South Africa

Goodyear closure demands a paradigm shift: Workers must take over factories

Monday 25 August 2025, by Siyabulela Mama


The closure of Goodyear in Kariega (formerly called Uitenhage) is more than just another company shutting its doors. It is a brutal reminder of the structural crisis facing South Africa’s working class. Factories, once held as pillars of stability, are now abandoned shells, as corporations chase profits across borders, discarding workers like disposable tools.

For decades, people have been told to welcome foreign investment, to plead with multinationals to stay, and to tie their futures to the whims of corporate boardrooms in Detroit, Frankfurt, or Shanghai. Yet the Goodyear closure shows again that loyalty begins and ends with the bottom line.

When profit margins shrink, workers are retrenched, factories are closed, and communities are left with despair. This cycle has played out not only in Kariega but across Gqeberha, East London, and beyond. It is a cycle of devastation, and it will not stop until workers themselves chart a new course.

The moment demands a paradigm shift. Instead of fighting for corporations to maintain their grip, workers and communities must demand control over production itself. This means reclaiming abandoned factories and putting them to use for socially useful reindustrialisation.

Worker-controlled factories are not a utopian dream. They are a concrete necessity. The skills, technical knowledge, and experience are already present in the workforce. What is missing is the political will to support workers in reclaiming these spaces and repurposing them for human need rather than shareholder profit. And now there are many examples of this in Argentina, the United States itself, and elsewhere, where workers have done exactly that — ‘recovered’ factories and built communities around them.

A paradigm shift also means rejecting the false promise of capitalist economies of scale — the idea that bigger is always better, that centralised corporate power leads to efficiency. In reality, economies of scale concentrate wealth and decision-making into fewer and fewer hands, leaving workers disempowered. A socially useful reindustrialisation, rooted in worker control, can break this cycle by prioritising community needs over corporate returns.

This struggle cannot be separated from global politics. The rise of Trump and the return of US mercantilism signal a new era of corporate nationalism, where powerful economies seek to dominate weaker ones through aggressive trade wars, resource grabs, and financial coercion.

For South Africa, this means intensified pressure to serve as cheap labour for US and European multinationals, while communities bear the costs of closures and retrenchments whenever global markets shift. The rejection of Trumpism, therefore, is not only a political question in the US. It is a material struggle here at home.

One of the most effective ways to reject US mercantilism is for South African workers to put their skills into socially useful transitions beyond the capitalist path of economies of scale. By doing so, we break dependency on foreign corporate monopolies and create industries that serve our needs directly.

This is not isolationism, but international solidarity — workers in Kariega linking arms with workers in Detroit, São Paulo or Guangzhou to demand a global economy built on cooperation and mutual survival, not competition and profit.

Transformation fund: a test for the working class

The Goodyear closure also raises pressing questions about South Africa’s Transformation Fund. The newly introduced fund has been spoken of as a vehicle for transformation, but it should not be channelled into narrow empowerment deals that reproduce elite accumulation.

Now is the time to test it for what it should be: a weapon for the working class. The Transformation Fund must be redirected to support worker takeovers of factories, provide capital for cooperative reindustrialisation, and finance projects that generate socially useful production.

If it fails this test, then it will be exposed as yet another tool for elite enrichment. If it succeeds, it could become a cornerstone in building a new economy — one where abandoned factories become hubs of democratic ownership, where unemployment is fought through collective enterprise, and where the dignity of work is restored.

The Goodyear closure should not be remembered as another chapter of industrial decline. It must be remembered as the moment workers began to take back control, rejecting both local corporate plunder and global mercantilist domination, and paving the way for a future built on solidarity, justice, and worker power.

