It's not over for COP26 as the Coalition builds for the future

 

Written by Skye Pepier

The COP26 Coalition has continued to meet since the Glasgow Summit in November last year, and on 19th February there was a whole day of discussion about the future of the movement. The framing for the discussion was that Glasgow last year was just the start of the network’s activity, and that the work needed to build an effective climate movement on these islands should be continued and enhanced. 

There was a tremendous enthusiasm about the action and work that is being undertaken by the Coalition, despite the recognition that the COP26 summit was a failure and did not bring the action on climate change needed from our so-called world leaders. People from all corners of Britain, and the world, including the Caribbean and Africa participated in the COP26 Coalition meetings. 

Despite similar attempts of network building by Green Left, however, including its involvement of the Ecosocialist Alliance, there was a noticeable absence in the COP26 Coalition meetings, of anyone involved in Green parties, of either Scotland, or England and Wales. This doesn't necessarily mean that there weren't Green Party members present - but it was difficult to discover the presence of fellow Green Party members. 

After a brief introduction to the COP26 Coalition, there were discussions around the difference between organising and mobilising a diversity of tactics, as well as regional exercises to build up COP26 local hubs and the wider climate justice movement. 

The day then closed with an online rally for the year ahead, titled 'Movement Building & Collective Strategies', with speakers from Fridays for Future Scotland, Campaign Against Climate Change, Landworkers Alliance, as well as youth activist Aoife Mercedes Rodriguez-Uruchurtu from YouthStrike4Climate Manchester and Breathe.  

Each speaker was able to say something quite different to the others, but without disagreement of any kind, which was a sign of the diversity of the COP26 Coalition movement, and arguably, also its strength. 

So, what is next for the COP26 Coalition? As the UK holds the presidency of COP26 until the start of COP27, it is still important to keep climate change on the agenda, just as it always has, but especially if we want to see continued action while the UK is in its current global position on it. There is also the matter of building towards COP27, despite it being in Egypt, where post-Arab Spring oppression has been brutal. 

The strategy for the COP26 Coalition covers the following areas: 

1. Building local capacity by supporting the 'local hubs' to continue to organise locally and to aim to bring other climate campaigns and campaigners together through taking action and the target mapping. 

2. Continue to hold events, such as mass gatherings, to build up, and share, useful skills and to learn more from each other e.g., on tactics and other ideas. 

3. To continue to put pressure, where possible, on our leaders, for meaningful action on climate justice. 

4. To share relevant experience of organising together as the baton for the summit itself is now being passed to Egyptian climate organisers. 

While many of us in the Green Party will now be looking to the local elections in May, it might be worth also reaching out to COP26 Coalition groups in our areas, to see how it might be possible to work together for an opportunity to strengthen the climate movement. 

The politics of the participants in the meetings of the 19th February feel like a good fit to those that I have already found among Green Left activists (despite being involved for a relatively short amount of time), so there should be no real practical or ideological barriers to connecting our movements more, and I would argue that Green Left is in a fairly unique position to be able to bridge what seems to be a divide between the Green Party of England and Wales, and the broader climate movement, of which the COP26 Coalition is arguably closest to us at the present moment. 

Even if our personal capacity is an obstacle to involvement in the run-up to the local elections, let us somehow at least make a resolve now to connect these struggles once the elections are over. 

The COP26 Coalition Trade Union Caucus also meets online on the 3rd Tuesday of the month and is well worth being explored by any rank and file trade union organisers. 

To find out more about the COP26 Coalition you can visit their website at https://cop26coalition.org/

Skye Pepier is a member of Tower Hamlets Green Party and a Green Left supporter.

Green / Lib Dem Electoral Pact was a Mistake that Shouldn’t be Repeated

As the full implications of last Thursday’s general election result sinks in, with five more long years of Tory rule, and a hard right Tory government at that, what lessons can be learnt from the election by the Green party?

The Greens did stand in some marginal constituencies where in the end Labour lost out to the Tories, like Kensington and Bury North, where the size of the Tory majority was less than the Green vote. These were outside of the pact with Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru and where Labour had refused to enter into any electoral arrangements, but may well have damaged the Greens reputationally. But it was the pact, with its high profile story at the beginning of the election campaign, that may do more lasting damage.  

The electoral pact with the Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru failed to deliver any wins for any of the parties involved, so must be judged a failure all round. But what the pact may have achieved is making Labour’s defeat even heavier than it might otherwise have been. Constituencies like Stroud where the Lib Dems stood down in favour of the Greens, the Green vote was more than the majority that the Tories attained. Likewise, Warrington South, where the Greens stood down in favour of the Lib Dems, the Lib Dem vote was larger than the Tory majority.

Of course, there is no guarantee that had the pact not existed, voters would have backed Labour, but in marginal constituencies like these, which neither the Lib Dems or Greens could have won anyway, the risk was clear. Considering that the pact was organised via the Unite to Remain (UTR) campaign group, and Labour were offering a second referendum on Brexit, this pact made it more likely that we would be leaving the European Union (EU), rather than getting an opportunity to remain. It was counter-productive, to say the least.

Furthermore, the Greens initial objective of making this the ‘climate election’ was undermined and played into the Tory narrative of it being the ‘Brexit election.’ The pact probably didn’t lead to the Greens losing many votes, although perhaps some, as most Green voters are remainers. The modest increase of 1.1% for the Greens in the overall result of the election, as against 2017, appears to show this, but given the way climate change and environmental matters more widely have risen up the political agenda recently, it could well be argued that the Greens should have done much better.

