Do Political Parties Understand The Depth Of The Bangladesh Revolution? – OpEd

 October 13, 2024 

By Dr. Mawdudur Rahman and Dr. Habib Siddiqui

The students and the common people of Bangladesh dared to do something in 36 days of July-August that was considered simply impossible by most area experts just days before August 5. They said ‘enough is enough’ to an old order that insulted their humanity, robbed their dignity and imagined their citadel of power simply impenetrable. They refused to bow down to a murderous regime that knew no bounds to its cruelty and plunder of the country. They were ready to sacrifice their precious lives for the greater good of the nation.  More than a thousand died, and countless others injured. 

Abu Sayeed, a Rokeya University student, was killed by Hasina’s police on July 16. An image is worth a thousand words. It was Abu Sayeed’s image, standing with a stick in his hand, which became the signature statement of this revolution. His unprovoked murder opened the floodgate of revolution for others to join in. A protesting female student said, “I will not go back. The police  are behind me and victory is in front of me. I’m going  forward to win or die.”  Anas, a school student, wrote a letter to his mother before going to participate in the revolution. Each word written in his notebook is like a protest of fire and deep feeling. He, too, was killed by police firing. 

Bangladeshi nation will never forget all these martyrs. Their stories would be shared and retold in school textbooks. They will be the conscience  of the nation for ages. Their immense sacrifices cannot be compared with those of the past movements. They defeated a tyrant, the worst that Bangladesh ever endured. The student protesters were joined by the old and the young, male and female, Muslims and non-Muslims, rich and poor alike. It was a people’s movement for an irreversible change. 

And yet, some political parties, like  the BNP, have a different  outlook. Their party members have promptly replaced the Awami League extortionists, goons and thugs and taken  control of college canteens, intercity transport, ferry terminals, hawker markets, and even waste collections. Obviously, they want to occupy the centers of corruption for  illegal gains in the empty field. 

Do these political party bosses or members understand the depth of this revolution? Why did people rise up? Apparently, they don’t understand. 

If they had understood the crux of the message of the revolution, they would not have called public meetings asking  for  a quick election. Their priority should, instead, be to present their economic and social plans for transformation of a new nation meeting the aspirations of the people, especially 70 million youths of Bangladesh who alone bore the burden of revolution. The ‘new Bangladesh’ doesn’t need the stinking old politics of the bygone days. 

This revolution is unique in so many ways. It is a revolution in the digital age that is rooted in meta-modernist philosophy. The old political leadership with its moribund appeal and bankrupt philosophy are irrelevant in this agenda. As Professor Yunus, the Chief Advisor to the Interim Government, has rightly said, ‘Now is the era of a new generation’. 

Meta-modernism is the cultural philosophy of the digital age, coined by Mas’ud Zavarzadeh in 1975. Since then, the term has become popular and is often discussed on the internet. In the American context, if modernism is associated with the Age of Radio or ‘make it new’, post-modernism is the Age of Television (1945-2005) or skepticism and moral relativism, and meta-modernism is the Age of the Internet or more balanced worldview. As one analyst puts it, we went from modernism — “Make it new!” Let’s shape History! – to postmodernism — everything sucks! Nothing really matters! — to meta-modernism – maybe things are not this black-and-white, maybe there’s a middle ground.

Meta-modernist thinkers are outside the framework of modernism and post-modernism. They perceive the present world around them as a threat to their very existence. They work with pragmatic idealism and have no grand narrative thinking or any orthodox certainties. In other words, they try to strike a balance between all of this. They recognize that they have to face the problems of the society, and they cannot work for everyone unless they face problems directly. 

Arguably, all the activities of Bangladeshi revolutionists including  their wall posters, followed a framework of Meta-Modernism. It is understood that the new Bangladesh is defined in a new ideology. Student revolutionaries have said that our ideology is reflected through the language we use. The basis of the new ideology is language. It is a revolution of change from the cultural context of fascist imperialist language to the practical language of the people. In other words, new ideals will be reflected through language. 

It would be wrong to think that this people’s revolution was all about a change of government. Its victory is unlike 1947 and 1971. In both those cases, there was a change of government without any structural change. As a result, the incoming government followed imperialist practices of exploitation left behind  by the British. Subsequent governments turned the country into a failed democracy, in order to control, exploit and subjugate its citizens. The police were used as an enabling force to subjugate the citizens, while the legislature and judiciary worked as the rubber stamps to sustain the total control of the government. This evil social system has corrupted the mindset and behavior of our people. An immoral society was formed with no fear of accountability, whose driving force was unfathomed greed and mantra — the ‘rule and exploitation by repression’. Government employees saw themselves as bosses and not as public servants. They thrived upon corruption at all levels. And in that process, they committed the twin evil of crime against their very nafs and the society at large that raised them. 

Nothing good can come out of a decaying system without a thorough cleanup of corrupt people with deranged  mentality, norms and values. 

There are now two competing ideologies in front of Bangladesh – one of decaying fascism that wants to resurface under old leadership and the other is the young leadership of equality and morality. As the revolution demonstrated, the ‘New Bangladesh’ does not approve  fascist-supporting corrupt institutions. It desires a corruption-free new society. It is for paradigm shift – a transformational change for the better. 

The Chief Advisor and Student Coordinators have clearly highlighted the ideals of New Bangladesh through their speeches and interviews. Dr. Yunus said, ‘We are all one nation’. This is a clarion call to establish a holistic change in society. Such a radical change in society requires a change in values. A change in values lies in the change in public ideology, which requires a dedicated leader and a revivalist. 

The new Bangladesh is not the old Bangladesh with a new cover. It demands a change in the fundamental values of human behavior, actions, and beliefs. These include structural changes, personal changes, expectations, and experiences. 

To understand the ideology of this change, one has to listen carefully to the speech of Mahfuz Alam, the ‘thinker’ of the movement. Five points can be deduced from his  recent talks: (1) unity, (2) ‘language is their inspiration’, (3) group leadership, (4) they are children of time,  and that (5)  they are not a slave to traditional thinking. His views reflect today’s meta-modernism, which is beyond post-modernism.

