s New Deal for Working People is a positive step, it lacks a comprehensive plan for reducing working hours. “If the priority is health, decent working conditions, and business innovation, this needs to be part of the program,” Stronge added.

1933