The pact wasn’t universally popular amongst the Green party membership either, with many resigning from the party, and other activists were demotivated at the very beginning of the election campaign. And with all of this for no electoral benefit to the Greens, despite claims by the party’s leadership before the election. It was all wishful thinking.

The Green Party conference motion which allowed the leadership to indulge in electoral pacts, was fairly vague, but did stipulate that the final decision on any pacts would be left to local parties, but this doesn’t appear to have been the case everywhere. Sources from inside one of the local parties involved in the pact has told London Green Left blog that their opinion wasn't sought. 

The Brecon and Radnorshire constituency where the byelection in August was a proto-type for the eventual pact, albeit without the local party's consent, when they were not planning to stand anyway. The leadership of the Welsh party knew that they rejected any notion of a pact at the byelection, and that their officers were not in favour of any association with UTR. The pact was announced, before the end of nominations, so their choice then became to either not stand and become part of the pact they hadn't consented to or attempt to stand and severely embarrass the national party.

There was no contact between the local party and the Lib Dems or Plaid Cymru, all of this was done by the national party. Radnorshire Greens were not even aware their constituency was being included in the discussions with other parties. The local party had also taken a democratic vote which rejected entering into any pacts at the general election.    

There is the feeling that discussion was stifled and the local party kept in the dark as to what was going on, until it was too late to change the leaderships' decision. This does not sound like leaving the final say on any pacts to local parties, rather the reverse.  

The risk for the Green party was that this pact with the neo-liberal Lib Dems, with a leader seemingly keen to launch a nuclear war, would tarnish the Green brand and conversely would allow the Lib Dems to paint themselves as ‘green,’ which they are not. I’ve always been of the opinion that in some places, local circumstances might make standing or not standing Green candidates, a legitimate course of action. But this should be a genuinely local decision, and not be manipulated by the leadership of the national party at all.

We perhaps became too blindsided by the desire to remain in the EU too, and this led to poor judgement at the top of the party. I hope the party can discuss all of this in the coming months so as we don’t take such amateur decisions in the future.

The Lib Dems and Electoral Pacts

The Liberal Democrats are making a lot of noise in the media about electoral pacts in the almost certainly upcoming General Election. They have been forced to deny a pact in Scotland with the Tories, which would seem to be aimed at taking some seats off the SNP, in some sort of anti-independence alliance, although no talks have been mentioned with Labour in Scotland.

The new leader of the party Jo Swinson, was also forced to deny rumours of standing aside in favour of former Tory MP Rory Stewart in Penrith and the Borders, Cumbria, because of differences about leaving the European Union (EU). Recent weeks have seen a small procession of former Tory MPs, expelled from their party for voting against the government’s leaving the EU with no deal, joining the Lib Dems. Two of these MPs, Phillip Lee and Sam Gyimah, have distinctly illiberal, if not down right homophobic views, but why let principles get in the way of a good political news story?

The Lib Dems have though admitted that they are looking at a pro-Remain electoral alliance with parties, in England and Wales, who support staying in the EU, or at least want another referendum on the issue, with remain an option. Given the Labour party’s latest policy shift, towards holding a referendum on any leave deal they can negotiate with EU, with Remain the other option, the Lib Dems are not looking for any deal with Labour. Perhaps this is why they have moved to a revoke Article 50 policy, putting clear yellow water between the parties?

Swinson was on BBC Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland programme on Monday:

The Press Association reports, Swinson said that a pro-Remain agreement had worked well previously, including in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election last month where Jane Dodds was elected as a new MP for the party. She went on:

There was obviously success for that kind of arrangement in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election. Plaid Cymru and the Green party stood aside, stood shoulder to shoulder if you like, with the Liberal Democrats and Jane Dodds was elected to be a very unequivocal voice in parliament for remain. So, that happened already and it’s successful.

Asked whether the party would stand aside for Labour candidates, the Lib Dem leader said:

That’s a different question because Labour are not a remain party, Labour are trying to deliver a Labour Brexit. But where we agree with others on stopping Brexit, we are in those discussions.

The first thing to say about this, is that in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, the local Green party did not endorse the Lib Dem candidate. They did not field a candidate, but they didn’t in the 2017 General Election either, judging it was not worthwhile, given the associated required spending. This has not stopped the Lib Dems propagating this untruth though, ever since the Greens decided not to stand.

Plaid Cymru did say that they had stood down in favour of a pro-Remain candidate, but they only polled about 3% in the constituency in 2017, so probably didn’t make much difference to the outcome, albeit in a narrow triumph for the Lib Dems, on a low turn out. It is possible that such arrangements will happen in some constituencies at the next General Election, but I wouldn’t expect it to be on a large scale.

It comes as no surprise that the Lib Dems will not contemplate any arrangements with the Labour party. Firstly, Labour don’t do pre-election deals with any other party anyway, and given the Lib Dem’s record on propping up David Cameron’s Tory coalition government, the Lib Dems would be the last party (apart from the Tories) they would break with their usual stance on alliances.

But it also appears to be part of the Lib Dems wider electoral strategy. Something like five million Tory voters voted Remain in the 2016 referendum, and it is these pro-Remain Tories that the Lib Dems are hoping to court. These voters are unlikely to support a party that they see in some kind of electoral alliance with the Labour party, so it fits with their strategy to attack Labour, not do deals with them.

It is also evident in the blind eye approach to defecting Tory MPs, who hold questionable views on gay people, as each Tory MP (or ex- Tory MP) provides a media story of Remain supporting Tories going over to the Lib Dems. The defecting ex Labour MPs, are seen as New Labour types who were at odds with Corbyn’s Labour, so can safely be pouched in the hope that some Labour voters who liked Tony Blair, may be persuaded to shift to the Lib Dems. This is only a minor part of the Lib Dems electoral strategy though, it is Tory Remain voters that they are really after.