Amandla

Attached documentsgoodyear-closure-demands-a-paradigm-shift-workers-must-take_a9142.pdf (PDF - 909.1 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9142]

South Africa
Free State – a province in crisis, and Botshabelo – the symbol of broken promises
South African Union Responds to White House Debacle
Climate sanctions against fossil-addicted capitalists
The state of Africa in the new world order
Government policies to blame for SAs’ chronic mass unemployment

Siyabulela Mama
Siyabulela Mama is a resident book reviewer of Amandla! Magazine and Researcher at the Centre for Integrated Post-School Education and Training, Nelson Mandela University.


International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.

 

Negotiations in Alaska: Does Trump’s peace deal for Putin have a future?

By Posle Editorial Collective

Published 26 August, 20254

First published at Posle.

On August 15, negotiations between President Trump and President Putin took place in Anchorage, Alaska. The primary topic of discussion was the “Ukraine deal.” Despite reports of successful negotiations by both parties, a definitive agreement has not been reached. This meeting followed Trump’s pre-election promises to end the war swiftly, a series of ultimatums to Putin, and criticism of the Ukrainian leadership by the US president. Strangely, the meeting, which sought to decide the possible future of Ukraine and Europe, took place without the participation of either.

The fact that direct negotiations took place between the US and Russian delegations can be considered a foreign policy success for Putin. It is important to acknowledge that the primary objective of the invasion of Ukraine has never been to protect “Russian speakers.” Instead, one of the primary factors driving this agenda has been the Russian dictator’s pursuit of a sphere of influence that is recognized by world leaders. Putin has expressed his belief that Ukraine lacks sovereignty and is instead under the influence of the “West,” indicating that, in his opinion, meaningful negotiations are only possible with the United States. This is the reason why Trump’s earlier efforts to “bring the leaders of Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table” have been unsuccessful, with Russia systematically undermining all negotiations by consistently presenting its own unrealistic ultimatums.

Trump’s decision to meet with Putin in person effectively acknowledges Russia’s claims to its own sphere of influence. This shift in perspective effectively transforms the Russian invasion and its consequences from a blatant violation of international law into a matter of routine negotiation. While at the onset of the full-scale war, diplomacy centered on Russia’s obligation to respect international law and recognized borders, now Ukraine and Europe are forced to acknowledge “Russia’s legitimate interests.” The United States president’s role is to compel Ukraine to accept this state of affairs — to accept it without suffering military defeat and even after dealing several painful blows to the aggressor’s vastly superior army. However, they are forced to accept it while navigating the changing political landscape in democratic nations, particularly the growing influence of politicians who are willing to collaborate with authoritarian leaders. In his interview with Fox News after the talks, Trump emphasized that “now everything depends on Volodymyr Zelensky” and that Zelensky “must agree to the ‘deal’.”

The meeting between Trump and Putin in a democratic state is a significant development in global politics. This development indicates a notable shift in Putin’s international standing, elevating him out of political isolation and providing a respite from sanctions. This development also suggests a strategic reappraisal of Russian diplomacy, potentially leading to a broader recognition of the alleged “fairness” of its demands and absolving it of responsibility for unleashing military aggression. This, in turn, only reinforces militarism and dictatorship in Russia. The elites have received a clear signal that business relations will resume in the near future, while the population is becoming increasingly convinced that no change is possible and that the authorities will get away with anything. The ongoing militarization of society and the expansion of the military-industrial complex are bound to continue even after the end of the war, until they ultimately lead to another military conflict.

The future for peace

Trump’s negotiations have captured everyone’s attention, evoking mixed emotions: hope for an end to the war, but also anxiety about its consequences and the terms of the potential deal. Public statements by the negotiators are vague and often contradictory, further heightening the sense of uncertainty.

For residents of both warring countries and concerned people around the world, a ceasefire is the most desirable outcome. However, whether Russia’s position of impossible ultimatums has changed or if all the talks are just another delaying tactic remains a mystery. Today [August 16], Minister Lavrov stated that the goal of the “special military operation” is to “protect” Russian people, not to seize territory. So far, at least, Trump’s meetings and phone calls with Putin have had no effect on how the war is going. Russia continues its slow advance, grinding down its own soldiers and those of other countries in assaults and striking cities daily, causing destruction and dozens of civilian casualties. Meanwhile, Russia’s economy is facing mounting challenges: the impact of budget allocations to the military is fading, and the modest GDP growth is slowing down rapidly.