For any transformational change to succeed, the change agents must own it, direct it, and ultimately excel in it. We think that this revolution of holistic change can benefit from the revolutionary approaches adopted in China and Cuba that were also led by youths. They owned the revolution and ran the government with dedicated cadre of volunteers. They did not allow it to be hijacked by charlatans and reactionaries. We see some of these characteristics in the minds and mission of the Bangladeshi revolutionaries.

Bottom line, bringing a change of the old habits, values and culture in a society will not be an easy task. This revolution has presented an opportunity to change the destiny of Bangladesh as never before. Through their sacrifice, Bangladeshis have demonstrated that they  want to move forward. 

The meta-modernist youths of Bangladesh have come to lead and move forward; they will not go back to the old ways. Their message is clear: if you do not join us, the country will not wait for you. If older generations do not adopt this view of change, we fear further instability, whose outcome will not be pleasant.

If the vanguards of the old political systems want to remain relevant, they need to rethink, reevaluate, reinvent and reposition themselves as servant-leaders and reformulate their agenda in line with the aspirations of the revolution. The sooner the better. 

• About the authors: Dr. Mawdudur Rahman, Professor Emeritus, Suffolk University, Boston, USA. He can be contacted at: mrahman@suffolk.edu. Dr. Habib Siddiqui is a peace and human rights activists. His latest book – ‘Bangladesh: a polarized and divided nation?’ is available in the Amazon.com. Both are members of the steering committee of Esho Desh Gori – Let’s Build Bangladesh.

Protest in Bangladesh. Photo Credit: Rayhan9d, Wikipedia Commons

Despite Trump’s claims, data shows migrants aren’t taking jobs from Black or Hispanic people

Oct 12, 2024 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump promises the biggest deportation event the U.S. has ever seen if he is elected — a promise he has predicated, in part, on the notion that immigrants in the U.S. legally and illegally are stealing what he calls “Black jobs” and “Hispanic jobs.”

WATCH: Trump pushes false narrative of rising migrant crime at Colorado rally

But government data show immigrant labor contributes to economic growth and provides promotional opportunities for native-born workers. And a mass deportation event would cost U.S. taxpayers up to a trillion dollars and could cause the cost of living, including food and housing, to skyrocket, economists say.

Here’s a look at immigration and the U.S. labor market, and what Trump’s plan would mean for the U.S. economy.
What has Trump said?

Trump, who often uses anti-immigrant rhetoric, has referred during his campaign to immigrants he says are taking “Black jobs” and “Hispanic jobs.”

At a recent rally in Reading, Pennsylvania, Trump said, “You have an invasion of people into our country.”

“They’re going to be attacking — and they already are — Black population jobs, the Hispanic population jobs, and they’re attacking union jobs too,” Trump said. “So when you see the border, it’s not just the crime. Your jobs are being taken away too.”

Trump’s rhetoric about jobs has been widely condemned by Democrats and Black leaders who have called it a racist and insulting way of implying that Black and Hispanic Americans take menial jobs.

WATCH: Who’s going to tell Trump that he’s campaigning for a ‘Black’ job, Michelle Obama asks

Janiyah Thomas, the director of Team Trump Black Media, told The Associated Press that Democrats “continue to prioritize the interests of illegal immigrants over our own Black Americans who were born in this country” and that Biden-era job gains in the labor market were primarily due to illegal immigration.

The latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey data shows that as of 2023, native-born Black workers are most predominantly employed in management and financial operations, sales and office support roles, while native-born Latino workers are most often employed in management, office support, sales and service occupations.

Foreign-born, noncitizen Black workers are most often represented in transportation and health care support roles, and foreign-born, noncitizen Hispanic workers are most often represented in construction, building and grounds cleaning.
How has immigration contributed to U.S. growth?

In 2023, international migrants — primarily from Latin America — accounted for more than two-thirds of the population growth in the United States, and so far this decade they have made up almost three-quarters of U.S. growth.

After hitting a record high in December 2023, the number of migrants crossing the border has plummeted.

The claim that immigrants are taking employment opportunities from native-born Americans is repeated by Trump’s advisers. They often cite a report produced by Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a right-leaning think tank that seeks a reduced immigration flow into the U.S. The report combines job numbers for immigrants in the U.S. legally and illegally to reinforce the claim that foreigners are disproportionately driving U.S. labor growth and reaping most of the benefits.

Camarota’s report states that 971,000 more U.S.-born Americans were employed in May 2024 compared to May 2019, prior to the pandemic, while the number of employed immigrants has increased by 3.2 million.

It is true that international migrants have become a primary driver of population growth this decade, increasing their share of the overall population as fewer children are being born in the U.S. compared with years past. That’s according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey.
Are immigrants taking native-born workers’ jobs?

Economists who study immigrant labor’s impact on the economy say that people who are in the U.S. illegally are not taking native citizens’ jobs, because the roles that these immigrant workers take on are most often positions that native workers are unwilling to fill, such as agriculture and food processing jobs.

Giovanni Peri, a labor economist at the University of California, Davis, conducted research that explores the impact of the 1980 influx of Cuban immigrants in Miami (the so-called Mariel Boatlift) on Black workers’ employment. The study determined that the wages of Miami’s Black and Hispanic workers moved above those in other cities that did not have a surge of immigrant workers.

Peri told the AP that the presence of new immigrant labor often improves employment outcomes for native-born workers, who often have different language and skill sets compared to new immigrants.

In addition, there are not a fixed number of jobs in the U.S., immigrants tend to contribute to the survival of existing firms (opening up new opportunities for native workers) and there are currently more jobs available than there are workers available to take them. U.S. natives have low interest in working in labor-intensive agriculture and food production roles.

WATCH: Immigrant workers face routine injuries, lack of protections on U.S. dairy farms

“We have many more vacancies than workers in this type of manual labor, in fact we need many more of them to fill these roles,” Peri said.

Stan Marek, who employs roughly 1,000 workers at his Houston construction firm, Marek Brothers Holdings LLC, said he has seen this firsthand.

Asked if immigrants in the U.S. illegally are taking jobs from native-born workers, he said, “Absolutely not, unequivocally.”

“Many of my workers are retiring, and their kids are not going to come into construction and the trades,” Marek said. He added that the U.S. needs an identification system that addresses national security concerns so those who are in the country illegally can work.