Labour may decide not to try too hard in constituencies they have no hope of winning, to concentrate resources where they can win. This may help the Lib Dems, but is a side issue for Labour.

At the end of the day, electing Lib Dems, is just electing another type of Tory. The Lib Dems appear to want to resurrect a David Cameron style Tory party, and although marginally better than the head bangers running the Tory party now, it would still be Tory.

Where does all of this leave the Green party? Well, I would suggest that local parties be very careful about helping the Lib Dems, for the reasons above, and the possibility of being tarred with the same brush. 

As for helping Labour, by standing aside in some places, this should be a local decision, and taken on a case by case basis. Labour's new stance of a referendum on their deal or Remain, seems to be reasonable to me. But we should remember too, that not all Green voters will vote Labour in any case.  

Ecosocialism’s Greatest Challenge: The Colour-Line and the Twenty-First Century Ecoleft

Written by Ted Franklin and first published at System Change Not Climate Change

Shortly before protesters gathered around the world on the eve of the Global Climate Action Summit, an ecosocialist friend commented on the pointlessness of engaging in more “feel good” marches. Something struck me as horribly wrong about this casual dismissal of mass actions in which we take to the streets to bear witness to the mounting opposition to global ecocide.

As an active participant in San Francisco Bay Area climate actions over the past five years, I can’t think of a single march or rally deserving of the trivializing “feel good” label. None has been a platform for Al Gore or Michael Bloomberg or Jerry Brown or Michael Shellenberger to peddle market solutions to climate change, fantasies of capitalism without fossil fuels, nuclear power, or geo-engineering.

Marches and rallies are important to the Left not only for their potential to topple governments, but also because the process of organizing street actions builds organizational capacity, strengthens ties among activists working on different fronts, creates opportunities to engage with the larger community, and sparks intense political struggle without which our movement will remain caged on the pages of theoretical journals. If building a more powerful movement also feels good, then we ought to feel good more often.

The Solidarity to Solutions Week of Actions that took place in San Francisco this past week exemplified these gains for the climate movement. They were not “feel good” exercises. In fact, they highlighted the growing strength of a militant anti-capitalist climate movement with significant leadership by and participation of people of colour, women, and indigenous activists greatly underrepresented in the self-identified ecosocialist Left.

Ecosocialists have much to learn from this movement that we do not lead, but that articulates a critique of green capitalism, the commodification of nature, and imperialist domination of the Global South that is deeply compelling and akin to our own.

Over recent months, the Climate Justice Alliance, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, Indigenous Environmental Network and Right to the City joined forces in the It Takes Roots Alliance to build a week of actions in San Francisco as counterpoint to the Global Climate Action Summit where “market-based schemes will be promoted as the only response to climate change.”

It Takes Roots vowed to “spotlight frontline community solutions to the interlinked economic, democratic and climate crises currently threatening humanity. Frontline community leaders from the Bay Area, across the U.S. and around the world will share and discuss place-based solutions that serve to simultaneously decarbonize, detoxify, demilitarize and democratize our economy through critical strategies such as Indigenous land rights, food sovereignty, zero waste, public transportation, ecosystem restoration, universal healthcare, worker rights, housing rights, racial and gender justice, and economic relocalization.”

The week kicked off with a 30,000-person march in conjunction with the People’s Climate Movement. The march ended without the usual rally orations, but instead featured painting of the world’s largest street mural and a vibrant street fair where groups actively fighting climate change in the Bay Area had an opportunity to engage one-on-one with participants.

The week continued with tours of local sites of environmental struggle, a day-long It Takes Roots member assembly, another day-long summit of workshops open to all, and two major direct actions confronting the invitation-only GCAS from which grassroots and radical activists were excluded.

The larger of the direct actions involved over a thousand demonstrators who linked arms to block entrance to the GCAS on the day Michael Bloomberg was scheduled to speak.

A major theme of this demonstration was “Rise Against Climate Capitalism.”  In the call to disrupt GCAS, Diablo Rising Tide posted, “We’ve known for a long time to not believe the false narrative that green capitalism can take care of us and the planet. The people that got us into the climate crisis are not going to be the ones to get us out of it.”

Challenging Governor Brown’s claim to leadership of the world’s fight against climate change, the call continued “Jerry Brown's record on offshore drilling, fracking and protecting the water and air of local refinery communities doesn’t match his rhetoric — so we’re skeptical to say the least.”

Coordinated by It Takes Roots, Indigenous Environmental Network, Idle No More SF Bay, the Ruckus Society, Brown’s Last Chance, and Diablo Rising Tide, the blockade of GCAS was at once one of the most diverse and one of the most explicitly anti-capitalist environmental actions ever held in the Bay Area. Led mostly by young people of colour, demonstrators held the street for about three hours before marching to a nearby park for a closing gathering around a large circular banner that proclaimed “End Climate Capitalism.”

What does this all mean for the future of ecosocialism?

First, it means we means we who belong to largely white ecosocialist groups have many allies with deep roots in communities of colour who share our understanding that capitalism is incompatible with a decent future for life on our planet.

Second, if ecosocialism is to go anywhere. ecosocialists must make common cause with these allies, building relationships through working together, just as they have worked together over recent years to build relationship among themselves. If the members of the more than 200 organizations aligned with It Takes Roots are not going to be part of our ecosocialist revolution, we need to reconsider our vision.