In this context, Putin’s diplomatic success was that Trump brought him out of political isolation and made some of Russia’s imperialist foreign policy claims seem legitimate. This is already obvious, as is the fact that Trump is putting maximum pressure on Ukraine regarding the claims he has deemed acceptable. For now, however, Putin’s only compelling argument remains military force and the threat of using it.

Peace is necessary not only to stop the killing but also to begin healing the wounds inflicted by war. Forgiving, understanding, acknowledging responsibility, and rebuilding relationships is always difficult. It will be three times as difficult if Ukraine is forced into an unjust peace, and if Putin continues to threaten the world and corrode Russian society with propaganda and militarism.

The Trump-Putin Summit: Negotiating With

the Devil(s)

Daniel Warner

August 22, 2025

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photograph Source: kremlin.ru – CC BY 4.0

Vladimir Putin has been demonized. Not only is the president of the Russian Federation under indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, he has been compared to Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein. Already in 2012, Reuters cited references to Putin as a “czar-like autocrat,” a “KGB thug,” More recently, after the invasion of Ukraine, Al Jazeera referenced Putin with words like “evil,” “unhinged,” and “unstable.” Should heads of states negotiate with people who are under indictment for war crimes or worse and are called “evil,” “unhinged,” and “unstable”? 

One reference to answer the question about negotiating with the evil Putin is Biblical. The Book of Job begins with a casual negotiation between “the Lord” and his sons, including Satan. “The Lord” boasts about “his servant” Job and Job’s piety. Satan replies that the only reason Job is so pious is because he is blessed with success in family and wealth. As Satan notes; “But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.” That’s the challenge. Will Job remain pious if he is no longer blessed?

And “the Lord” accepts the challenge. “Behold, all that he hath is in thy power, only upon himself put not forth thine hand.” So “the Lord” accepts that Satan could take away all Job’s privileges, but not kill him.  

According to the Bible, “The Lord” negotiated with the Devil. Negotiating with the Devil is also the title of a book by the journalist/activist Pierre Hazan – Negotiating with the Devil. Hazan’s argument is that to establish peace in conflict zones requires negotiations with all relevant parties. In a phrase often used by conflict mediators; “If you are part of the problem, you are part of the solution.”

In this sense, there is no question that Putin must be included in negotiations to stop the Russia/Ukraine conflict. Despite Putin’s pariah legal status, with numerous sanctions and obligations by states to arrest him if he enters their territory, the Russian president cannot be ignored. (The United States is under no such obligation to arrest him since it did not sign the Rome Treaty.) Putin must be included in any negotiation. As far as we know, only he can stop the war. So to headline that Putin had already won the negotiations by being invited to the U.S. and regaining legitimacy ignores the necessity of talking to him. 

But even assuming Putin to be evil and that negotiating with him is a necessity, it does not follow that he should be treated with great fanfare.  It was not necessary, for instance, to give him the royal red carpet treatment when he arrived in Anchorage, Alaska, or to invite him to ride in the presidential vehicle, the Beast. There should be limits on how the Devil is treated.

Also, who is talking to Putin? Mediators are generally neutral, such as delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Imagine the moral difficulty of those who negotiated with Slobodan Milosevic about access to prisoners of war during the Yugoslav crisis at the same time they were aware of atrocities being committed by the Serb forces under his control. Negotiating with the Devil does not include being chummy with him. 

Which brings me to the role of DJT. Who is Trump to act as mediator in Ukraine/Russia negotiations? He claims he has mediated a truce between Armenia and Azerbaijan, between India and Pakistan, between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda among several others. His attempts to negotiate peace in larger conflicts such as between Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine are part of his Nobel Peace Prize campaign.