“There’s not enough blue-collar labor here,” he said.

Data also shows when there are not enough workers to fill these roles, firms will automate their jobs with machines and technology investments, rather than turn to native workers.

Dartmouth College economist Ethan Lewis said, “There is a vast amount of research on the labor market impact of immigration in the U.S., most of which concludes the impact on less-skilled workers is fairly small and, if anything, jobs for U.S.-born workers might by created rather than ‘taken’ by immigrants.”
How would mass deportations affect the economy?

Trump has said he would focus on rounding up migrants by deploying the National Guard, whose troops can be activated on orders of a governor.

Peri says a deportation program would cost the U.S. up to a trillion dollars and would result in massive losses to the U.S. economy. The cost of food and other basic items would soar.

“They are massive contributors to our economy and we wouldn’t have fruits and vegetables, we wouldn’t have our gardens,” he said, if the deportation effort comes to fruition.

READ MORE: Trump has promised mass raids and deportation if he wins the election. The ACLU is preparing to fight back

Since the labor force made up of people in the U.S. illegally makes up roughly 4 percent of U.S. GDP annually, he estimates that mass deportation would result in a roughly $1 trillion loss.

“It’s a cost that is mind-boggling in terms of income loss, production loss and there will be a logistical cost to organize this,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said this month in a podcast interview with David Axelrod that immigrant labor “is an important source of labor force growth.”

“On balance, it helps the economy grow without actually depriving other people of jobs,” she said. “It’s not in any way a zero-sum game.”

Right-Wing Watch

‘Barbieland’ and the rise of the far-right in Europe

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Yesterday

LEFT FOOT FORWARD


To maintain the democratic values that the EU was built on, leaders like Starmer must reject the normalisation of xenophobia and work towards a more inclusive and unified society

.

‘Barbieland’ – a matriarchal, asexual utopia where Mattel dolls live in harmony. Greta Gerwig’s fictional world in the 2023 film Barbie might seem far removed from the political and economic alliance of the European Union, but some observers are drawing a comparison between the two. To them, today’s EU resembles Barbieland, a place that perceives itself as more perfect than it is. They argue that the rise of far-right movements across Europe challenges this utopic illusion.

Austria is the latest European country to succumb to the lure of the far-right. Having led in the polls since 2022, the anti-immigration Freedom Party’s (FPÖ) victory in Austria’s national elections was expected. The Eurosceptic party took 29 percent of the vote, just ahead of the Conservatives with 26 percent. In a distant third, the Social Democrats secured only 21 percent, marking their worst result in history. For some thinkers, the result underlines the shallowness of the ‘Barbieland’ illusion, with internal tensions threatening to fracture the EU’s veneer of unity and harmony.

The FPÖ was founded by a group of Nazis after World War II. It has previously held power as a junior partner in short-lived coalition governments with the centre-right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) in 2000 and 2017. Its leader, Herbert Kickl, has been branded as “Volkskanzler” or “people’s chancellor,” by his party, a term the Nazis used to describe Hitler. Kickl ran an anti-foreigner campaign, vowing to erect a “Fortress Austria” to keep out migrants. 2024 marked the first time the party has finished first in a national election.

A ‘paranoid tabloid agenda’

The result is part of a broader surge of far-right populism across Europe, where nationalist Eurosceptic parties are gaining ground. Like other European countries experiencing a rise in far-right influence, Austria’s political discourse has become increasingly toxic.

As reported by Social Europe, a “paranoid tabloid agenda” dominates the media, with immigration, security, and crime consistently grabbing headlines. The coverage often portrays immigration and violence as interchangeable, advancing what Social Europe describes as a “paranoid mindset” entrenched in Austrian political culture.

Austria’s shift to the far-right mirrors a similar trend in Germany. In September, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) celebrated a “historic success,” winning a significant victory in the eastern state of Thuringia. The AfD secured nearly a third of the vote, placing them nine points ahead of the conservative CDU and far ahead of Germany’s three governing parties. The party also came a close second in two other states, Saxony and Brandenburg. This marked the far-right’s first win in a state parliament election since World War II, though the AfD has little chance of forming a government in Thuringia, as other parties are unlikely to collaborate with them.

The outcomes in Austria and Germany cap off a year of far-right gains across Europe. In September 2023, Robert Fico, known for his opposition to Brussels, won Slovakia’s elections and quickly formed a government. A few months later, Geert Wilders, the anti-Islam leader of the Freedom Party (PVV), topped the polls in the Netherlands. His party later formed a cabinet that pledged to implement the country’s toughest-ever policies on law, order, and immigration.

In May, France’s President Emmanuel Macron suffered a humiliating defeat, when Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) achieved its best-ever result in the European parliament. The result prompted Macron to dissolve the French parliament.

How the far-right wins will affect the policies of the EU

The pressing question is of course, how will gains by the far right effect the European Parliament and the EU. For some thinkers, the growing influence of far-right parties in the 2024 European Parliament elections will have notable implications for EU policies. In a report on the European elections by the independent policy institute Chatham House, the authors argue that while far-right parties made gains, especially in Italy, France, and Germany, their ability to affect real change depends on how unified they can be, as they remain divided on key issues like Ukraine and fiscal policies. Nevertheless, their increased presence will influence several policy areas, including migration, climate, EU powers and integration, and foreign policy and defense.

‘Barbieland’ and the EU’s ‘blind spots’

In its report, Welcome to Barbieland: European sentiment in the year of wars and elections, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) uses Barbie as an analogy for Europe’s current political climate. In the film, Barbie discovers that her self-perception is at odds with the real world, where her role as a feminist icon is criticised. Barbie realises that Barbieland is not the paradise she once believed it to be.

The ECFR draws parallels between Barbie’s “dystopia” and the “blind spots” of European leaders, which reveal a gap between the EU’s Enlightenment ideals and its political realities. These blind spots, the report warns, could ultimately weaken the foundations of democracy within the EU.

One of the blind spots identified in the report is the EU’s ‘whiteness’.’ It singles out the lack of diversity on candidate lists for the European Parliament, with less than 20 non-white candidates ultimately being elected in June’s European elections.

“Not only did the candidate lists in the European Parliament election fail to reflect the diverse character of European society, but anti-immigration discourse also flourished in the campaigns in most member states.