Third, to join in common cause will require respect for the vision and priorities these groups bring forward as we all struggle for the revolutionary change. Ecological Marxists like John Bellamy Foster, Chris Williams, Ian Angus, Andreas Malm, Fred Magdoff, Michael Löwy, Joel Kovel, and Richard Smith have made great contributions to our understanding of capitalism’s threat to life on the planet and socialism’s offer of a hopeful way out, but we will not find the path forward if we are only listening to the voices of white male academic Marxists, even those who have the happy gift of writing in a popular style.

Listening to other voices will sometimes require us to accept leadership from others outside our existing circles. The explicit embrace of socialism should not be a litmus test in determining whom we embrace. Twentieth century socialism led to tragic flaws and perversions that have made many sincere anti-capitalists reluctant to reclaim the word, even when garnished with the “eco” prefix.

Any notion that we who currently identify as ecosocialists are the bearers of a complete vision of post-revolutionary society, or a complete strategy to get there, is absurd. Our ecosocialist tendency is still much clearer in its diagnosis of the capitalist fever that grips the planet than it is in its practical grasp of how to build a movement that can replace capitalism. The socialist canon does not answer the perennial question, “What is to be done?”

An authentic movement for liberation and survival in our time will involve leadership from Indigenous activists like Kandi Mossett and Tom Goldtooth, guiding insights from African-American thinkers like Keeanga-Yamahhta Taylor, and inspiration from the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II. We have much to offer in collaboration, not only our connection to a worldwide history of struggle against capitalism and a theory of how it can be overcome but also our curiosity, our determination, and, if we are really hoping to change the world, our humility.

The It Takes Roots alliance has glitches to iron out if it is to be a unifying ideological and practical center. Some Bay Area frontline activists who wanted to be part of the “official” Week of Actions could not figure out how to get on board. Mysteriously, It Takes Roots did not welcome efforts by grassroots activists who have been holding off siting of a coal terminal in frontline West Oakland for three-and-a-half years. No Coal in Oakland offered to organize an ecotour and demonstration on the Bay Bridge pedestrian walkway on the day set aside for ecotours.

Sunflower Alliance, a local group that led efforts to deny tar sands oil a path to market by imposing caps on local emissions from Northern California refineries, also found itself sidelined. The emphasis on Indigenous leadership, including prayer, reportedly left some Christian pastors wondering where they fit in. Although It Take Roots is sharply critical of capitalism, it has, as yet, few roots in Labor.

Despite these concerns, it would be a tragic mistake for activists who are not well-connected to It Takes Roots to assume ill will. Staging the Week of Actions was an enormous undertaking that, as anyone who has organized a big coalition event knows, required much internal struggle that detracted from the group’s ability to sort out some of its relations with those outside its ranks.

After No Coal in Oakland’s ecotour proposal got no response, No Coal in Oakland activists, a number of whom identify as ecosocialists, found other ways to participate successfully in Sol2Sol week. On the first day of Jerry Brown’s summit, NCIO staged a spirited picket line outside a nearby responsible investment conference to call out the bank seeking to finance the West Oakland coal terminal. 

Diablo Rising Tide, one of the organizations spearheading direct actions during Sol2Sol week, cosponsored the action along with Sunflower Alliance, and East Bay Democratic Socialists of America. A No Coal in Oakland affinity group also participated in the GCAS blockade. Relationships are built this way, by joining forces.

To be sure, bridging the gap between the currently small ranks of self-described ecosocialists—some 40 or so of whom marched in the DSA-sponsored ecosocialist contingent on September 8 in San Francisco--and the “movement of movements” prefigured by It Takes Roots is going to require ecosocialists to look outside our silo. Only by dedication to that task will we succeed in addressing the twenty-first century problem of the ecoleft’s own colour-line.

Ted Franklin is a co-coordinator of No Coal in Oakland and a member of System Change Not Climate Change and the Democratic Socialists of America Ecosocialist Working Group.

MPs Should Legislate for an Abortion Referendum in Northern Ireland

Momentum is gathering in Parliament and outside for a referendum in Northern Ireland to allow women living in the province access to abortion on the same terms as those in the rest of the UK. Prompted by the vote to liberalise access to abortion in the Republic of Ireland last week, Northern Ireland will have the most restrictive laws on abortion in Europe.

The UK government is resisting legislating and looking increasingly worried by the situation, saying that it is a devolved matter for the Stormont Assembly to act on. This is true, but rather falls down under the reality that there is no Assembly to devolve it to. The Assembly was suspended in January 2017 over a green energy scheme, of all things, but there were other differences between Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

Under the Sewel convention, the UK government has agreed that it will not normally legislate on matters that are the responsibility of devolved administrations without their consent, but as I say, there is no one to give consent.

In another twist, the UK government has just broken the Sewel convention by stating that it will be legislating on Brexit, against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament. May is making a habit of breaking conventions, as she did when ordering the bombing of Syria earlier this year, when she refused to allow a Parliamentary vote on the matter. Whatever suits your political agenda is deemed to be more important than constitutional convention for this government.

And liberalising the Northern Ireland abortion laws most definitely does not suit the government’s agenda. The government only has majority in Parliament by virtue of the rather expensive deal done with the DUP’s 12 MPs, who are absolutely opposed to any change in the abortion laws in Northern Ireland.

Over 160 MPs have signed a letter calling for Westminster to legislate for a referendum on the issue and many more are said to be privately in favour of a change in the law, so this might well become unstoppable. There are two ways (possibly three if you count an adjournment debate) MPs could force the issue.

The first is by an ‘early day motion.’ The censure motion by which the Labour Government of James Callaghan was ejected had its origin in an early day motion, put down on 22 March 1979, by Margaret Thatcher. But it is quite cumbersome in nature, and so the second option of amending an existing bill may be a better bet.