But DJT is not a professional international mediator. Negotiating peace between opposing countries or international groups has become a profession. There are people who have done this as a career in various conflict zones, such as Pierre Hazan. This is not the moment for an amateur to organize a cease-fire or peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, even the president of the United States. Not only is Trump an amateur diplomatic negotiator, his point man in the Ukraine negotiations and other peace missions, Steven Witkoff, has a background as a real estate investor, quite unlike former American career professional mediators such as Aaron David Miller or Dennis Ross.

(I purposively refrain from mentioning someone who shared a Nobel Peace Prize for “having negotiated a cease fire” in a war that never should have started and that he could have ended earlier then when the fighting finally stopped.) 

Beyond neutrality and amateurism, Trump has his own military agenda. He has increased the U.S. military budget beyond any reasonable means and challenged NATO allies to do the same. He is militarizing the domestic U.S. police forces. There is no aspect of peaceful neutrality in all he does. Trump continues to confuse differences between the art of a real estate deal and international diplomacy. One cannot be mediator, guarantor of security (even if it’s only “by air”) and interested financial party all at the same time. Transactionalism has its diplomatic limits. 

In addition, if more is necessary; if Trump had arranged some cease-fire deal, he would have taken all the credit. Since the summit was a failure, he returned responsibility for the negotiations to Ukrainian President Zelensky, Europeans and others professionally engaged with the problem. “Now it’s really up to President Zelensky to get it done,” he said after the summit. “I would also say the European nations have to get involved a little bit,” he added.

In typical Trumpian manner, he will never admit defeat. He tried, now it’s for others to continue. No more insisting on a cease-fire. No more if Putin doesn’t agree to some settlement within 10 days there would be “very severe consequences” or a “rough situation.” That’s not how professional mediators act. 

A brief mention is also necessary about Trump’s failed diplomacy concerning the specifics of the summit’s negotiations. The announced negotiating time of roughly 3 hours included interpretation. I was told during the Geneva Biden-Putin summit that 3 hours of talk with interpreters actually means 11/4 hours of true negotiations. The lack of serious negotiations in Alaska was also confirmed when neither Putin nor Trump accepted questions at the end of the very short press conference after their meeting. 

If DJT is not a diplomatic negotiator, what is he? If you want to demonize Putin, you might also demonize Trump as “evil,” “unhinged,” and “unstable.”  That two devils negotiated in Alaska explains the (s) in my title. 

Daniel Warner is the author of An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations. (Lynne Rienner). He lives in Geneva.

 

Is socialism possible?

By Sam Gindin

Published 26 August, 2025

First published at Socialist Project.

When this essay by Sam Gindin was first published as “Socialism for Realists” in the Fall of 2018 in Catalyst, the left was at a crossroads. In the preceding years the idea of socialism seemed to finally be on the political map with several left electoral projects gaining traction in many western countries, and anti-capitalist agendas still gathering steam in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Despite these glimmers of hope, there was no overarching strategy, form of organization, or vision of a feasible socialist future.

This essay provided — and continues to provide — a reference point for what a realistic emancipatory political project could look like. It doesn’t exist solely as a ‘thought experiment’ or set of technical proposals for reordering society; it is an attempt to locate socialism in the possible. Readers are challenged to think in radically creative ways, while grounding a renewed socialist imagination in concrete realities and struggles. It is not another argument for a new ‘social compromise’ and a return to a social democracy that no longer exists.

This essay remains an influential guidepost for organizing efforts seeking to take advantage of the new opening. Initiatives such as the DSA’s National Education Committee, the Socialist Project’s Leo Panitch School for Socialist Education, and others have drawn on it to both inspire a new generation of socialists, and to ground experienced activists. Sam’s essay is a sober reminder that socialism won’t come to us ready-made, but that we will all have a part to play turning it from credible possibility into reality.