“For many non-white or Muslim Europeans, this would have exacerbated existing worries, including about discrimination after Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023,” reads the report.

This suggests that as a result, non-white Europeans or those from migrant backgrounds may have felt disconnected from the democratic process.

Central and Eastern Europe

Another ‘blind spot’ identified in the ‘Barbieland’ model is a subdued pro-European sentiment in central and Eastern Europe, which may reflect a re-evaluation of what it means to be European. The report notes how this region witnessed a low turnout for the European Parliament election, the normalised presence of Eurosceptic parties and attitudes, and low-key celebrations of the 20th anniversary of joining the bloc.

The ECFR links this lack of enthusiasm to a spike in Eurosceptic attitudes, which far-right parties seize upon.

“Rather than pointing to these countries’ sense of marginalisation, this evolution of European sentiment may – to the contrary – reflect a newly acquired self-confidence. This, in turn, is underpinned by a vision of Europe that differs from that of the EU in its current guise,” states the report.

A disconnected youth

A third area of concern identified in the report is a disconnection among young people, with 18 – 29-year-olds being underrepresented in voter turnout in recent elections. While young people are believed to be more pro-European and socially tolerant than older generations, many young Europeans did not turn out to vote in the European elections – and, when they did, they often opted for far-right or anti-establishment alternatives.

“The question here is whether increasingly normalised xenophobia in the EU is not driving some young people away from the European project, while at the same time habituating others to an ‘ethnic’ conception of Europeanness – and thus easing their path towards supporting the far-right.”

The authors urge pro-Europeans to acknowledge these blind spots, give a voice to underrepresented groups, and reverse the drift towards an ‘ethnic’ conception of Europeanness by “reconstructing a ‘civic’ offer that upholds the foundational values of the EU.” They argue that many pro-European politicians are only paying ‘lip service’ to the EU’s foundational values of universalism, equality, and secularism. At the same time, they are presenting immigration from Africa and Asia as a threat to European “civilisation”, or the Muslim population as a security risk for Europe.

The report notes how some European leaders may have concluded that cultivating this contradiction is the only way to win re-election. Creating stricter migration management rules which formed part of the EU’s pact on migration and asylum may be seen by the European mainstream to neutralise the far-right. But the authors warn that this is dangerous, as in several member states, especially in central and Eastern Europe, xenophobic discourse has encountered barely any resistance from politicians, the media, and intellectual elites.

“This contributes to its normalisation. And young generations are growing up witnessing all this, potentially leading to disillusionment with the EU for some or affiliation with the far-right for others.”

The ECFR is urging pro-Europeans to resist the short-term electoral or strategic temptation of staying quiet about the ‘ethnic’ conception of Europeanness, and instead unambiguously oppose and reject it.

“Responsible politicians should be able to call xenophobia by its name and explain to the public that certain opinions that they share or tolerate run contrary to their own interests.”

Which of course, is easier to say than realise politically faced with a toxic legacy and social media with vested ideological and economic interests in promoting dystopia.

Looking to Switzerland

However, there are grounds for hope too which sometimes lies with the complex nature of democracy. Take Switzerland for example, where xenophobia found an early home. The surge in right-wing populists in Europe has been pinned on the mirroring of the successful models of their sister parties, notably the Swiss People’s Party (SVP). Since 1999, the SVP, which in 2023 campaigned against mass migration and “woke madness,” has received between 22 percent and 29 percent of the vote in national elections.

However, due to Switzerland’s unique federal system, the party’s influence has been limited, though its persistence remains concerning.

Itziar Marañón of Campax, Switzerland’s largest citizen movement advocating for social and environmental issues, notes how right-wing populist parties across Europe are networking and learning from each other’s successes. But despite the increasing normalisation of these movements, Marañón notes that around 70 percent of voters across Europe still oppose the far-right.

Britain bucks the trend?

Closer to home, the UK presents an interesting case. When Britain voted to leave the EU in 2016, far-right politicians in Europe hailed it a victory for their own anti-immigration and anti-EU positions. But eight years later, and the UK has taken a leftward turn, with Labour’s landslide victory in July offering renewed hope for progressives. But beneath this surface lies a troubling undercurrent of far-right sentiment. Nigel Farage’s Reform Party secured 14 percent of the vote nationally, just behind the 16 percent won by Germany’s far-right AfD in the European Parliament elections. While the AfD is sending a sizable contingent of MEPs to Brussels, a bit like the Swiss voting model, the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system limited Reform’s parliamentary representation to just five seats, despite receiving over 4 million votes.

As Marta Lorimer, a politics lecturer at Cardiff University, observes: “If the UK had a different [polling] system, we would be seeing a level of fragmentation similar to other places in Europe. Some tendencies are just masked by the way the electoral system works.”

The UK may no longer be in Europe, but what is happening in the bloc presents a lesson for progressive politicians everywhere. As nationalist movements gain ground across Europe, it’s clear that progressive leaders must confront these challenges head-on. Keir Starmer’s recent rise in the UK offers hope for progressives, and he is certainly trying to walk an interesting line on immigration which stops well short of condemning anti-immigrant sentiments as racist but looks to manage numbers by liaising with European governments and improving the processing system. At the same time, he is trying to distinguish between ‘good immigrants’ (economic contributors) and ‘bad immigrants’ (mostly those entering illegally). It is all hugely problematic and risks offending humanitarians who see immigration in terms of a fundamental human need while failing to satisfy those who simply reject the whole idea of legitimate immigration.

The Spanish government is taking a much braver line in making it easier for people to settle in Spain on the grounds that they will contribute to the prosperity of the nation. No doubt other European leaders will be following the fortunes of Starmer and the Spanish prime minister Pedro Sanchez with interest. One thing is clear though: to maintain the democratic values that the EU was built on, leaders like Starmer must reject the normalisation of xenophobia and work towards a more inclusive and unified society.

Right-wing media watch – Loony Mail flits from Chagos to Falklands

“Hands off our Falklands,” read the Mail’s frontpage headline on October 5. The article claims that Argentina has vowed to make a fresh grab for the Falklands following “Labour’s surrender of the Chagos Islands.”

The piece followed a similarly dramatic frontpage headline the previous day. “Starmer’s Surrender,” criticised the PM’s decision to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, a country the article pointedly notes is an ally of China. The Mail provocatively suggested this move could have global security implications.

The paper further ramped up its criticism by featuring an “exclusive” interview with Nigel Farage, who accused Starmer of a “damaging capitulation” over Chagos. The article claimed the agreement was rushed through to avoid complications should Donald Trump win next month’s US presidential election, arguing that Trump’s allies see the deal as a strategic win for China.

The Mail speculated that this decision might signal future threats to the status of other British Overseas Territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar after Starmer apparently refused to guarantee their future sovereignty.

The right-wing hoo-hah seemed to have been stoked by a tweet from James Cleverly, who condemned the Labour government as “weak, weak, weak” for giving up the Chagos Islands. Though it soon came to light that it was Cleverly himself who had initiated talks on the issue during his tenure as foreign secretary, only for them to be paused by his successor, David Cameron.

Former security minister Tom Tugendhat, who, like Cleverly, was knocked out of the Tory leadership contest this week, weighed in, calling it “disgraceful” that negotiations had ever begun under a Conservative government, though he did not mention Cleverly by name. Further complicating matters, allies of Cleverly fired back by accusing former prime minister Liz Truss of leaving behind a “toxic legacy” that contributed to the islands’ loss, though Truss’s spokesperson was quick to point fingers at Boris Johnson, claiming it was his idea to open talks with Mauritius during COP26.

Amid the political blame game, Labour defended its decision by pointing out that the Conservatives had left behind a situation where the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia could have fallen under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), jeopardising British and American security interests.

Offering a rational perspective, Financial Times associate editor Stephen Bush observed that US President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken had welcomed the deal. Bush noted the absurdity of the infighting among Tory leadership candidates, particularly those who had supported Cleverly, who were scrambling to avoid any blame landing on their preferred candidate. He also remarked on the irony that it was the previous Conservative government that had initiated the talks.

As well as illustrating the continuing bickering and ridiculousness of the Tories, the story shows how the right-wing media, particularly the Daily Mail, will seize on any opportunity to launch attacks on Labour, no matter how irrational or void of the facts.

In response to the fears pushed on people by certain politicians and their media allies about a strategically important group of islands, Falklands governor Alison Blake said the legal and historical context of the two territories are “very different.”

The UK’s commitment to the South Atlantic territory’s sovereignty is “unwavering” and “remains undiminished,” she said in a statement.

By conflating unrelated issues like the Falklands and stoking fears of strategic vulnerability, the right-wing media is once again attempting to discredit the current government, weaponising complex geopolitical matters to undermine while glossing over the role Conservative administrations played in these decisions.

Woke-bashing of the week – Toyota bows to anti-woke pressure in latest corporate U-turn

Toyota has become the latest in a growing number of companies retreating from their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Despite the well-documented benefits of a strong DEI agenda, including improved recruitment, retention, and promotion of staff, an increasing number of businesses are abandoning such efforts to appease a small but vocal group of critics. Harley-Davidson and Black & Decker recently made similar moves

.

In a memo to more than 50,000 US employees, Toyota announced it would “refocus” its DEI programmes and would no longer sponsor cultural events, such as LGBTQ+ Pride.

“We will no longer sponsor cultural events such as festivals and parades that are not related to Stem [science, technology, engineering and maths] education and workforce readiness,” the memo read.

Bloomberg reports that the carmaker has also said it will no longer participate in table rankings by LGBTQ advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign and other corporate culture surveys.

This reversal followed a campaign led by Robby Starbuck, a former Hollywood video director turned conservative activist. Starbuck has spearheaded online campaigns against major US brands’ DEI programmes and corporate advocacy on issues like climate change and LGBTQ rights.

He wrote on X: The firm was “one of the most-trusted brands in America but [has] gone totally woke…. I don’t think the values at corporate reflect the values many Toyota/Lexus owners have (with the exception of maybe Prius owners who probably like the woke stuff).”

Following Toyota’s announcement, Starbuck declared victory, stating: “We’re winning and one by one we will bring sanity back to corporate America.”

Toyota’s headquarters in the conservative state of Texas perhaps partly explains the pressures the company faces in navigating America’s increasingly polarised cultural war landscape.

While the anti-woke agenda gains ground in parts of corporate America, it seems far from universally embraced, particularly outside the US. The UK, fortunately, has yet to see companies and sectors buckle to similar demands from conservative activists. Just last week former Tory MP Jonathan Gullis claimed that “woke” teachers were preventing him from re-entering the teaching profession, a claim met with mockery by many, including theTrades Union Congress (TUC), which posted on X: “The trade union movement will always stand up for workers facing unfair discrimination. This is not one of those times.”

After all, being “anti-woke” and teaching aren’t really compatible, as teaching demands an open mind which is never very evident among the cultural warriors. And of course, teachers have to address diversity every day of their professional lives in order to meet the needs of the children they teach.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

 Support centre opens in Port Talbot to help those affected by Tata Steel job losses

The facility is located in the Aberafan Shopping Centre



News By
Lewis Smith

Local Democracy Reporter

12 OCT 2024

Port Talbot Steelworks (Image: Jonathan Myers)

A new community support centre has been opened in Port Talbot with the aim of helping those who have been affected by job losses at the town's Tata Steel site. The facility, located in the Aberafan Shopping Centre, was opened on October 9 and comes just weeks after the closure of the site's blast furnaces which has left almost 3,000 employees facing redundancy.

The new centre is being opened by the Community Union with funding from the Welsh Government and will help provide support and advice to both Tata and supply chain workers as well as their families and other affected businesses. Their work will include helping people to find new jobs and opportunities to learn new skills in areas where there are vacancies.

While visiting the centre, secretary of state for Wales and chair of the Tata Transition Board Jo Stevens said: "This innovative hub will act as a one-stop shop to help deliver the support to workers affected by the changes at Tata Steel. I am determined to do everything I can to support workers and businesses who are affected by the changes at Tata Steel.

"That’s why this renewed partnership of governments, unions, and the local council is working together to make sure the town gets what it needs. The funding from the UK Government, via the transition board, is already making a difference.

"We know there is still a huge amount of work to do but we are already seeing people successfully placed in new jobs as a direct result of the £13.5m that we made available." Neath Port Talbot council leader Steve Hunt added: "This is a welcome addition to the package of support which is being developed by the transition board to both employees of Tata and the companies in its supply chain."

We will NOT nationalise Grangemouth oil refinery, admits Labour 

Union accuses Sir Keir Starmer of ‘industrial vandalism’

Prime Minister finally admits government rescue deal ‘not on the table’

By Georgia Edkins, 

Scottish Political Editor

THE DAILY MAIL
12 October 2024

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of ‘industrial vandalism’ as Labour confirmed it would not strike a rescue deal to nationalise the Grangemouth oil refinery.

Ahead of the Prime Minister’s major UK investment summit on Monday, his energy department finally admitted that pleas for the UK government to buyout Scotland’s only refinery - even if only on a temporary basis - were not being considered.

Desperate union chiefs, workers and campaigners have for weeks implored UK ministers to take a stake in the oil refinery to keep it running amid fears closing it would threaten the country’s energy security, and de-industrialise the local area.

However, in a devastating hammer blow to thousands of Scots workers, an energy department insider said: ‘The company [Petroineos] were very clear that there was no viable commercial future for the refinery operation.

'It would not be right for the Government to underwrite a business that does not have a viable commercial future.’

Grangemouth’s owner Petroineos announced it was shutting the facility in the second financial quarter of 2025

And an official spokesman for the Department of Energy and Net Zero said: ‘We have never received any proposals about nationalising Grangemouth and there are no discussions under way about doing so.

‘We are focused on finding a viable clean energy future for Grangemouth and have provided £100 million funding, alongside the Scottish Government, to help the workforce find good, alternative jobs and invest in the community.’

Grangemouth’s current owner Petroineos announced it was shutting the facility in the second financial quarter of 2025 with the loss of 400 jobs last month - to the fury of the local community.

Thousands more ancillary workers will also be affected by the closure according to a report by PriceWaterhouseCooper carried out on behalf of Scottish Enterprise.

Despite pressure from unions and campaigners for the UK government to take a stake in the plant the Mail on Sunday has been told this is ‘not something the government is looking at’ and it is ‘not on the table’.

Last night local Labour MP Brian Leishman said the newly-revealed position had filled him with ‘despair’ and called on Sir Keir to ‘learn from what happened to the miners of the 1980s,’ referring to Margaret Thatcher's closure of the mines.


Sir Keir Starmer will not step in to save the refinery at Grangemouth despite the pleas of local Labour MP Brian Leishman

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: ‘What is happening in Grangemouth is an act of industrial vandalism. Unite will not allow Scotland’s only refinery to be mothballed with the loss of hundreds of jobs.

'It doesn’t matter the colour of a party’s rosette, Unite will always ferociously hold the government to account when they are wrong and putting jobs at risk,’ adding: ‘We need public investment to come with public stakes that guarantee jobs and a long-term commitment.’

In September, the site’s current owners Petroineos, a joint venture between Asia’s largest oil and gas producer PetroChina and Ineos - the chemicals firm founded by Manchester United’s billionaire co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe - blamed global competition and falling demand for fossil fuels as they announced its impending closure next year.

It sparked serious concern over a raft of job losses at the site, which produces vast quantities of petrol, diesel, heating oil and aviation fuel for the UK.

In response Labour and SNP Ministers hastily added £20 million to an existing £80 million growth fund for the local Falkirk area.

They also talked up Project Willow, a joint government investment scheme that would examine ways of creating a new long-term industry at the site, focused mainly around storing green renewables.

Yet unions hit back, and insisted the oil refinery must be saved.

Addressing the Unite Union conference in Dundee, general secretary Sharon Graham said Energy and Net Zero secretary Ed Miliband and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer were ‘on notice’.

She said: ‘The government must make the necessary investments to safeguard its future. Labour must be forced to act.’

The Keep Grangemouth Working campaign group has also blasted the decision by PetroIneos to close the site and called on the UK and Scottish Governments to act to save jobs.

Last week, local MP Brian Leishman submitted a House of Commons Early Day Motion calling on the UK Government to buy a so-called ‘transitional stake’ in Grangemouth.

That would see the UK Government takeover the plant from as early as next year until a ‘viable’ green energy alternative is found for the plant.

It has been signed by a dozen MPs, including fellow Labour MPs Euan Stainbank and Diane Abbott, and has been supported by campaigners.

In an article for this newspaper published today, Mr Leishman suggested that he had held ‘early discussions’ with UK ministers over his plans.

Labour MP Brian Leishman called on the UK Government to buy a so-called ‘transitional stake’ in Grangemouth

However, a UK government source said that no such proposals were being considered.

They said that nationalisation - either temporarily or in full - was not being discussed by ministers or policy officials.

As well as threatening a Labour civil war, the newly-revealed government position may cast a long shadow over Sir Keir Starmer’s big UK Investment Summit tomorrow, during which his Scotland Office will tout the government’s newly-launched industrial strategy.

It is another bombshell ahead of the major event on Monday, intended to showcase the attractions of Britain to international business, after a £1billion deal was seemingly pulled after Sir Keir’s ministers criticised P&O Ferries.

Ports and logistics giant DP World, the parent company of P&O Ferries, reportedly dropped a major announcement about its London Gateway container port after a press release from Angela Rayner and Transport Secretary Louise Haigh described action by P&O Ferries towards seafarers as ‘outrageous’ and a ‘national scandal’.

Discussions about the future of Grangemouth have also involved claims there is a serious prospective buyer that could step in to keep the refinery going.

North American petroleum giant Hudson Reid Holdings Inc., headed by Canadian businessman Garth Reid, is reported to be interested in the site.

Stacey Oil Services - an equipment company based at Portlethen, near Aberdeen - is also understood to have been working on a possible deal, however Petroineos says it has not received any ‘credible’ bids for the facility.

Jewish school in Canada hit by gunfire for second time

By AFP
October 12, 2024

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said anti-Semitism is 'a disgusting and dangerous form of hate' - Copyright AFP/File Ludovic MARIN

A Jewish school in Toronto was hit by gunfire Saturday for the second time this year, police said, as Canada sees a rise in anti-Semitic attacks since the start of the war in Gaza.

No one was injured after shots were fired from a vehicle at around 4 am (0800 GMT) at the Bais Chaya Mushka girls school, with the only damage being a broken window, according to authorities.

The school in the North York area of Toronto was targeted in a similar incident in May, and police believe the two shootings are connected.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he was “very disturbed” by the incident, which came as Jewish people celebrated Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in Judaism.

“As we wait for more details, my heart goes out to the students, staff and parents who must be terrified and hurting today,” Trudeau said in a post on X.

“Anti-Semitism is a disgusting and dangerous form of hate — and we won’t let it stand,” he added.

According to a report published in May by Jewish organization B’nai Brith Canada, anti-Semitic acts more than doubled in the country between 2022 and 2023.

In November 2023, a Jewish school in Montreal was shot at twice in a single week, with no one injured.

Hate crime: Muslims still the most targeted group in England and Wales

By 5Pillars (RMS)
-12th October 2024

FacebookLikeShareTweetEmail

Muslims continue to be the most targeted group in England and Wales when it comes to hate crime, according to recently published Home Office data.

The figures, which recorded hate crimes from March 2023-24, show that there has been an increase in religious hate crimes targeting Muslims with 3,866 offences, up 13% from 3,432 recorded the previous year.

Almost two in five (38%) religious hate crimes targeted Muslims even though the figures do not include the anti-Muslim riots in the summer.

Overall, there was a 25% increase in police recorded religious hate crime over the latest year, up from 8,370 to 10,484 offences. This is the highest annual count since the hate crime collection began in the year ending March 2012.

The increase in offences was driven by a sharp rise in religious hate crimes targeted at Jewish people since the beginning of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.

Annually, there were 3,282 religious hate crimes targeted at Jewish people in the year ending March 2024, more than double the number recorded the previous year (1,543).

These offences accounted for a third (33%) of all religious hate crimes in the last year. By comparison, the proportion in the previous year was 20%.

Other key results include:There were 140,561 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales, a decrease of 5% from the year ending March 2023 (147,645 offences), and the second consecutive annual fall.

There were 98,799 race hate crimes, a fall of 5% from the previous year when there were 103,625 offences, which was driven by decreases in public fear, alarm or distress and malicious communication offences.

As in previous years, the majority of hate crimes were racially motivated, accounting for 7 in 10 of all such offences

There were falls in the other three strands of hate crime; sexual orientation hate crimes fell by 8%, disability hate crimes by 18% and transgender hate crimes by 2%.

Palestinian woman wins £30,000 LGBTQ+ film award

Nick Horton
BBC News

Iris Prize
Blood Like Water is described by the Iris Prize international jury chair as "an important reminder that queer people exist everywhere"


A Palestinian woman has won the world's largest LGBTQ+ short film award.

Dima Hamdan said she was “deeply honoured" to receive the £30,000 2024 Iris Prize, because it was both "the 'Oscars' of the LGBTQ+ short film world" and "it comes from a community that has increasingly voiced its support for Palestine in recent years".

Former Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price, who chaired the international jury, called Blood Like Water "an important reminder that queer people exist everywhere, including in Palestine at a time of war and occupation".

Louisa Connolly-Burnham won the Best British Short at the Cardiff-based festival for her work, Sister Wives.


'Queer joy' hard to find at Iris Prize - director

Russell T Davies: I want to do darker LGBTQ+ drama

Cardiff first UK city to host LGBTQ+ EuroGames


Hamdan is a self-taught filmmaker and journalist based in Berlin.

According to the festival, her film "tells the story of Shadi, who embarks on a secret adventure and accidentally drags his family into a trap where they only have two choices; collaborate with the Israeli occupation or be shamed and humiliated by their own people".

Reacting to the prize, Hamdan said: "It is difficult to celebrate personal achievements when the most televised and live-streamed war in human history has dragged on for one year with no end in sight.

Iris Prize
Winner Dima Hamdan, who is based in Berlin, with Berwyn Rowlands, the Iris Prize LGBTQ+ Film Festival director, at the Cardiff event


“In order to survive these dark times, I find strength by envisioning a future when all of this will be over.

"In that vision, I take solace knowing that the Iris Film Prize, its wonderful team and the jury will hold a special place in my heart for standing with us and helping to amplify our voices."

Festival director Berwyn Rowlands said he was proud that the event shared "stories not necessarily covered by the mainstream".

He added: "This year the filmmakers have focused on the more serious aspect of LGBTQ+ life. Although many are dark there is still hope."

Iris Prize
Sister Wives is described as a "beautifully nuanced and performed drama about two women rebelling against their community’s social and religious constraints"


Connolly-Burnham, who is from Birmingham, wrote, directed, produced and co-starred in her film.

Sister Wives is described as a "multi-layered love story that tells the tale of young women living in a strict, fundamentalist, polygamous society in 2003 Utah, USA".

Tim Highsted, who chaired the jury for the Best British Short, called it a "beautifully nuanced and performed drama about two women rebelling against their community’s social and religious constraints and finding love for each other".

Channel 4 will stream all 15 films shortlisted in the Best British Shorts category for a year after the festival.

Labour MPs urge Reeves to spend tens of billions more on ailing public services

Michael Savage Policy Editor

THE GUARDIAN
Sat 12 October 2024 

Chancellor Rachel Reeves is said to be examining an increase in employer national insurance contributions. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian


Scores of Labour MPs are pleading with Rachel Reeves to embrace spending tens of billions more on ailing public services as part of an increasingly wide-ranging budget that could raise tax on employers and the wealthy.

In a huge gamble that comes after a rocky first 100 days in office and a Downing Street reset, the chancellor is closely examining an increase in employer national insurance contributions that could significantly fill a black hole in public spending.

With Labour MPs desperate for the government to show that the new administration can make a tangible difference to the country before the next election, a group of about 70 supportive Labour MPs have now written to Reeves urging her to commit to a major rewriting of fiscal rules that would allow tens of billions to be poured into schools, hospitals, transport links and other crucial infrastructure.


The letter from the Labour Growth Group, seen by the Observer, warns Reeves that Labour must not repeat the mistakes of the previous Tory governments by ducking the “tough choices required to unlock investment” and encourage growth.

