Sunday, 13 May 2018

Consumerism and Ecosocialism



Written by Sebastian Livingston and first published at The Socialist

This article is intended to be an introduction to an ecosocialist approach to production and consumption. What we have today is a hegemonic obsession with mass production that is catastrophic to the evolutionary processes which allow the biosphere to uphold life as we know it. Capitalist modes of production based upon endless economic expansion and mass consumption disrupt the equilibrium of ecosystems by reshaping the metabolism of nature which regulates earth systems. Within this article I will discuss some issues that I see as problematic in achieving an ecological society and address possible solutions. This is not intended to provide a critique of consumers, my aim is to develop an assault on the hegemonic creation of consumer culture and its devastating impact in maintaining the status quo. This is not an outline for revolution, it is merely my attempt to put forth issues as I see them and contribute to the discussion about the construction of consumer culture as a barrier to achieving social transformation.

“Once upon a time the working class had nothing to lose but its chains; but now it has been absorbed within capitalism, is a prisoner of consumerism, and its articles of consumption own and consume it.” –  Michael A. Lebowitz

We have the productive means to fulfil our material needs and to liberate ourselves from alienated labor. However this idea is incompatible with capital which does not aim to address real human needs beyond what is required to reproduce itself. Rather capitalism is contingent upon the realization of wealth accumulation, an endless expansion that is based upon the production and consumption of alienated products. This mass production is a fundamental problem that restricts our ability to create an ecological society by being the unshakable cause of most of the environmental problems we face today.

In order to mobilize and attack expansive production, consumer culture must be attacked. This entails attacking the hegemonic institutions that spread consumerism, develop our identification with material goods, and enforce the association between goods and freedom. Capitalist forces expend great resources to ensure that we are socialized to identify ourselves with what we consume far more than with what and how we produce which creates a barrier between us and critical revolution. In fact, Americans are subjected to over 20 times the global average of targeted advertisements. We are made to identify so strongly with commodities that a rejection of capitalism will equate to a rejection of self and require a redefinition of freedom that will demand a revolution that stems beyond the workplace. Within advanced capitalism consumer culture serves as a counter-revolutionary safeguard, a sedative. And as we come to identify with the products of our alienated labor rather than realize our alienation within the process of production we sink deeper into the veins of capital, becoming the reproductive organs of the beast.

The working class as a revolutionary subject is the force by which the world will be changed. However, change will only happen if the will to do so exists. The American social contract, which states that what we can achieve given our rights as free and equal people to ascend the social economic ladder with no barriers but our own determination, is a pacifier based upon dishonest assumptions. It enables the institutionalized ignorance of systemic oppression, inequality, and environmental exploitation while generating the individualism needed to ignore the roots of the problem. We need to change the course of the struggle away from a struggle for upward mobility, which is at the heart of the capitalist conflict, to one of economic sufficiency and cultural sustainability.

A struggle for upward mobility is a conservative struggle. It will aim to reform until reforms have returned the working class to a state of equilibrium within capitalist society or one of equally distressing productivism. The world cannot survive our economic system. We have an environmental crisis that requires complete recognition however such recognition will require a cultural revolution, one that rejects the products of alienated labor. In order to survive, capital must expand therefore it must synthesize needs and implement planned obsolescence in order to produce and maintain a market for its growth. A systematic manufacture of discontent places commodities as an affordable means of social achievement therefore contentment by upholding an understanding that has elevated capitalism to a position synonymous with freedom by the mere fact that it provisions the goods. This paves the way for a consumer culture that is impervious to systematic change.

Commodity accumulation leads people to not only identify with the means of destruction but it also paralyzes their ability to mobilize action against the ecological crisis. The resistance to capital must be built in communities most affected by modes of exploitation, those closest to the realization of capitals limits of sufficiency. Poor communities and communities of color are an ecosocialist revolutionary force and the movement must take root in these areas. We must aim to disintegrate links in the chain of capital reproduction by building community sovereignty which will enable the active thinking required to liberate humanity from our impoverished condition. We must acknowledge the multi-faceted struggle for ecosocialism as one encompassing the total impoverishment of humanity which entails not only the patriarchal plundering of earth’s environment but also the systemic theft of our self-governing, self-realizing, debt free value.