Download a PDF version of the essay here.

Over 12 million UK households struggling with energy costs as campaigners call for price cap cut

AUGUST 26, 2025

The number of UK households struggling with the cost of their energy bills has hit 12.1 million as campaigners warn Ofgem that people cannot take any more price increases.

With the latest price cap announcement due on Wednesday (August 27th), experts say even the one percent increase predicted will lead to further suffering. The next rise will come into force in October and cover the period until the end of 2025 before prices will change again from January 2026.

Over two fifths of UK households are struggling with energy bills and spending more than 10% of their household income on gas and electricity, based on the research by the University of York. Of these, almost 5m households spend more than 20% of their income on energy, meaning they are in deep fuel poverty.

The figures also enable a comparison between the constituent parts of the UK. Northern Ireland and the West Midlands have the highest poverty rates, followed by Scotland and the North East. Meanwhile, the lowest rates are in Wales, the South West and Eastern England.

The data also reveals types of households which will be hardest hit by any price rise. Households with children are the most likely to be struggling with their energy costs as are people who rent their homes. There is also a correlation between the lower the council tax band and the higher the fuel poverty rate.

3.2 million of those in fuel poverty are pensioner households, with 964,000  pensioner households in deep fuel poverty, meaning they spend more than 20% of their income on energy. 

Meanwhile official figures also reveal that the level of energy debt is still increasing to an all-time high, with millions of households owing a combined £4.15bn in debt.

Simon Francis, coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said: “Fuel poverty is very much still with us and these figures highlight how vital schemes like the Warm Home Discount are to help those struggling each year. But we are now approaching the fifth winter of the energy bills crisis and the time for tinkering with the price cap is over.

“The average household is still paying 67% more for their energy than in winter 2020/21. Ofgem is right to launch a comprehensive review of how energy system costs are allocated, but simply shifting budgets between standing charges and unit rates will not solve the problem. 

“We also need to realise that the North Sea is now in terminal decline and unable to meet the UK’s long-term heating needs. This means we must urgently plan to cut our dependence on gas and bring down the cost of electricity.  Failure to act will lead to even greater reliance on gas imports, reduced energy security and increased energy bills.

“As well as looking at the price cap, we need to scrutinise the profits made by transmission and network companies, while Ministers must step in to ensure investment and funding decisions bring down the cost to bill payers of maintaining our vital infrastructure.”

Campaigners are now urging the Government and Ofgem to look at other ways to raise revenue for network improvements and point to the half a trillion pound profits made by energy companies since 2020 and the £4 billion in excess profits energy networks pocketed after a regulatory decision.

Uplift Executive Director Tessa Khan commented: “This is unwelcome news for the millions of people who find themselves in fuel poverty, even before it begins to turn cold.  The primary cause of the years of persistently high energy prices is the UK’s dependency on gas to generate electricity and heat our homes – which at its peak was three times higher than pre-crisis levels and remains almost double what it was. 

“Oil and gas firms, who are lobbying against the shift to homegrown renewable energy, want it to stay this way so they can continue to make billions at our expense. Any politician who sides with these profiteering oil giants – and opposes the insulation of homes and building of more renewables – is working against the interests of UK pensioners, families and anyone else struggling with unaffordable energy bills.” 

Jonathan Bradshaw, Emeritus Professor of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of York, said: “Official statistics on fuel poverty don’t show the full picture of suffering caused by high energy bills. Our research uses benchmark official figures on living standards along with energy tariff data and statistical models to estimate the impact of energy costs on the population as a whole and on different groups of people. 

“While the data shows a slight reduction in the numbers of households struggling compared to 2022/23, it is clear that fuel poverty is still with us.” 

Government urged to prioritise warmth first in £13.2bn home upgrade plan

Meanwhile, the End Fuel Poverty Coalition has written to the Minister for Energy Consumers, urging the Government to ensure its £13.2 billion Warm Homes Plan delivers real, lasting benefits for people living in cold, damp and unaffordable homes.