This is probably what is going to happen. The Labour MP Stella Creasy is proposing an amendment to the domestic violence bill which will be debated in Parliament, probably in the Autumn. My feeling is that the amendment could well get enough support from MPs of all parties (except the DUP), and this is why the government is so worried.

The DUP might, probably would, withdraw their support for the Tory government, which would inevitably lead to a general election, although it is hard to see any new government not proceeding with liberalising the abortion laws in Northern Ireland. I think the DUP are stuffed, what a shame.

Meanwhile, the UK Supreme Court is set to make a ruling on whether Northern Ireland’s abortion laws are in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Everything seems to be moving in the direction of bringing Northern Ireland’s law into line with the rest of the UK.

Which is kind of ironic, because throughout the Brexit negotiations on the border in Ireland, the DUP have demanded that Northern Ireland, is treated no differently to the rest of the UK. Well, as far as abortion is concerned, that may be about to happen.

Abortion doesn’t seem to me to be the sort of issue that should be devolved anyway, since it effectively makes women in Northern Ireland second class citizens to those in the rest of the country, and now even on the island of Ireland. If this brings down the Tory government, then so be it, it has been a complete shambles in all other respects anyway. And the DUP will not get to trouser any more money from UK taxpayers as a reward for the shameful deal that props up this minority Tory government.

What is not to like?  

Budget Deficit Cleared – More Austerity on the Way

In 2010 when the Tory government was elected, in coalition with the treacherous Lib Dems, lest we forget, the UK economy had started a very fragile recovery from the 2008 financial crash. The Tory chancellor at the time, George Osborne, proceeded to drive the economy straight into a ditch. The public spending cuts introduced by Osborne, failed to bring the budget deficit down, and after two years he changed tack to basically introduce the austerity light that Labour had proposed in the 2010 general election.

Low and behold, the budget deficit started to reduce, slowly, and finally will be in balance by 2019-20, according to the Office of Budget Responsibility. The deficit refers to the amount of tax money coming into the exchequer, less the money the government spends, or to put it another way, we have been spending more than we are raising in taxes. This is often confused with the amount of money that the government is borrowing in total, but that figure has almost doubled over the last 8 years to around £1.8 trillion.

This is due to the government’s austerity policies, as you can’t cut your way out of a recession. The austerity policies have had the effect of depressing economic growth even more than the recession, hence the need to borrow more. At the same time the government cut taxes for the highest earners, further reducing the tax take, and we find ourselves where we are today, massively in debt.

News of finally balancing the budget, has been greeted with cheers from the government’s supporters, but in truth it is a woeful record. Along the way, public sector wages have fallen, with public service union the PCS calculating that public sector workers are now on average £5,000 a year worse off in real terms than in 2010.

Real wages overall, including the private sector have fallen by 10.7% since the Tories came to power. The cruel cuts to benefit payments, and accompanying regime of sanctions have caused much misery, and deaths in some cases. Public services have been cut to bone, which are often relied on by the most vulnerable in our society. There is a spike in the thousands of rough sleepers on our streets. Growth in the economy has only been modest. Hardly a record to be proud of.

What the Tories did manage to do, was frame their austerity policy as a result of Labour’s profligacy, but the depth of the recession in 2008 made Labour’s public spending necessary, and as I say, it was working to an extent. Why Labour let the Tories get away with their narrative, is still a mystery to me. Maybe they believed it themselves?

We should remember also that the Tories when in opposition advocated sticking to Labour’s spending plans (before the financial crash), so they shouldn’t have been allowed to revise history as they did. They in effect blamed the recession on Labour, although the Tories agreed with Labour’s deregulation agenda, and in fact wanted to go further.

The current chancellor, Philip Hammond, released his Spring economic statement today, in which he confirmed that higher than expected tax receipts mean that the current account budget is now nearly in balance. But he would go only as far as promising the possibility of ‘jam tomorrow,’ with the prospect of increasing public spending in this year’s Autumn budget. He wants to keep money available to cushion against any economic shocks caused by Brexit.

But more than this, austerity is an ideological fetish for the Tories. They are obsessed with cutting down the size of the public realm, believing in ‘small government’ just like their tea party compatriots in the US. They see it as an end in itself, whatever the cost.

Dr Faiza Shaheen, director of the think-tank CLASS (Centre for Labour and Social Studies), said: “Local Councils are almost bankrupt, workers are overworked and underpaid, and we are losing the race with our competitors in the G7.

Britain can’t afford more of the same failed dogma, especially given the uncertainty of Brexit. We need to see the public sector pay cap lifted, public services properly funded, and more borrowing for investment.”

Amen to that.

The Left must support Catalonia

Written by Gorka Elejabarrieta and first published at Green Left Weekly

Let us be clear, to defend the unity of the Spanish state is at least as nationalist as to stand for the independence of Catalonia.

Being pro-independence does not make you automatically progressive or leftist, but contrary to what some prominent Left representatives in the Spanish state are stating, you can be in favour of Catalan independence from a very progressive perspective.

Moreover, I believe that the driving forces of the Catalan process are mainly progressive. As the process has moved forward in recent years, the left in Catalonia has strengthened while conservative forces have weakened.

Many unacceptable lies have been told lately in the name of the left in regard to the Catalan process. When Alberto Garzon took over as leader of the Spanish state-wide United Left (IU), it seemed to some of us that IU would finally correct its position towards stateless nations within the Spanish state — moving to a more democratic approach that respects these nations right to decide its relations with the Spanish state.

The same can be said about Podemos. The rise of Podemos (which emerged out of the 2011 indignado anti-austerity movement) and its initial discourses in favour of the right to decide for Catalonia and the Basque Country became an important change in the traditional position of the left in Spain towards our nations.

In recent weeks, Garzon and other representatives of the Spanish left have given some profound and thoughtful theoretical insights for the left globally to think about. Among Garzon’s pearls of wisdom, “The left cannot defend the independence of Catalonia” and “It is not coherent to be a communist and pro-independence in the Catalan context”.

Spanish nationalism

It is clear that when he says this it only applies to Catalonia and probably the Basque Country as well because Garzon and his party don’t have any problem openly defending the status quo — that is the unity of Spain — while being leftist and communist. It seems to me that he and his party are much more nationalist — Spanish nationalist — than they are ready to admit publicly.

From a progressive stance, this position is hard to understand unless you add to it a strong dose of Spanish nationalism. From a democratic perspective, this shows that their support for the “right to decide” is just a valid political position as long as no nation dares to use it. Or, what is more pernicious, tries to implement what the majority of the people has decided democratically.

Saying as many others have said — that the Catalan process is not a valid one because Spanish laws, specifically the Spanish Constitution, do not allow it — is a not progressive approach. On the dispute between legality and legitimacy, the left should always be on the side “of the many, not the few”.

How many battles would the left, historically, have won if it did not prioritise legitimacy over existing legality? Suffragist struggles, workers’ organising, the US civil rights battle, anti-Apartheid movement, national liberation movements around the globe — every battle that the left has fought over the past centuries in favour of a better society and for freedoms would not have been fought if restricted to respecting existing legality.

In Catalonia, more than 80% of the population supports the right to decide of the Catalan people. For the past years, there has not been such a huge popular, civic, peaceful, social, political and cultural process in Europe as the Catalan one. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have protested once and again.

This process has brought together the main Catalan institutions, various political parties from the left and right, the main trade unions, hundreds of social movements, and small- and medium-sized businesses.

The response of the Spanish state has been to send state Civil Guards and national police to attack thousands as they tried to vote, arrest leading figures of the Catalan social and cultural movements, suspend Catalan autonomy, and jail the Catalan government, forcing President Carles Puigdemont and four ministers into exile in Belgium.

As a consequence, Catalonia is now being directly ruled from Madrid by a party that has 8% of electoral support in Catalonia.

Choosing sides

When state repressive apparatuses attack those trying to defend democratic rights for everybody (including unionists), the left cannot remain neutral. It cannot position itself between those being attacked and the perpetrators of the attacks.

As human rights activist Desmond Tutu once said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Some on the left say that the consequences Catalonia is facing today are equally the responsibility of those promoting independence as of the Spanish state. From a democratic and progressive perspective this position is not acceptable.

Left-wing British journalist Owen Jones, in a debate in the BBC, said it clearly: “It doesn’t matter whether you support Catalan independence, it really is quite irrelevant. The issue is, do you support the right of the Catalan people to freely determine their own future without being dragged from polling stations and being thrown downstairs?

“And in modern Europe, to see... an elected political leadership fleeing a country to claim political asylum and being locked up in prisons should chill every single European and encourage us to stand in solidarity with the Catalan people...

“If Scotland have been denied the right to determine its own future that would have been a democratic outrage, and... the least that other European governments can do is tell the Spanish government: Stop assaulting voters, stop locking up elected politicians, stop denying the rights of your people to determine their own future and stop attacking civil liberties.”

Some claim the only way for Catalans to exercise their right to decide is first through a profound reform to democratise the Spanish state. This is the path that we Basques have followed for years with no result.

We always believed that Spain should acknowledge the Basque Country as a political subject with the right to decide. Only then would Basques be in a position to freely and democratically determine our own future.

It should be noted that the right to decide is a democratic right, which would allow every political project to be defended equally: that of independence, unionism, autonomy etc. It is a right that at the end of the day would allow every people to determine its future among the existing possibilities.

This path proved futile. There is no enough progressive strength within the Spanish state to democratise it. Not in the past, not now, nor in the near future.

Sortu secretary-general Arkaitz Rodriguez has repeatedly said to the left across the Spanish state: “We are willing to cooperate in the democratisation of the Spanish state with you, but we ask you to be honest and that the day you realise this to be impossible, that you sum up your forces with the pro-independence parties to support constituent processes in our nations, because unlike in the Spanish state, we have enough strength in Catalonia and the Basque Country to reach independent and progressive republics.”

Path to democracy

The path towards a more democratic and progressive Europe passes through building free republics in Catalonia and in the Basque Country. In his day, Karl Marx understood Irish struggle for independence in a similar way, when he wrote in a letter to Friedrich Engels: “The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland.

“That is why the Irish question is so important for the social movement in general.”

David Fernandez, a leader of the pro-independence Catalan left, summed up this strategy with the simple phrase: If there is not a democratic path towards independence, then a path towards independence will also bring us democracy.

We are facing, in my opinion, a two-dimension dilemma in Catalonia. On the one hand, the Catalan process is a democratic conflict. Catalans should have the right to determine their own future freely. No law or constitution should prevent exercising this democratic and legitimate right. Progressive forces in Europe and around the globe should stand with the Catalans on this.

The democratic solution to this conflict is clear — a legal and binding referendum on independence. The problem is that Spain will never accept what seems to everybody else a logical and democratic solution.

On the other hand, the Catalan process is a political process. It offers a clear chance to build a republic that is more progressive and democratic than the status quo. It is a political process in which the left is increasing its support daily, and where the status quo is being contested strongly.

Catalonia will never walk alone, and the left must be by its side —because it is also our battle.

Gorka Elejabarrieta is head of the international department of Sortu, a left-wing pro-independence party in the Basque Country.

Theresa May – For the Good of the Country, Call a General Election

We really can’t go on like this. Two Cabinet ministers resigned in a week, first the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, amid allegations of sexual harassment, and yesterday Priti Patel, the Foreign Aid Secretary, after revelations that she was making free-lance unofficial foreign policy at meetings with Israeli government officials and the prime minister. On its own this is bad enough for the government, but there is more.

Two further Cabinet ministers have question marks against them. Damian Green, effectively the deputy prime minister, is facing allegations of sexual harassment and downloading porn onto his workplace computer.

The Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, made inaccurate remarks to a House of Commons committee about a British national held in prison in Iran, which has prompted the Iranians to consider increasing her sentence from five to ten years on espionage charges. Johnson is of course no stranger to making free-lance foreign policy as well, such as his recent piece in The Telegraph setting out his red lines for Brexit negotiations. Both ministers are on shaky ground.

Several MPs are also facing allegations of sexual harassment, and more serious sexual assaults, from other political parties too, but mainly Tories. The government is unable to get much policy through Parliament, reliant as they are on the votes from the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, which covers only supporting government Budget votes and votes of confidence in the government.

This situation could well get worse if several Tory MPs are forced to resign from Parliament and their replacements lose subsequent by-elections. The government is deeply divided on their approach to Brexit and has a prime minister who’s authority is in tatters after the disastrous June general election where May lost her majority in Parliament. There is a good chance the Tories will lose any by-elections that are forced into, making matters even more unstable.

All of this against a backdrop of a sluggish economy, rising inflation, wages falling for most people, the NHS in crisis, homelessness up sharply and the ongoing dog’s breakfast that is the government’s negotiations with the European Union on our exit from the organisation. A government drifting rudderless, battered about by scandals, incompetence and political events. This government is a national and international laughing stock.

So, what is to be done? Tory MPs are briefing journalists that May has until Xmas to turn things around, before a formal challenge to her leadership is launched. Reports say that now 40 of the required 48 Tory MPs are prepared to support a challenge. But this wouldn’t really change the fundamentals for the government though, just the front person. The country would be no further forward.

There seems to be only one option left for Theresa May, to call a general election. Given we are close to Xmas, in reality this would have to be in the new year, preferably earlier rather than later in the new year. This fits with Tories giving May until Xmas to get a grip, so she could call an election before rebel MPs have the chance of challenging her leadership in a vote of confidence. It would pull the rug from beneath the rebels.

There is the thorny issue of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, but it didn’t stop May calling a general election this year, although the situation is very different now. Two thirds of MPs would need to approve of an election taking place, which many may not be happy about. But all things are possible at the moment.

The advantage for the prime minister, is that she might win a majority this time and restore some authority to her premiership. This seems unlikely though. But even if she lost the election and the opposition formed a government, at least her personal torment would be ended. 

Either way the status quo is profoundly damaging to the country, so the patriotic thing to do, is to give the people the opportunity to back or sack the government. The county's interests need to be put above the interests of the Tory party. Be bold Mrs May, just do it.

Split opens up in Podemos over Catalonia Crisis

Demonstrations against the imprisonment of Catalan ministers have been held in many parts of Catalonia

The Spanish left wing political party Podemos, which was formed in 2014 in the aftermath of the 15-M Movement protests against austerity and corruption, is struggling to maintain a unified position on Catalan independence. In the 2015 elections to the Spanish parliament the party received 21% of the vote and became the third largest party in the parliament, with 70 out of 350 seats.

When the Catalan parliament declared independence on 27 October, Pablo Iglesias, leader of Podemos, called the declaration illegal and illegitimate. He said that the pro-independence sector “had an electoral result that allows them to govern, not to declare independence.” At the same time, Iglesias positioned himself against Article 155, saying that it would “do a lot of damage to Catalonia and to Spain.”

Iglesias later tweeted “We are against repression and for a negotiated referendum [which the Madrid government refused to Catalonia] but the declaration of independence is illegitimate and favours the strategy of the PP [People's Party, headed by Spanish premier Mariano Rajoy].”

Essentially, national Podemos’ position is that direct rule of Catalonia from Madrid be ended, Catalan leaders should be released from prison and charges against them dropped and a legitimate referendum on independence be held. Podemos doesn’t want to belong to any coalition standing on an independence ticket at the Catalan regional election on December 21, which Madrid insists must be held.

But this middle of the road response doesn’t appear to be holding though as tensions escalate and Catalonia moves towards a possible independence. Podemos is really an alliance of many political parties and groupings in Spain, and some component members of the alliance are now breaking ranks.

The Anticapitalistas current in Podemos (spokepersons MEP Miguel Urban and Podemos Andalusia general secretary Teresa Rodriguez) have now issued a statement recognising the result of the October 1 referendum.

Here is an extract from the statement:

“On 27 October, in fulfilment of the mandate of the referendum of 1 October in which despite police repression more than two million people participated, the Catalan Parliament proclaimed the Catalan Republic. In a Spain with a monarchy that is a direct successor of the dictator Franco, a Republic that opens up a constituent process is without doubt a proposal that breaks with the 1978 regime, with its political consensus and with a constitutional order that serves the elites.”

“This is the time to defend the possibility of a democratic solution to the diktats of the State. It is time to (re)start the patient construction of a project that goes beyond the 1978 regime and is capable of building fraternal relations between the different peoples of the Spanish State. The elites have proven incapable of solving the problems of the Spanish State; today more than ever, it is urgent to recover the leading role of politics for those below.”

Read the full statement here.

The leader of the Catalan grouping within Podemos is also at odds with the national party. ‘Podemos sources’ cited by OK Diario state: "Albano Dante Fachin, spokeperson of Podemos Catalonia has decided that he is not the general secretary of Podemos Catalonia but a politician in Catalonia with his own agenda."

In his press appearance on November 1 Fachín said that Podemos Catalonia would talk to all parties and movements in Catalonia before deciding its orientation to the December 21 elections. This goes against the line decided by Podemos at the level of the Spanish state, which is to support the campaign to be run by Catalunya en Comú ("the commons") according to the slogan "neither 155 nor UDI".

Iglesias has demanded that Podemos Catalonia conduct a poll of members to decide if it will run with Catalunya en Comú in the forthcoming Catalan elections. Catalunya en Comú reserves third place on its December 21 election ticket for Podemos Catalonia, but this position will not be filled by Podemos Catalonia leader Fachín, who is boycotting the referendum of Podemos members in Catalonia, imposed by Podemos at the level of the Spanish state.

Fachin says that the membership consultation imposed from Podemos at the state level is not acceptable in democratic terms, and "kills the spirit of October 1". He said "Pablo Iglesias has intervened in Podem Catalunya in the same way as Mariano Rajoy has intervened in Catalonia."

Fachin has denounced "a war" by Spanish state leader Iglesias to remove him as general secretary. Fachin states that the attack, which consists in having various Podemos branches in Catalonia demand a special congress to vote on his position, is unconstitutional because Podemos statutes says that such a call cannot be made before 18 months have passed since the elections of the general secretary (in Fachin´s case, in January 2018, given that he was elected in July 2016).

Fachín has told radio RAC1 that his "future is not in another party. What we will try is to build is a citizens' response above and beyond parties."

A legitimate referendum on Catalan independence seems to be the only way to fairly resolve this crisis, but the Spanish government refuses to allow this to happen. In the circumstances, who can blame the pro-independence Catalans from using the enforced December election as an opportunity to stand on an independence ticket? Opinion polls are now showing them on course to win a majority in the Catalan parliament, just like they did last time. 

Reporting from Dick Nichols Barcelona correspondent of Green Left Weekly

People’s Progressive Alliance takes root in UK General Election

An in principle supporter of a progressive alliance of the leftish UK political parties, for the next general election, I have also been sceptical that it would ever happen in any meaningful way. As far back as January the Labour Party’s NEC ruled out participating in any such electoral alliance, and before this insisted on standing a candidate in the Richmond Park by-election at the end of last year. There was quite a bit of support for standing down in Richmond Park, in favour of the Lib Dems, as the Greens did, but Labour centrally threatened to impose a candidate if the local party refused to select one.

The Lib Dems, other than being pleased if Greens stood down their favour, have, centrally, refused to back the idea too. All of which made the possibility of an alliance getting off the ground, extremely unlikely, apart from a patch work of local agreements, which will not be enough to defeat the Tories.

But, maybe, just maybe this idea is getting some serious legs on it, as people on the ground are showing a willingness to cooperate to maximise the chances of beating the Tories, in more and more locations. Allied to this, is a growing movement in favour of tactical voting, to the same end, defeating Tories. People voting with their feet, as the saying goes, and ignoring central party commands to stand come what may.

First off, Ealing Greens decided to stand down in favour of Labour MP Rupa Huq, who beat the Conservatives with a majority of just 274 votes in 2015 in Ealing central and Action, in west London. Rupa Huq commented: ”I’m now the red-green candidate and I’m proud to be so.”  

This piece in The Independent also quotes Stephen Clark, the organiser of West London Compass as saying: “Discussions are taking place in a number of the other seats between the Greens and the most likely potential progressive candidate, and we’re hoping something will come from those.”

Next up was the Greens decision to not contest Brighton Kemptown constituency where Tory MP Simon Kirby won in 2015 with a majority of only 690 over Labour. In 2015 the Greens gained over 3,000 votes in the constituency.

Then the Lib Dems decided not to contest Green MP Caroline Lucas’ seat in Brighton Pavilion, where she holds nearly a 8,000 majority (over Labour), but the Lib Dems 1,500 votes or so gained last time will come in useful. Caroline Lucas said of the decision: “In Brighton something amazing is happening. People are putting aside party allegiances and working together so we have the best possible chance of delivering a fairer voting system and beating the Tories at the next election."

So, predictably it is the Labour Party who are dragging their feet on embracing this opportunity to damage the Tories chances, but even in Labour some things are stirring. In Surrey, the local Labour Party want to stand down in favour of the Lib Dems in Tory Health Minister Jeremy Hunt’s seat of South West Surrey, even though they finished above the Lib Dems in 2015. They are obviously mindful that in 2010 the Lib Dems finished a good second place to the Tories, and did cut the Tory majority to just 861 in 2001.

Labour high command has threatened to impose a candidate, but if the local activists don’t support the campaign, it is likely an informal alliance will be created here, whatever the Labour Party leadership say or do.

In the Bristol West constituency, where the Greens are favourite to win the seat from Labour, the Women’s Equality Party have decided not to stand, and to support the Green Party candidate Molly Scott Cato. Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leader commented:

“I’m delighted to welcome the WEP’s support for Molly in Bristol West. It is a clear and important recognition that Molly is someone who will bring people together and stand up for everyone with a bold vision to give Bristol the kind of future it both needs and deserves."

It does appear as though what we might call the People’s Progressive Alliance, is becoming a reality, despite what the Labour and Lib Dem leaders are saying. Whether it will be enough to kick the Tories out is debatable, but it does look as though it is the best shot we have got. The people can make this happen.