The group wants Reeves to follow through with a change that would see the value of new assets built with investment reflected in the calculation of Britain’s debt. The move could unlock as much as £50bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, though the figure allocated by the chancellor is likely to be markedly less than that.

“We give voice to the silent majority who benefit from economic reforms, infrastructure projects and growth, no matter how well organised the vocal minority,” writes the group, which includes influential MPs such as Josh Simons, the former head of the Labour Together thinktank, Torsten Bell, the former chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, and Chi Onwurah, the Labour chair of the science, innovation and technology committee.

“It is time to value these assets properly in our fiscal framework … Time is of the essence – the sooner we invest, the sooner our constituents will begin to benefit from that investment in their communities.

“If we delay, we risk further entrenching the barriers to growth that have held our country back for too long. We say this upcoming budget is the time to grasp the opportunity before us and act with conviction.”

While the letter from the group is a show of support from loyalists, it also reflects fears among some in Labour’s ranks that Reeves may opt for a less ambitious change such as excluding Bank of England losses from debt calculations, freeing up between £10bn and £20bn. MPs also want immediate action on investment that will deliver tangible benefits by the next election.

While some in Whitehall are concerned about frightening the markets with extra borrowing, figures close to the chancellor say that there is plenty of scope for a change and that the new rules would provide for a far more sensible amount of fiscal “headroom” that would help the government plan for the longer term.

Lucy Rigby, co-chair of the Labour Growth Group, said the government needed to “break the Tory doom loop of low investment, low productivity and low growth if we’re going to deliver the change our constituents want to see” in their communities. “There is no time to waste and that’s why we’re encouraging the chancellor today to be bold and ambitious in investing for growth in the coming budget,” she said.

Simons warned that the government’s fiscal framework had already become an “object of derision” among some economists. “It’s time we listen to them, to businesses and to investors, and make the government a serious partner for investment again,” he said.

Related: How Labour promises have left Rachel Reeves with a giant budget headache

Onwurah added: “After 14 years of Tory economic stagnation, economic growth is rightly the priority for this government – economic growth founded on a virtuous cycle of investment, innovation, productivity, good jobs and rising incomes – and that is the path toward a prosperous future that my constituents deserve, and which will put us in the forefront of the industries of the future.”

Reeves appears to be already committed to a rewriting of fiscal rules, though the final details of the budget have yet to be finalised.

In what would amount to more of a political gamble, she is considering the increase to employer national insurance.

That measure – either an increase to contributions or applying employer national insurance to pension contributions – could raise tens of billions, but will be labelled a “jobs tax” by the Conservatives

Starmer sucks up to bosses and angers unions on Labour’s 100th day in office

The Labour government says it's had ‘warm engagement’ with DP World bosses who sacked 800 P&O Ferry workers two years ago

Workers march against P&O bosses in Dover in April 2022 

(Picture: Guy Smallman)

By Tomáš Tengely-Evans
Saturday 12 October 2024 

SOCIALIST WORKER Issue

Keir Starmer marked Labour’s first 100 days in office on Saturday by siding with bosses who’d sacked hundreds of workers on the spot.

Transport secretary Louise Haigh had described P&O Ferries—which sacked 800 workers in a brutal fire and rehire in 2022—as a “rogue operator”. “I’ve been boycotting P&O Ferries for two-and-a-half years and I would encourage consumers to do the same,” she said on Wednesday.

Her comments came the day before Labour unveiled its Employment Rights Bill, which is a step forward but falls short on the party’s pledges. It promised to “end unscrupulous fire and rehire practices”, but wouldn’t ban bosses from using the vicious tactic.

That still outraged DP World—P&O’s owner—which threatened to pull a £1 billion investment into the Thames Gateway port project on Friday.

Starmer slapped down Haigh in a BBC interview, saying, “Well, look, that’s not the view of the government.”

Whitehall sources told BBC News that there was “warm engagement” between senior figures in the firm and the government since Starmer’s criticism.

DP World bosses will now go to the International Investment Summit on Monday. Starmer, chancellor Rachel Reeves and business secretary Jonathan Reynolds are preparing to court big business at the conference.

Reeves and Reynolds supported “intense lobbying” from bosses to water down protections in the Employment Rights Bill.

Starmer is desperate to regain control after almost a month of scandals surrounding luxury gifts. Morgan McSweeney—a ruthless Labour right winger—was appointed as his chief of staff last week after Sue Grey was pushed out.

But the sense of panic remains for Labour and is opening up potential divisions. One ally of Haigh described the briefings as “disgraceful” and suggested the circle around the prime minister “are running out of friends.”

Labour’s support for big business is driving more tension with the unions, which had been more than willing to “give Labour a chance”.

Matt Wrack, FBU firefighters’ union general secretary, slammed Starmer’s criticism of Haigh as “unacceptable”. “Louise Haigh has the full support and solidarity of the FBU in setting out clear opposition to P&O and other rogue employers,” he said.

“Any backlash or briefing against Labour politicians and trade unionists who challenge or clamp down on firms that have been exploiting and abusing workers in that way is completely unacceptable, wherever it comes from.”

He added, “It’s outrageous that DP World is seeking to derail the extension of employment rights that Labour was voted into government to deliver.

“Rogue employers and corporate bullies cannot be allowed to hold a democratically elected government to ransom.”

A new YouGov poll this week showed that half of Labour voters are disappointed in Starmer’s government.

Starmer unpopularity goes deeper than the gifts scandal because Labour is committed to austerity mark 2 ahead of the budget on 30 October.

Labour MPs, including “soft left” figures such as Haigh, voted to keep children in poverty and snatch winter fuel payments from pensioners.

Earlier this week Wrack addressed an FBU rally of over 1,000 firefighters, who demanded Labour breaks with austerity.

He described the Labour government as an “opportunity” after 14 years of Tory rule. “The question is whether we seize that opportunity to fight for better conditions,” he said.

He warned “those who think it’s going to be easy under a Labour government”, pointing to the Tony Blair government’s attacks.

The Labour government is dashing hopes for what little change it promised, as it sucks up to bosses and prepares for a new round of austerity.

But struggle outside parliament—on the picket lines and streets—can win the transformative change working class people need. Let’s seize that opportunity by fighting back.