In a detailed briefing also shared with key departments across Whitehall, the Coalition outlines a series of reforms to ensure the landmark retrofit scheme improves lives, protects health and cuts bills for those who need it most.

The Coalition says the success of the scheme should be judged not by how many insulation measures are installed but by how far it goes in ending fuel poverty.

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said: “This is a huge opportunity to fix a scandal that’s been hurting millions of households for years and years. Cold homes cause suffering, cost lives and drive up costs for the NHS. The Warm Homes Plan can be the solution – but only if it’s designed around the real needs of people, not just technical targets.”

The Coalition is calling for the Plan to be rooted in a “Warmth First” principle, treating a warm, dry and affordable-to-heat home as a basic human right. It says the programme must include a “Warm Home Guarantee” to track actual comfort and bill savings, and ensure high-quality installations delivered by skilled local workers. 

It also urges the government to fund trusted, face-to-face advice services to help residents through the retrofit journey and access benefits, energy support and legal protections.

The briefing also warns ministers against diverting Warm Homes Plan money into existing schemes, or using it to cut electricity prices for wealthier households. Instead, it argues affordability reforms like levy rebalancing should be funded separately, to avoid punishing low-income households who still rely on gas heating.

In its recommendations, the Coalition draws on lessons from successful past initiatives like the Warm Zones scheme, which provided hands-on support, repeated outreach, and direct help accessing income top-ups—going beyond simple insulation measures to ensure long-term impact.

The spokesperson continued: “If we’re serious about reducing child poverty, pressure on the NHS, and energy insecurity, this Plan must be more than just insulation. It must be about giving people back control, comfort and dignity in their homes.”

Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cj_collective/6992454230 climatejusticecollective Licence: Attribution 2.0 Generic Deed CC BY 2.0

UK courts would block Nigel Farage’s mass deportation plan, former attorney general says

Olivia Barber

Today

Dominic Grieve has said Farage's draconian plans would likely be struck down by the courts

Even if Nigel Farage “unpicked Britain” from human rights laws, the courts would likely block his attempts at mass deportation, former attorney general Dominic Grieve has said.

The Reform UK leader is set to announce his extreme mass deportation plans in a speech this morning.

It is understood that if Farage is elected prime minister at the next election, he would want to forcibly remove hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers if they don’t accept a £2,500 payment and a free flight to leave the UK.

He has pledged that five deportation flights would leave the UK every day. He has also announced plans to house asylum seekers in detention centres on military bases.

Grieve has told The Independent that Farage’s plans would likely be blocked by the courts, even if he scraps crucial international agreements like the UN Convention on Torture, the Refugee Convention and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

The former attorney general has pointed out that if the UK leaves the ECHR this would also lead to the collapse of the post-Brexit trade agreement with the EU.

Grieve said there will also be huge political upheaval if Farage pursues these draconian plans, and that people “will mount campaigns of various sorts against it”.

He also told The Independent that the courts are likely to intervene. “You still can’t rule out that a court might – in the case of somebody where it was quite clear they were going to be deported, in circumstances where their lives would be seriously at risk in their home country – intervene to stop deportation under customary law or even the common law,” he said.

He said that the “single biggest problem” is that countries are unlikely to be willing to take back migrants that he wants to deport, especially if there is no bilateral agreement in place.

In addition, there are big question marks around the cost of such plans. In April, former Reform MP Rupert Lowe and the Centre for Migration Control claimed the plans would cost £47.5bn. Reform is now suggesting it would cost £10bn.

Reform has dismissed these criticisms but has yet to set out how the plan would work or how much it would cost. Meanwhile, the Tories have accused Farage of copying ideas from their Deportation Bill.

Nigel Farage dodges questions on returning asylum seekers who could be tortured or killed

Olivia Barber 

Today

Left Foot Forward 



Farage didn't seem too concerned about potential human rights abuses

It was pointed out to Nigel Farage at his press conference this morning that his draconian mass deportation plan could result in returned asylum seekers being tortured or killed.