It is widely recognized that the profit motivated consumer fueled industrial waste and pollution is a broad and time sensitive issue which must be addressed to prevent absolute ecological catastrophe. However, capital cannot provide a fix without dissolving itself. The climate issue is in a stage of terra incognito so the global environmental crisis will be positioned to fall onto the consumers and a new “green” market will conjure the illusion of ethical mass consumption and market growth (see Jevon’s Paradox). Consumer culture identifies the free market with freedom in general which is a landmark of success for a system that must perpetuate itself through alienated production and identification with the products of alienated labor in order to avoid overthrow. In light of the urgency of our current ecological situation there is no alternative route to developing an ecosocialist bloc and dismantling advanced capitalism that does not entail the targeted dismantling of social identity with consumer goods. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

The continued existence of the biosphere as we know it depends upon the reduction of the human industrial impact. This stands in contrast to capital’s need to portray the false idea that human needs are unlimited and that the earth and its natural limits are capable of accommodating such an absurd reality. It is implanted into the growth strategy to enforce such a notion, for once actual needs are fulfilled the market will stop growing so the system must manufacture discontent to raise demand. This demand situates society in a state of derangement which merges desires and needs while denying that consumption is culturally manufactured and that our culture is the stimulus for environmental instability.

In order to liberate mankind and do so in a way that enables a cultural symbiosis with nature we must seek a social model that distances itself from accumulation. This entails establishing the preexisting condition for revolution which is a class based insurrection against mass self-recognition in commodities. The ability to disdain capital commodities will enable the induction into common knowledge the absolute limits of capital production. We must reinvent a human identity that is aligned with our place in nature as actors within an ecosystem. This in practice is counter hegemonic against the conservative forces surrounding capital exploitation of nature. We must see the impact of our consumption in disrupting the metabolism of nature, but we must recognize it as systemic and not limited to individual lifestyle politics. We must see the reality behind our identity with these alien products as a defining attribute of capitalism’s incompatible relationship with the natural world and its alienating impact on human consciousness. We must recognize consumer culture as a coercive socializing agent of capital not simply a lifestyle choice made between masses of individuals.

Ecological society is made possible by limiting production to fulfill actual needs and to do so by means of maximizing use value. This will eliminate profit by redistributing surplus time back into society by means of reduced working hours and allocating surplus towards human and ecological development. A true cultural revolution will entail human efforts being aimed toward human liberation and ecological harmony. In order to achieve this the dominant social value system must be replace with one not dependent upon material haves and have-nots. We can no longer define the pinnacle of achievement as the output capacity of our civilization and a person’s ability to obtain a suite of commodities in a private wealth generating system. A new understanding of surplus will be developed to recognize the creative output of humankind as a common heritage made possible through historical efforts and the reshaping of natural environments, raising a new understanding of ourselves in nature history.

The obsession with production has generated circumstances which require an active assault on our cultural understanding of productivity. Productivism must be understood as an enemy to ecological and social balance. A new society will not arise like a phoenix from fire and ashes it will be built on the foundations of history which is entwined with social injustice, oppression, exploitation, and environmentally destructive forces. In building a socialist society we will be forced to deal with the inevitable cultural reproduction of capitalist ideals and do so in part by abolishing the emphasis on productivism. The socialist world view that maintains a possessive relationship between humanity and nature will be condemned to the same toxic existence as its capitalist predecessor.

In the construction of a new world there must exist the preconditions to harness the new order. A transformation from our current alienated world will not be carried out by a seizure of the means of production alone but must entail a seizure of our identity from the clench of alienated goods. The contentment with this capitalist arrangement of society will last until problems arise that cannot be diverted by means of it, such as the crossing of planetary boundaries and the global displacement of entire populations, an approaching inevitability of our economic model. A revolutionary condition is looming and a force beyond our timeless socioeconomic conflict is a driving element. Natural contingencies will arise which will push aside humankind’s ability to negate systemic collapse. The readiness to adapt to and seize the state of nature and the state apparatus may not be present in the common stock of knowledge. The revolution may be ready for us, but we may not be ready for the revolution.


Ecosocialist Participatory Economy

Ecosocialist economies are not contingent upon growth, they are oriented toward the development of human potential which means that they do not aim towards commodity production as an end but as a limited means towards the fulfillment of human needs. Contrary to capital’s logic human needs are not unlimited so as to develop an entire economic system around that premise is counter intuitive in its limited potential for human enrichment and its paradoxical existence in a world of finite resources. In ecosocialist society economic value will be transformed, prioritizing use value. Whereas in capitalist society economic exchange value dominates all forms of social worth, placing all other achievement in subordination to it.

Ecosocialism focuses on use value as the aim of productive output but use value is not the lens through which we view nature. Capitalism’s utilitarian view of nature is divisive, it limits our ability to identify ourselves within the natural world. This is a cause behind capital’s inability to see limits to expansive production. The logic behind capital production creates barriers where boundaries should be, making obstacles out of natural limits. It is not an issue of fossil fuels alone which deem our consumption immoral, for once achieved, a renewable energy structure will not erase the exploitative productive systems that capital relies upon. A clean energy source does not prevent the exploitation of nature and people for profit. It is only with the full self-determining power of workers to control their own destiny that we can produce an ecological economy.

The democratization of our entire society is essential in establishing an ecological order that is able to see the abolition of inequality and exploitation. Democracy must be established to a degree in which it allows people to truly control their own heritage. What is a common heritage of society such as the products of labor exist within a social commons therefore must be democratically regulated and distributed. People not profit must decide what is produced and what is consumed while taking into account the impact it will have on ecosystems and workers alike.

The environment is to be considered more than a source of raw materials and by what it generates to accommodate for human life alone. Our economy exists within the biosphere as a social ecosystem, a subcategory that is a part of a self-regulating earth system in which we as organisms alter at great expense to the harmonious flow of life. It is imperative that nature be protected from privatization by enacting democratic laws surrounding the regulation and preservation of environments from human exploitation. With our knowledge of environmental science we can reduce our impact and protect nature and the people who are most vulnerable to environmental instability.

In a democratic economy decisions must be weighed and votes balanced according to the degree in which the measure would affect the voter. Those most impacted will have more say. Worker, producer, and consumer councils are an organization structure that will accommodate for the diverse needs of each system while enabling the preservation of unique ecological limitations per region. A social opportunity cost will be considered in the process of what is produced in relation to its environmental and social exploitative relationship. This is a system in which a true social accountability is accepted and social production becomes normative. Privatization is criminal in a system such as this for it immediately reduces the democratic integrity that a social society operates on.

Major sources of inequality and power such as inheritance must be rejected in this system as it gives disproportionate social influence to people least affected, the deceased, which is then sequestered away from society and funneled into the hands of the few which leads to disparate power structures. Corporate decisions alike would be seen as anti-social however the democratization and worker ownership of the workplace can help eliminate this problem. It is necessary to state however that worker ownership of the enterprise will be a vital element of social society it is not a sure-fire way to ensure the integrity of our biosphere is maintained. The bureaucratic development of social means of production can easily assume the same exploitative characteristics of a capital enterprise and it has in the past. Therefore a circulating responsibility structure should be implemented as well as an establishment of democratic council powers and social vetoes to ensure that what is produced is regulated according to the standards of the environmental treaties.

The world will experience a lifestyle shift that will enable a new standard of economic equality to become institutionalized. We will need to decide what people need to live a good life with health and opportunity. Necessities such as access to water, food, shelter, clothing, transportation, communication, education, health care, sanitation, culture, the pursuit of personal development must exist in the new social contract as a standard guaranteed to all. For most of the world’s population the conditions of life will be vastly improved, while the minority wealthy classes will experience a neutralizing shift from excessive consumption to sustainable socially conscious living. We must ensure the elevation of impoverished people to an equal global standard while not barring their ability to achieve self-reliance.

In a society not bound by the limitations of economic growth, resources such as labor will be freed up to provide for the continual progress of our human legacy. The divestment of human capital from profit and power-driven maintenance of consumer lifestyles will enable a social investment into more culturally enriching productivity. An ecosocialist economy is based upon evolution not expansion and when advancements in productivity sufficiently fuel society we will have achieved surplus time for all.

Environmental consciousness must be emitted into the common procedure of production in that what is taken and produced must be quantified not only by its human value but by the implications such maneuvers will have on the socio-ecological world. As producers within nature we have an obligation to not only sustain our environment but also improve it. As an eco-conscious society we must strive to enhance our relationship with nature by inventing an economy that produces more than neutral but positive environmental results. This will be achievable with a new productive philosophy and through a new division of labor as humans are liberated from hours spent supplying synthesized needs. Resources then can be redirected towards creative pursuits, science, engineering, and socioecological development motivated by ecological sustainability and social accountability, not economic profitability.

There is no question that capitalism is a self-serving system that has no place in an ecological social organization. The disasters it creates with its monstrous growth principles devour the earth as well as the minds and bodies of all who exist here. We must seek to build a resistance to this oppressive and exploitative system by focusing our efforts away from reform which only strengthens the system. We must establish community sovereignty to allow pre socialist conditions to exist in the hearts and minds of those who are most threatened by capitalist exploitation. The understanding of ourselves as social beings must extend its association to reconnect our society to nature and to do so by liberating ourselves from the shackles of consumer culture.

Notes 
  
One Dimensional Man” by Herbert Marcuse

“The Socialist Imperative” by Michael A. Lebowitz

“Creating an Ecological Society” by Fred Magdoff and Chris Williams

“Parecon: Life After Capitalism” by Michael Albert

“Consumer Culture & Modernity” by Don Slater

The Enemy of Nature” by Joel Kovel

Saturday, 12 May 2018

Event - The libertarian eco-socialism of William Morris – London



Saturday June 16, 2018 14.15 at The Coach House, Kelmscott House, London, W6. Organised by the William Morris Society.

In the fluid but increasingly sectarian environment of socialist politics in the fin de siècle years William Morris was one of the few figures widely respected by virtually everyone and this has remained the case until this day. Many conservatives, liberals, ecologists and socialists all seem to have a good word to say about him.

In this lecture John Blewitt shows why this has been the case. By looking at Morris’ fundamental beliefs on art, the natural world and political freedom John will suggest that it was in fact Morris’ love of nature that informed his conviction that ‘the life of slavery’ – the lived experience by so many in the nineteenth century – was not only the cause of humankind’s estrangement from the past, present and future but could also have been the harbinger of a ‘larger [eco]socialism’, which together with its anarchist affinities, Edward Carpenter and others promoted after Morris’ death but which was effectively rejected by the socialist and labour movements before World War One.

This larger libertarian eco-socialism is only now being recognized as the path not taken but which in fact should have been.

John Blewitt is a Distinguished Fellow of the Schhumacher Institute and a member of the William Morris Society.

Tickets are £6.43 – £13.76 and you can book a place at the lecture here

Wednesday, 9 May 2018

David Cameron and the Rewards of Failure



It is nearly two years since David Cameron resigned as prime minister after losing the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU). This is the man that sowed the seeds of the chaos the country finds itself in today. Cameron resigned, despite calls for him to stay from Remain and Leave supporting ministers in his Cabinet, saying reportedly, “why should I do all the shit work?” The new prime minister, Theresa May has been shovelling it ever since.

Cameron was well known to be lazy, probably the laziest prime minister of modern times, and he appears to have carried this habit through to his post politics career. We still await his memoirs, although without bated breath, for which he bought a garden shed specifically to use as a writing room. It is said that the book will be published later this year, if he gets around to finishing writing it. Reports say he will be paid £1.5 million for his efforts, although other reports say the amount is closer to £800,000.

Cameron also has several other lucrative consultancies and lobbying positions, which amount to very little real work but are rewarded handsomely. According to the BBC he has taken the following roles:

Consultant and chairman of Illumina's international board (announced in February 2018)

Vice-chairman, UK-China Fund (December 2017)

Board member, ONE, a development organisation (December 2017)

Consultant and brand ambassador, First Data Corporation (October 2017)

Member of Global Board of Advisers of the Council in Foreign Relations (May 2017)

Chairman, International Growth Centre's Commission on Growth in Fragile States (March 2017)

President, Alzheimer's Research UK (January 2017)

Chairman, National Citizen Service Patrons (October 2016)

Public speaker, Washington Speakers Bureau (December 2016)

He will be paid £50,000 per hour to make after dinner speeches and is entitled to a £115,000 per year “Public Duties Cost Allowance” to run his private office, from public funds.

Cameron became leader of the Tory party in 2005 and prime minister in 2010, in coalition with the Lib Dems. To impress the Euro-sceptics in the Tory party he promised that Tory MEP’s would leave the European People's Party grouping in the European Parliament. The ploy worked and Cameron won the leadership. He then concluded an agreement to form the Movement for European Reform grouping with Euro-sceptic parties, mainly from eastern Europe.

Short of an overall majority in Parliament in 2010 he formed a coalition government with the Lib Dems and set about introducing austerity policies which cut public spending deeply, with the resultant misery for many of the country’s most vulnerable people. In an effort to keep the Tory party united over the issue of Europe, he promised a referendum on EU membership, which he thought he would never have to hold, because of opposition from coalition partners, the Lib Dems. But Cameron won a surprise majority for the Tories at the 2015 general election, and had to hold the plebiscite in 2016.

This was not a good time to hold such a vote, six years on from the financial crisis and with his austerity policies biting and wages falling or stagnating for most people. Cameron negotiated some minor concessions from the EU, which was meant to be the basis for the UK remaining in the bloc, but were hardly even mentioned during the referendum campaign. The British public voted to leave, and here we are today, in the shit.

Cameron was a complete chancer. Asked about why he had wanted to be prime minister, Cameron replied “because I thought I’d be rather good at it.” Well, he wasn’t, but this reply reveals much about Cameron. He had a sense of entitlement and arrogance commensurate with his upper middle class background. No vision for the country in general, just a public relations exercise of re-branding the Tories, into looking a more modern party.

After screwing the least wealthy, and leaving the country in Brexit chaos, Cameron has scarpered, and is being well rewarded for incompetence when in office. What mugs we are.

Sunday, 6 May 2018

Obituary - Joel Kovel - A Giant of Ecosocialist Thinking



Joel Kovel died in New York City on 30 April 2018 at the age of 81. A radical psychiatrist, academic, writer and political activist, he will be best remembered as one of the most influential ecosocialist thinkers of modern times. In 2001 he co-wrote, with Michel Lowy, the first ecosocialist manifesto, a call for an end to the destructive capitalist system and demand it is replaced with ecosocialism, before capitalism completely destroys the planet.

His book The Enemy of Nature first published in 2002, and updated in a second edition in 2007, is a must read for socialists, greens and anyone concerned with environmental degradation. It was this book in particular that brought Joel to my attention in 2004. It is simply brilliant in its line of reasoning, placing the blame for our ecological ills firmly at the door of the dominant world system of endless growth, capitalism.

I had always considered myself to be a socialist, but by the early 2000's I was also becoming increasingly alarmed by environmental problems, especially climate change. Kovel blends a critique of capitalism with both a red and green angle, in the most compelling way I have yet come across. This, despite much fine thinking and writing on the matter, before and since.

Kovel edited the pioneering ecosocialist magazine, Capitalism Nature Socialism, where he worked with another leading ecosocialist from 1980's, James O'Connor. He wrote other books including White Racism, Red Hunting in the Promised Land and Overcoming Zionism.

One stand out thing from The Enemy of Nature is Kovel's use of the term 'usufruct' which Karl Marx had theorised about in the third volume of Capital. The word is from the Latin, and goes back as least as far as the Roman Empire, and is part of many countries law. It refers to the legal right to use and derive benefit from property that belongs to another person, as long as the property is not damaged.

Kovel highlights Marx when he quotes that "human beings are no more than the planet’s usufructaries, and, like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.” Kovel says in an eco-socialist society, “everyone will have... rights of use and ownership over those means of production necessary to express the creativity of human nature.”

He was an unsuccessful candidate for the US Senate in 1998 from New York and ran again unsuccessfully for the US Green Party presidential nomination in 2000, when he lost out to Ralph Nader. He commented that if he had a dollar for every Green Party member who told him they liked his ideas, but he should drop the socialist tag, he would have been a very rich man. He thought Nader was a populist with no real understanding of ecological matters.

He fell out with Murray Bookchin, the anarchist founder of Social Ecology, though I don't know why, since their ideas were very similar, which was a pity. But they were certainly equals in terms of developing the thinking that links ecological and social exploitation with the capitalist world system. To my mind ecoanarchism and ecosocialism are pretty much the same ideology.

I had the pleasure of meeting Joel when he came to London in 2007 to speak at the London School of Economics, to promote the release of the second edition of The Enemy of Nature and to talk about ecosocialism generally. I was in small group that went to the pub with him afterwards, and he was charming and interesting in equal measure.

Despite the looming ecological crisis and 'force-field' to use his expression, of global capitalism he remained hopeful, cheerful even, about the prospect of ending capital's rule over humanity. In the afterword to The Enemy of Nature, Kovel writes that when he was asked why he didn't despair about the ecological crisis and all powerful capital, "I do not despair; for whatever reason, I actually find myself in good spirits as I studied the crisis further and devised the ideas that have gone into this work."

Kovel believed that if his logic was wrong, and capitalism managed to reform itself into a truly eco-friendly system, then fine, all will be well. But if he was right, at least his line of reasoning offered hope of overcoming the system and crisis. This perception, Kovel suggested was liberating in itself, and can help us "to meet it actively instead of passively submitting to the terms of understanding dealt out by the dominant system."

I think that kind of sums up Joel’s legacy, as a giant of ecosocialist thinking who will be sorely missed.   

Friday, 4 May 2018

Local Elections – Something for all the Parties to Cheer, Except UKIP



The UKIP vote collapsed completely in local elections in England on Thursday, as was widely predicted, including on this blog, with the Tories being the main beneficiaries, although Labour did take some of this vote. UKIP had a net loss of 123 council seats. All of the other main parties can claim some sort of success, but also had some disappointments with these results.

For Labour, they can point to a net gain of 57 councillors and the party’s best local elections result in London since 1971, gaining councillors in Tory strongholds, but the results in London weren’t as good as had been hoped for. Labour failed to capture the Tory flagship councils of Southwark, Barnet, Westminster and Grenfell council Kensington and Chelsea.

Labour did gain seats on these councils, with the exception of Barnet, where they lost five seats. Barnet is the home of probably the largest Jewish community in the country, and it is impossible to think this poor result was unaffected by the ongoing problems with anti-Semitism in the party.

The Tories did have a net loss of 28 council seats across England, and outside of the big English cities did reasonably well for a mid-term incumbent government, beset with turmoil over Brexit, the Grenfell disaster, the Windrush scandal and a sluggish economic record. They will be relieved that they held onto the London flagship councils, although their overall results in London were not good.  

The two main parties both scored 35% of the vote nationally and so I think it is fair to say that it was score draw between them. Labour are saying that their younger supporters tend not to vote in local elections and there is some truth in that. The Tories can say, in the circumstances, that they held off Labour, especially in London, and did reasonably well outside of the big cities.  

The Lib Dems had a net gain of 75 council seats and will be extremely pleased with gaining control of Richmond and Kingston councils as well as holding on in Sutton in south west London. A modest improvement for the Lib Dems who gained a national share of the vote of 16%, 3 points up from 2014 when these elections were last fought. It could well be that they gained votes from Labour and Tory Remain voters, but they still have long way to go to reach the heights that they achieved prior to 2010, when they were scoring around 25% nationally.

The Greens likewise may have benefited from Remain voters switching to them, but at 7.5% of the vote (where they stood candidates) it is still two points lower than in 2014. You have to remember though the Greens started to surge in membership around this time and managed to get over one million votes at the 2015 general election. There is no doubt that since Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour party, the Greens have lost the momentum of those days.

However, it is a reasonably decent result for the Greens this year, with a net gain of 8 seats, bringing the total of Green councillors in England to, I think, 192 councillors, which is a record high for the party. Highlights include gaining 4 seats on Sheffield council where a tree felling plan has been controversial. The Greens now hold 6 seats in Sheffield. A net gain of four seats in Lambeth, south London, bringing the total to five, is largely connected to controversial housing schemes in the Borough, which amount to social cleansing, by the Labour run council. Four seats were also gained on Richmond council, which appears to justify the local deal with the Lib Dems, who took control of the council.

On a personal note, I stood as a ‘paper’ candidate for the Greens in the ward where I live, in Haringey, north London. Without even a hint of a campaign in the ward, I managed to get 303 votes (11%), beating two Tory candidates into the process, but was miles from getting elected. Even I can claim a small victory in this election. Unfortunately, we didn’t win any council seats in Haringey.

All figures quoted here are at time of writing and may change slightly.         

Wednesday, 2 May 2018

London Elections Interview - Jarelle Francis, Green Party



London Elections Interview - Jarelle Francis, Haringey Green Party Target Candidate for St Ann’s Ward, talks to Mike Shaughnessy

Tell me a bit about your background, how long have you lived in Haringey and what is your day job, for example?

“I was born in Tottenham and lived in Haringey for most of my life. I freelance working in Art Curation and I am working on a proposal to present to the council after elections for a schools art competition. I worked on a similar one last year in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and it really helped to engage the young people there."

How long have you been a Green Party member, and what first attracted you to the party?

"I joined after the 2015 general election, I always had the intention of joining the Green Party but never got around to it. After the Tories won a surprise majority it accelerated my decision. I joined to fight against austerity and poverty, for social justice, for proportional representation and ultimately against neo-liberal policies which have a detrimental affect on our lives and the planet.”

We are starting to see some African/Caribbean candidates emerge, in London at least, as Green Party candidates, why do you think it has taken so long for this to happen?

“I think traditionally the Labour party was the party for Black and ethnic minority people, but this has changed over the years.

Under Blair/Brown Labour became a very closely aligned with Conservative policy and we are now seeing the fruits as Labour councils in London implement some of the most horrendous social cleansing. In my view the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV) is an example of that.

People now understand that the Greens are a party for social justice, a party who champions being inclusive and also let's not forget that working class black people are more likely to live in areas of high pollution which affects health. So tackling that has come more to the forefront.”


Violent crime in London is in the news at the moment, what should be done to reduce this?

“I am running this campaign with a clear message that we will reverse the cuts to and invest in youth services again.

There is no doubt that austerity is the main cause of these problems. The Conservative government has taken away EMA, tripled university fees, thus taking away further education as an achievable aspiration for the young working class. They have just taken away free school meals for the poorest pupils whilst we have 4.1 million children in poverty 

Creative subjects like Art, Music, Drama have been cut in schools and the Labour Council have gone too far in cutting youth centres whilst spending money on ridiculous gimmicks like Chicken Town, or wasting money on new logos or most disgracefully spending money in court to fight for the HDV. This is all whilst our young people suffer, it is vitally important that we get on the council so we can challenge the way they spend.”

What is your view of the Windrush scandal?

"One of the things I try to tell voters is to look at policy over personalities if possible. The Conservative party policy was to create a hostile environment for all immigrants.
The immigration act of 2014 successfully did that with only 16 MP's (which included Caroline Lucas) voting against. So Labour are not completely exonerated from this either. Especially when under Ed Milliband they had the "control immigration" mug.
So why now we have all these crocodile tears and faux apologies when their policies have been successful I will never know!

Theresa May implemented these racist policies and should no longer be the Prime Minister.

When you pander to the far right and blame immigration for our countries ills, this is the fruit you bear from those seeds.

This also does not bode well for the 3 million EU citizens living here after Brexit, which is again being facilitated by both Labour and Conservatives.

The Green Party has always stuck up for migrants, free movement of people and it is one of the reasons I joined them. If you want to vote for a party who has always projected a positive image of immigration support us.

We are the sixth largest economy in the world because of immigration, not inspite of it and it's about time we started to appreciate migrants! We have a wonderfully diverse community in St. Ann’s and will continue to stick up for us all if I am elected or not."


You are standing as one of the Green Party’s target candidates in St Ann’s ward, Haringey. What are the issues you are campaigning on?

“We need more council housing, not the "affordable" definition adopted by Boris Johnson and not changed by Sadiq Khan.

StART in St. Ann's a community land trust which is showing us a model which would can work and would be great for the St. Ann’s community.

Air pollution in and around the ward are at high levels and  so we need to think about closing school roads off, which in turn means we need to crate safe walking and cycling routes for all.

Also the cleanliness of the streets has come up a lot, so we need to make sure that Veoila are doing their jobs properly.”

How do you rate your chances of getting elected in this year’s local elections?

"We have a great chance of getting our first councillors in Haringey. Speaking to people on the doorstep they really understand how bad having a Labour council without anyone to hold them to account has been. But we need to make sure that you turn up on Thursday and that Labour voters split their vote so that we get a Green representation on the council."

If you are successful in getting elected to Haringey Council, what will be your priorities in terms of trying to make a difference?

"I will be pushing to immediately reverse the cuts to and invest in youth centres again. Also reverse the cuts to social care services, fighting to keep places like Osborne Grove open.

I would also make sure the council understand how bad the air pollution is on Green Lanes, St. Ann's Road, West Green Road, Seven Sisters Road amongst other places and would mean us implementing new safe cycle lanes, cutting off roads to schools on the school run, and improving local transport.

Making sure HDV does not go through and supporting refurbishment over regeneration which generally means demolition. Supporting projects like StART which has a clear strategy of providing truly affordable housing for local people.

We won't be running the council, but we will be able to hold Labour to account and I hope Labour would adopt some of our positive progressive policies.

But we can only do all this with YOUR VOTES, it is so close, please give us an opportunity to be your voice on the council and vote for us on Thursday May 3rd!"

The other two target Green Party candidates for St. Ann’s Ward are Anne Clark and Lee Jerome


Tuesday, 1 May 2018

With Rudd Gone May is now in the Firing Line



Amber Rudd bowed to the inevitable on Sunday night and resigned as Home Secretary over the Windrush Scandal. Rudd was only able to stay in post for the last week or so because she was shielding the prime minister, Theresa May, her predecessor as Home Secretary. But after the drip, drip of leaks from the Home Office to the media, the knockout blow was the publishing of a letter from Rudd to May by the Guardian on Sunday afternoon.

The letter from January last year states that Rudd’s aim was ‘increasing the number of enforced removals by more than 10% over the next few years.’ Rudd had previously denied, including in the House of Commons, that any targets had been set for removing illegal immigrants from the UK. The game was up, Rudd was caught red handed misleading Parliament, and she had to go.

The ‘hostile environment’ was introduced to the Tory government by former prime minister, David Cameron, before he scarpered after losing the EU referendum. But it was May that made the policy flesh when she was Home Secretary, and this led to pressure on immigration officials to deport more people, and the Windrush migrants, here completely legally, were caught up in this zeal for deportations.

May also initially refused to meet Caribbean leaders to discuss the issue, before the scandal took off. Opposition MPs, like David Lammy and Diane Abbott asked questions in Parliament and wrote to May when she was Home Secretary, highlighting how legal immigrants were being treated. All were blithely batted away.

The policy is still in place, although renamed ‘compliant environment’ and May aside from issuing a general apology to those incorrectly detained, refused medical treatment, have lost their jobs and have been refused re-admittance to the UK, there has been no real contrition from the prime minister. Let alone any acceptance that the ‘hostile environment’ was the root cause of the unfair treatment.

But there are more specific questions that May has not adequately answered too. May has said that when she was Home Secretary, there were targets for deportations that she was aware of. “When I was home secretary, yes, there were targets in terms of removing people from the country, who were here illegally,” she told Sky News. So, why did May assume Rudd was telling the truth in Parliament when she said there were no targets?

Even more to the point, having presumably read Rudd’s January 2017 letter to her, and the request from Rudd to have a discussion about increasing deportation targets, why did May then not act when Rudd misled Parliament, saying there  were no targets for this, when May knew there were? It can only be that May was desperate to keep Rudd in place because it kept the focus off May herself. Well, focus there can now be.

May refused a demand from Labour to come to the House of Commons on Monday to answer urgent questions about Rudd’s resignation and her part in it. Instead, the new Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, was sent along to make a statement and take questions. It is a good public relations exercise to make Javid Home Secretary, with his immigrant background, and he made a decent fist of it, but the questions for May remain. We will have to wait until prime minister’s questions on Wednesday for Parliament to be given the chance to question May on this.

One has to wonder too, will there be any more compromising leaks coming out of the Home Office or other parts of Whitehall relating to this scandal? Was the requested meeting in the January 2017 letter from Rudd to May, which surely took place, recorded in minutes? If it wasn’t, why was that? Did May reply to this letter in writing? Might there be some incriminating documents from the Home Office from when May was Home Secretary?

I imagine there are some Tory MPs who are dissatisfied with May’s handling of the Brexit negotiations and other matters. Will they take the opportunity to get rid her over this scandal? Not completely unlikely, I think. An opinion poll for Sky Data indicates that almost eight times as many Britons blame May than Ruud for the Windrush scandal. Even the Spectator has a comment piece saying May is to blame.

May is on pretty thin ice and it would not take a great deal to bring her down. The curse of the Home Office, which she managed to dodge when she was Home Secretary, might finally catch up with her.