Farage has set out a plan to detain and deport hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers if his party gets elected in 2029.

At the press conference, Paul McNamara from Channel 4, said to Farage: “There is a realistic possibility that if you go forward with this, there might be a case where someone arrives in the UK by small boat, you send them back to the country from which they came, and they will be tortured or killed because of a decision you’ve made.”

He asked: “How does that sit with you?”.

Farage failed to answer the question about risks to asylum seekers’ lives, and instead replied: “Well the alternative, of course, is to do nothing”.

“That’s the very clear alternative, we just do nothing,” Farage repeated, adding: “We just allow this problem to magnify and grow.”

Farage then claimed that if people who arrive on small boats aren’t deported, it will lead to civil disorder. He added: “And I don’t want this to happen so we can prevent civil disorder from happening, but that is the direction this country is going in.”

Ironically, Farage has been one of the main right-wing figures encouraging far-right activists to protest outside migrant hotels.

The Reform leader added: “We cannot be responsible for all the sins around the world.”

In his speech today, the Reform leader said his party would rip up international human rights agreements, by leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention and the UN Convention against Torture, and repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act.

The removal of these human rights laws would weaken protections both for UK citizens and asylum seekers.

Asked by the BBC’s Ben Wright whether the possibility of thousands of asylum seekers facing imprisonment, torture or death if they were returned to their home countries “bother[s] him at all”, he claimed it does bother him.

However, he added: “What really bothers me is what is happening to British citizens, what really bothers me and you’ve seen this from the Bell Hotel onwards, is the growing concern with justifiable evidence that women and girls are far less safe on the streets than they were before all this began.”

It has been pointed out that Farage didn’t raise the issue of women’s safety before more people started arriving in the UK on small boats.

In 2015, before small boats started arriving, 103,614 sexual offences were recorded in one year, with almost 35,000 reports of rapes, 68,000 reports of other sexual offences. Yet Farage wasn’t talking about women’s safety back then.

Kolbassia Haoussou, director of survivor leadership at Freedom from Torture, has reacted to Reform saying it would leave the 1951 Refugee Contention and the UN Convention Against Torture.

Haoussou said: “The UN Convention Against Torture is a promise to defend our shared right to live a life free from torture. For centuries, the UK has been a leading voice against torture, helping to shape the very international laws that Reform proposes we destroy.

“These laws were created in the aftermath of the second world war to protect us all. If Britain were to abandon this legacy it would hand repressive regimes around the world a gift and undermine one of humanity’s clearest moral lines. We must not stay silent.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

Nigel Farage set to skip Parliament’s return in favour of cosying up to Trump’s allies in Washington DC

Basit Mahmood 

Today
Left Foot Forward 


Farage has faced criticism from his constituents too for going missing since being elected the MP for Clacton,

So much for putting Britain’s interests first, Nigel Farage can’t even be bothered to turn up to Parliament’s return on September 1, and is instead set to fly off to Washington DC to cosy up to Trump’s allies.

The Mirror reports that Farage has been ‘booked as a star speaker at the National Conservatism conference, run by the Edmund Burke Foundation.’

It goes on to add: “He’ll appear on 2 September alongside a who’s who of Trumpworld – from U.S. director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to the men behind Project 2025, the radical blueprint for a second Trump presidency.”

Farage has faced criticism from his constituents too for going missing since being elected the MP for Clacton, making constant trips to the U.S. to cosy up to Trump and his aides.

He also flew to the U.S. just days after being elected in order to show support to Donald Trump following an assassination attempt on the Republican last year, in an all-expense paid for £32,000 trip.

His constituents have accused him of using the town ‘as a vehicle to further his own interests’, with the MP barely spending any time in his own constituency as he flies off to America and spends time on media shows.

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward