Only Way the Tories will Lose the next General Election is if they Mess Up Brexit

We are, probably, over three years away from the next general election, scheduled under the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be in 2020. But, nothing surprises in politics these days, and the election could come a lot sooner than that, but either way, the Tories look nailed on to win it.

The opinion polls give the Tories a 12 to 14 point lead over Labour, pretty much universally, and although we have seen the polls getting things wrong recently, not by a double digit margin. There must be something right about these polls, and intuitively, I feel they are quite accurate. The split in the Parliamentary Labour Party, pro and anti Jeremy Corbyn, of course hinders Labour and aids the Tories, and this looks set to continue up until the general election.

Then we have the probable changes to the Parliamentary constituencies and reduction in the number of MPs, which overwhelmingly favours the Tories, by increasing their representation by 20 to 30 seats at the expense, mainly, of Labour. Even if anti-Corbyn MPs are replaced, they could stand as spoiler independent candidates in their old seats.

In Scotland, Corbyn’s leadership has made no notable difference to his party’s unpopularity, and it looks as though the SNP will retain most of the seats they won in 2015, when Labour was rduced to a singular MP, north of the border.

A progressive alliance, which has been mooted for the next general election, really an anti-Tory alliance, would make it more difficult for the Tories to win, but Labour shows little sign of making this a reality. Even if they did, I think the Tories would probably still win anyway.

A hell of a lot can happen in politics in three years, to paraphrase Harold Wilson, but the prospects of the Tories not winning, are, I think, minimal from this distance out. The one issue that could turn this situation around, is Brexit. The biggest single issue in UK politics at the moment, like it or loathe it, does offer some encouragement though.

Wednesday’s Autumn Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, reveals the economic perils of Brexit, despite what the Brexiteers have been saying about this being a falsely gloomy picture, and really everything will be fine.

The independent Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), says that Brexit will reduce growth in the UK economy over the next few years, and estimate the fall in tax receipts this will cause, amounts to an extra £60 billion black hole in the UK’s finances up until 2020. Which means, less money for public services, increased taxes, more welfare cuts and more borrowing by the government. More austerity.

The think-tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), warn of the biggest squeeze on pay for 70 years over Brexit, with rising inflation meaning that wages will not have recovered to their 2008 level before the global financial crisis hit, by 2021. What’s more, it will be low and middle-income households who feel the pinch the most.

The idea that Britain will get everything it wants, access to the European Single Market and opting out of the free movement of people, from the European Union (EU) is for the birds. Primarily, it will not be economic policy that determines the EU response in negotiations, but as always with the EU, it will be politics. There is no way the EU will want to reward the UK for leaving the club, whatever beneficial case is made by Britain to the EU, along economic lines. The EU will not have it, full stop.

All of which leaves the Tory government with no sort of negotiating position, other than compensating some British based businesses for paying tariffs on trade in the EU, and more than likely a slashing of corporation tax at home to businesses generally. This will lead to even higher inflation than that already caused by a devalued pound and less tax revenue for the UK. In short, this will make the economic situation even worse.

So, a good chance that the Tories will make a bad job of Brexit, and maybe Labour can unify themselves to take advantage of the open goal left for them by the government. Or maybe not?

The next UK general election will probably be the most stark left-wing party versus right-wing party since 1983, and perhaps even more so. Of course, 1983 saw a landslide Tory victory, but the situation now is very different, and strange election results are becoming commonplace. Although, mainly to the advantage of the far right, so far.

But there is one big caveat on this. We will probably leave the EU in 2019, and by 2020, the full economic picture will not have played out by then. The voters seem to have scant regard for ‘expert’ opinions these days, and until they really do feel it financially, may very well refuse to believe the dire predictions for the future. They also will not realise that immigration will not fall much, if at all, but immediately after Brexit be satisfied enough on the matter.

If the Tories do win in 2020, then the next opportunity to defeat them will be 2025, and Corbyn in all probability will not be the leader of the Labour Party by then. And someone else with similar political ideas might not be able to get enough support from Labour MPs, to get onto the leadership ballot.

I must admit, I’m not too hopeful.  

“Left-wing” Trident? You’re having a laugh

Written by Gabriel Levy and first published at People and Nature

The UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn should drop his opposition to the Trident nuclear weapons programme, the journalist Paul Mason argued in a video broadcast in April this year.

What a monstrous example of “socialist” and “left wing” discourse being turned upside down and inside out.

“We” (which in the broadcast means “the British state”) should participate in the NATO strategy in Europe using conventional weapons, Mason argues. But Corbyn should drop his opposition to Trident, so he can get elected and focus on what “really matters for ordinary people ”, e.g. defending the National Health Service and stopping “shovelling public assets into private business” as they were during the banking crisis.

The kindest thing I can say is that maybe Mason imagines he is thinking pragmatically about how Labour, with a clearly left-wing leader for the first time since the 1920s, might win the next election.

It doesn’t even work on that level.

Mason’s argument assumes people will decide how to vote on the basis of Corbyn’s defence policy. Why? All sorts of things influence election results – family finances, xenophobia and racism, perceptions of class interest, actual armed conflicts (rather than nuclear weapons) – and it’s impossible to be sure that Corbyn will lose votes by opposing Trident.

It’s equally possible that his opposition to Trident will help bring young people, who otherwise wouldn’t vote, to the polls to support him. If that happened, and he was elected, it would certainly give Corbyn a stronger starting-point for taking other radical measures.

More important, to my mind, is that Mason’s “left wing case for nuclear weapons” (as he calls it) involves swallowing great chunks of ruling-class ideology that will poison any pro-Corbyn movement long before Corbyn gets anywhere near government.

First, it bigs up the NATO military alliance on the grounds that “we” (the British state) face “an unpredictable Russia”. Oh come on. It takes two to tango. Since the end of the Soviet Union, NATO (invading Iraq, putting armaments eastern Europe after promising not to, etc) has contributed as much as Russia (supporting Ukrainian separatists, Assad in Syria, etc) to the “unpredictability”. (You don’t have to be an apologist for Putin to think this. See other articles on this blog, e.g. here.)

Why should socialists take it upon themselves to advise the British elite on its part in this game, in which ordinary people on all sides have no interest?

Second, Mason argues that Trident, which he says would cost “£41 billion plus” is a deterrent that will “never be used militarily”. This ridiculous justification for nuclear military technology – which can only ever produce mass civilian casualties – has been repeated as long as that technology has been around.

This argument requires an unbelievable level of confidence that military commanders in a capitalist state – even in a crisis, even when in a corner – will never press the button. Oh yeah? Look at Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, etc, to see just what restrained people you’re dealing with.

Moreover, all this is incompatible with any outlook that could meaningfully be described as socialist. It trashes the anti-militarist foundation of socialism, the central idea that we are aiming for a society that ends large-scale military conflict along with labour exploitation and practices and laws that subjugate women.

Again, the damage is done by corroding the ideas around which any pro-Corbyn movement might coalesce – again, before Corbyn gets anywhere near government.

To be honest, even if Corbyn made it to no. 10 Downing Street, I think Paul Mason has as much chance as I do of influencing defence policy – i.e., zero. So 100% of the impacts of these arguments are on the pro-Corbyn movement, not on actual policy. And they are negative.

Perhaps the worst thing is Mason’s use of the word “we” to mean “Britain” or “the British state”. That’s the first trick of parliamentary politics that any radical anti-capitalist movement has to avoid. That was one of the ideological mechanisms by which reformist socialists of the early 20th century ended up justifying the slaughter of the first world war. It’s analogous to the knots in which Alexis Tsipras, the Greek socialist leader no less radical than Corbyn in his rhetoric, tied himself.

“We” means the movement outside parliament – call it working-class movement, communities, social movements, whatever. Mason is one of the few journalists who has reported on it and communicated with it. And that (rather than the defence ministry) is where his “left wing case for nuclear weapons” might cause damage.

I took Paul Mason’s book Postcapitalism seriously enough, as a discussion of the transition to a better kind of society, to comment on it in detail (here and here) – and was therefore disappointed by his broadcast.

One issue I picked on in Postcapitalism was Mason’s contention that the working-class movement as a motive force of change is dead, and that what matters is “networked humanity”. A semantic quibble? It seems not.

From “networked humanity”, Mason’s “we” seems to have moved to “the British state”. I’ll stick with “the working class movement” as my “we”, thanks.

Another point I raised about Postcapitalism was its one-sided view of technology, which is presented as an almost entirely positive force for change. I argued in response that technology not only shapes society but is shaped by it, and that one of the ghastly proofs of that is … nuclear weapons. Hmm.

■ The photo shows the radioactive plume from the US plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki on 9 August 1945, seen from 9.6km away, in Koyagi-jima. It killed about 40,000 people on impact. About the same number died, after great suffering, in the months and years that followed. Source: Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum/Getty Images.

Final Manifesto: Third International Ecosocialist Encounter

First published at Systemic Alternatives

We, the organizations convening the Third International Ecosocialist Encounter, held in Bilbao from 23-25 September of 2016,

Considering:

1. That capitalism has been developed despite and in the face of the two basic dependencies that make human life possible. First, it ignores the fact that, like all other living species, we obtain the things we need in order to live from nature; second, it obscures the fact that our survival depends greatly on the care and time we receive from others from the moment we are born up until death.

2. That this ignorance and concealment stem from the fact that capitalism assigns economic value only to that which can be measured with money. It is impossible to analyze from the point of view of money activities such as photosynthesis, natural cycles like the water or carbon cycle, all the tasks associated with reproduction and human care. Hence, they are invisible to the capitalist economy.

3. That, ignoring the limitations resulting from these dependencies with regard to nature and people, the capitalist mode of production, distribution and consumption which seeks only private profit and accumulation bases its reproduction on continuous and unlimited growth.

4. This unlimited growth clashes with the biophysical limits of the planet. We are witnessing a growing depletion of natural resources (scarcity of potable water, an imminent end to the era of cheap oil, growing scarcity of strategic minerals, the collapse of fishing, deforestation…), an evident degradation of the Earth’s ecosystems (accelerated loss of biodiversity, contamination of soils and hydrological reserves, the degradation or overexploitation of ecosystem services…) and an unprecedented alteration and deterioration of the natural balance, not just in local or regional environments as in the past, but now also in the global environmental system, the most obvious manifestation of which is climate change: ECOCIDE. This state of ECOLOGICAL URGENCY also causes millions of environmental refugees year after year.

5. That, despite official speeches, the UNFCC Conference in Paris has been incapable of finding a route to efficiently and urgently confronting the devastating consequences of climate change, because, among other reasons, it allows polluters to continue using fossil fuels and enables the corporate assault on renewable energy.

6. That also, and particularly in the neoliberal phase of capitalism, the prevailing mode of production and consumption has created an enormously unjust and unequal global society in which overconsumption, pillaging and the enrichment of a small few are rooted in scarcity and the poverty of the majority, as well as in the confiscation of the time which, in these patriarchal societies, women in particular must dedicate to social reproduction and everyday efforts toward wellbeing. A society in a state of SOCIAL EMERGENCY as a consequence of strikes, precariousness, the destruction of social rights and worker’s rights, the erosion of public services and social protections with the subsequent transfer of care into the home and privatization of common goods: AUSTERICIDE.

7. That the hunger, environmental problems and armed conflicts that currently displace millions of people from their countries of origin are caused by the structural conditions that configure international relations among actors that compete in the global market.

8. That this situation of clash with the biophysical limits of the planet, staggering decline of social rights and worker’s rights, and enormous social injustice, can only be imposed through denying the capacity of peoples for self-governance in defense of the rights of citizens and through less democracy (misinformation, dictatorship of markets, governments of unelected technocrats, changes to the Spanish constitution, systematic noncompliance with campaign promises, the open interventionism of the European Troika in countries that have been bailed out), the spread of fear (the “shock doctrine”), misinformation from the mass media, cheating and lies by governments, and as if all this were not enough, increased repression (recent years have seen record numbers of assassinations of environmentalists and other dissidents). In the false statement of European Commission President Jean-Claude Junckner, “there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.”

We declare:

1. That a future reconciled with nature and humanity itself requires a RADICAL CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE, a radical change in the modes of production and consumption, that put at the center of life the basic needs of all peoples, democratically determined and adjusted to the biophysical limits to the planet (ECOSOCIALISM).

2. That, hence, the solution cannot be A CAPITALISM that, even if it is disguised as GREEN, reproduces the same model of consumption and the same economic and social structures that caused the current situation. It is necessary to change the capitalist mode of production based on private ownership over the means of production. The fundamental questions are certainly those of what to produce, for what reasons and for whom, as well as who participates in the decisions and how they should be made.

3. That in the face of the capitalist system’s generalized offensive against life, we believe it is essential to construct an alternative which includes, in conditions of equality, all the liberation agendas (feminism, unionism, indigenous and farmer’s movements, environmentalism, etc.) for which it is necessary to reinforce dialogue between the different emancipatory subjects, with an internationalist perspective and an integral view of the different arenas (including bodies, memory, different forms of knowledge, common goods, etc.).

4. That, like it or not, we are facing a process of ecosocialist transitions that guide us to degrowth in the material sphere of the economy. These transitions are economic (of the model of production, energy…), social (the social organization of citizens), cultural (education…), legislative and territorial (municipalities in transition…) and should be adapted to serving people and communities, environmentally balanced and democratically chosen. Otherwise, they will lead to a model of society in which a small group of people (the big powers) are able to maintain their current lifestyle thanks to the fact that the majority goes without meeting their basic material needs which guarantee a dignified existence.

5. That is essential to guarantee access to the conditions for a dignified and autonomous life for all peoples.

6. That, for that, we advocate transitions that are capable of responding to the ecological urgency, simultaneously facing the problems derived from social emergencies, which we believe requires contrast and collaboration between these two arenas which have not always walked hand-in-hand. A central objective of these three Ecosocialist Encounters has been to offer both arenas a broad and diverse audience in which labor unions have played a central role.

7. That in the face of the myth of unlimited growth or the neo-Keynesian illusions that do not take into account the clash with the limits of the planet, the encounter between these two arenas can only happen if we seriously take up the issue of DISTRIBUTION, both of wealth and of productive and reproductive labor.

8. That this distribution should be accompanied by a rethinking of the notion of work, such that the whole set of socially necessary work is put at the center and in contrast to the dominant thinking today which disregards the nature of production, as long as it is economically profitable, and only considers work that which is carried out in the arena of paid labor, making invisible all those people whose work is linked to human reproduction.

9. That public authorities should promote socially necessary sectors, such as those that are linked to energy rehabilitation for buildings, renewable energies, public transportation, agroecology, community services related to citizens and free time, health, and education. Sectors that consume less energy and materials that, on the other hand, are labor intensive and that hence will help compensate for inevitable job losses in economic sectors that should experience regrowth or disappear in ecosocialist transitions.

10. That for these transitions to be fair and sustainable, it is essential to infuse our societies with a feminist vision that is capable of extending to all arenas the right of women to equality, breaking the bonds of patriarchal oppression and the violence it perpetrates against them; and promote popular empowerment (democracy and sovereignty) against these monopolizing and insatiable elites that occupy the centers of power and sequester from them the will of the majorities. For this, we reassert the right of communities to decide on important issues that affect them, both in the arena of politics as well as the economy. With all its possible contradictions, we believe that this route will better promote the basic needs of people in these communities and their balanced relationship with the environment than that of the blind market or the dictatorship of technocrats.

11. That this empowerment should be manifested as well through community or collective management of natural resources and common goods (re-municipalization of electricity grids…), through the recovery of public banks which are essential to addressing said transitions, and through the denouncement of illegal debt, a pretext for austericide.

12. That a decisive pillar of these ecosocialist transitions should be education; education as paideia, a process of collective and personal self-construction throughout life as the eco-dependent and interdependent beings that we are. That we should reject the instrumental focus of neoliberal education and trade competition for cooperation, individualism for collaboration, results for processes… That we should contribute to change that does not reproduce the content and practices of a culture that is unsustainable and ask ourselves questions that remove that culture, making school into an institution that does not reproduce, but rather, transforms.

We vow to:

1. Extend ecosocialist and feminist consciousness throughout the world.

2. Promote the creation of an international ecosocialist network, linked to platforms such as Via Campesina, Plan B for Europe… or movements in favor of climate justice, or human rights for all peoples, without distinctions or categories…

3. Promote exchange and collaboration among different social and political agents that work in the area of ecological urgency and social emergency, to seek popular majorities in favor of a change of model.

4. Present to government institutions legislative proposals that favor the necessary ecosocialist transitions. Priority areas should include safeguarding economic, social and cultural rights in constitutions, and protecting our common goods while guaranteeing equal access to their management and enjoyment.

5. Participate in, promote or distribute all struggles against environmental deterioration, particularly against major investment projects in the fossil fuels industry, and against the privatization of natural resources and common goods.

6. Work actively in movements confronting international treaties such as TTIP, CETA and TISA that pose grave threats to the environment, labor relations, our health, and generally the conditions of life.

7. Support all experiences that seek to build embryos of a democratic, equitable and sustainable economy; fair and responsible consumption; and an alternative culture that strengthens human relations based on equality and mutual support…

8. Take up “the revolution in our daily life.” While no amount of changes in individual consumption habits can substitute for the needed structural changes, we might recall the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “To live simply, so that others may simply live.” This perspective, prioritizing life over possessions, should help us to let go of less sustainable practices, to promote those that are more healthy and environmentally sound and carry out in an egalitarian manner all the tasks of care for persons.

Bilbao, 25 September 2016

Signing groups: LAB, ESK, ELA, EHNE Bizkaia, Steilas, Ecologistas en Acción, Ekologistak Martxan, Hitz & Hitz, SolidaritéS, Mugarik Gabe, Sortu, Podemos, Alternatiba, Aralar, Antikapitalistak.

Will California Secede from the US over Election Result?

In the wake of Donald Trump winning the US presidential election, and the Republican Party winning both houses of Congress, the movement for Californian independence, or Calexit as it has become known, has gathered pace. The obligatory hash tag is trending on Twitter.

One such campaigning group, ‘Yes California,’ founded in 2013, has seen its profile rise after last week’s US elections. The state has a liberal outlook, and almost always votes for the Democrat Party in Presidential and Congress elections. They have elected Republican governors, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he stood on a very liberal ticket. Trump’s election has caused widespread unhappiness in the ‘Golden State.’

California has the sixth biggest economy in the world, roughly on a par with the UK, and Californians may be joined in the push for secession from the US by the two other west coast states, Oregon and Washington, and even Nevada and Hawaii, in what would be a mighty western American nation state. Cascadia is the name that has been mooted for the new nation.

Calexit is getting backing from the tech industry in Silicon Valley and the media industry around Hollywood. The state’s economy is also based on agriculture, with much of the US’s home produced fruit and vegetables, and wine, produced in California. There is no doubt that California would manage just fine as an independent nation, and even more so if joined the other states mentioned above.

Yes California’s website has had 2 million visits since the election and the group has grown from 1,500 volunteers prior to the election to over 10,000 in the week post election. The immediate aim is for the group to collect enough signatures to put a referendum on the issue on the state ballot in 2018.

Although it is perfectly feasible for California, even on its own, to become independent, there are formidable obstacles to this becoming a reality. The US Constitution forbids unilateral secession by any state, so first this would need to be amended. For that to happen would require the support of both houses of Congress and 38 state governments. On the plus side, judging by some of the social media comment, other states may be willing to oblige those states wanting to secede. This quote is just one example:

‘California is already flooded with illegals and is rapidly becoming a majority minority state. Good riddance.’

After the Brexit vote in the UK , Britain has seen similar secession feeling in parts of the country, most notably in Scotland, but to a lesser extent also in London. We could well see another independence referendum in Scotland, and that could set in motion a train of events which encourages the fledgling London independence movement. California could add momentum to the break up of the UK, by setting a good example, as it were.

When you think about it, London and California have much in common, apart from the weather, in that both have thriving technology and media industries, the new industries, as well the financial services sector. California has the edge over London in tech and media, but London does so in finance. The news that Californian company Google, is to expand its operation in London, is an indicator of the similarity in skill sets of Londoners and Californians.

The Trump win, and the Brexit vote are part of a piece, where a chasm has opened up between people in parts of both the US and UK. Those of a liberal, internationalist bent are in despair with their fellow citizens who have taken a reactionary, isolationist, inward looking, xenophobic and racist attitude to the world.

California is different from many parts of the US, as is Scotland and London from the rest of the UK, with their citizens seeing themselves as progressive and outward looking to the world. It is true that these places have done relatively well out of globalisation, but that is because they have embraced it and made it work for them.

Contrast this with the feeling of victimhood and nostalgia for the 1950s demonstrated by the Trump and Brexit votes, where foreigners are to blame for everything, rather than their own government’s worship of big business as the solution to the challenges of the modern world.

Something has to give, as the division is probably too wide to heal. Progressives need to fight back against the reactionaries, and independence is likely the only way to save ourselves from living in a shit country.    

Brexit – British Government Up Shit Creek without a Paddle

The news today of a leaked memo written by consultants at Deloitte, who it appears were or are working on the government’s Brexit strategy, such that it is, reveals what we all suspected. The government is divided and completely in the dark about how to handle our exit from the European Union (EU).

It has been noticeable, from public comments made by the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, and the more hawkish members of the cabinet, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and David Davis, that there is deep disagreement amongst ministers. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, the memo also says, is acting like a medieval monarch and taking decisions herself, where no cabinet consensus can be found. The memo labels this as ‘unsustainable,’ which sounds about right. At some point, there will probably be resignations or sackings of one side or the other in the dispute.

The government has been quick to dismiss the memo, as not officially from Whitehall, but it is pretty clear what is going on, or not going on, as the government stumbles around hoping for the best, in the absence of a thought through plan for Brexit negotiations, or at least a realistic one anyway.

A civil service union, the First Division Association (FDA), which represents top civil servants such as departmental permanent secretaries, has echoed this situation, saying that the government wants ‘Brexit on the cheap.’ The civil service has endured something like 80,000 job losses since 2010, and the government’s pre Brexit plan was to cut another 80,000 civil service jobs in the current Parliament. 

With over 40 years of EU legislation to unpick, the FDA is not indulging in hype when they say that Brexit is the biggest challenge for the civil service since the second world-war. It is a massive operation, and will require resourcing if it is to be successfully delivered.

But even if the staffing resources are made available, to make a proper job of Brexit, it will probably require more than two years to sort through everything. Which begs the question, why is there such a rush to trigger Article 50, which puts a two year time limit on negotiations? Surely it would be wiser to strike an interim agreement, for say five years, by exiting the EU and joining the European Free Trade Association? I’m not saying this will satisfy those most determined to break free, whether we have a good deal or not, but it does buy us some time.

It would meet the requirements of ‘leaving the EU,’ so would be perfectly in line with the Brexit result, and would likely secure widespread agreement in Parliament. It is just the sensible thing to do.

But sensible is not what this government is. They seem determined to rush into this reckless act of risking that we get no deal at all with the EU, and have to fall back on WTO trade rules, which will mean tariffs on British exports, varying between 10% and 20%, dependent on the industries involved.

Plans are afoot, to rush an Act of Parliament through, to trigger Article 50, with such tight wording that it will be difficult, if not impossible for MPs to table amendments to it.

All of this against a backdrop of a possible trade war between the US and China, where such small fry as the UK will be trampled in the process. The more I see of the government’s non strategy, the more I think they are going to use this Brexit vote in a very political way. To discredit the opposition as ‘undemocratic’ and then turn the UK into a country that tries to attract big business, by cutting corporation tax to something like 5% or even less. And use ordinary tax payers money to compensate companies for any trade tariffs that do become applicable.

Is this what people voted for when they voted for Brexit? I very much doubt it is, but will they even notice in their fervour for stopping eastern European migrants coming to the UK?

This really is the biggest political fiasco that I can ever remember.

Does President-Elect Trump Spell Doom for the Planet?

Written by Nika Knight and first published at Common Dreams

Climate change denier promises to bring in new era for coal, pull U.S. out of international climate commitments.

Hours after the stunning U.S. presidential election returns showed an avowed climate change denier chosen for the nation's highest office, environmentalists around the world grappled with what a Donald Trump presidency will mean for the planet.

Trump has vowed to renege on the Paris climate pact, reinvest in fossil fuel infrastructure, and to bring in a new era for the coal industry, not to mention repeatedly denying the reality of climate change.

"Africa is already burning. The election of Trump is a disaster for our continent. The United States, if it follows through on its new President's rash words about withdrawing from the international climate regime, will become a pariah state in global efforts for climate action. This is a moment where the rest of the world must not waver and must redouble commitments to tackle dangerous climate change," said Geoffrey Kamese of Friends of the Earth Africa.

"Sadly, while Trump campaigned as a political outsider, his transition team is filled with corporate lobbyists," observed Food & Water Watch director Wenonah Hauter. "His agriculture advisors are agribusiness insiders. He has called climate change a hoax, and his energy advisor is a lobbyist for the Koch Brothers. His reported top pick for energy secretary is Harold Hamm, a modern-day oil tycoon."

And as Grist pointed out, "Most of President Obama's efforts on the clean energy front were made using his executive powers—powers that will now allow Trump to fulfill many of his promises to completely defund climate action and gut environmental protection."

The environmental outlet added:

He's pledged to pull the United States from the Paris climate agreement. He's vowed to cut all federal climate spending. He is going to appoint a known climate denier, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell, to head the Environmental Protection Agency's transition team.

Under Trump's appointees, the EPA's powers will be rolled back, with weaker enforcement of regulations mandated by the Clean Air Act and upheld by the Supreme Court. Of course, Trump will have his pick on the Supreme Court, too—which could soon decide the fate of Obama's central climate accomplishment, the Clean Power Plan.

Scientists, too, fear the coming Trump presidency.

"Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had," Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society in Washington DC, told Nature. "The consequences are going to be very, very severe."

"This is terrifying for science, research, education, and the future of our planet," tweeted María Escudero Escribano, who is "a postdoc studying electrochemistry and sustainable energy conversion at Stanford University in California," according to Nature.

"You're talking about an individual who is not informed by data, whether it's from climate change or anything else, and is poorly read," Evan Snyder, a stem cell biologist in California, told BuzzFeed. "So clearly science is not a priority for him."

"Donald Trump is a climate menace, no doubt about it. He wants to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, stop funding clean energy research and drill for extreme oil. But together we are more powerful than he is," said John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, to the Guardian.

Indeed, many environmentalists are vowing to stay the course, unify, and assert new pressure on the incoming Trump administration as well as the international community in an effort to avert complete climate chaos.

"Our hearts go out today to the millions of people who voted against bigotry and hate and now have to accept the fact that the man who ridiculed and threatened them for months is the President-elect of the United States," Greenpeace USA executive director Annie Leonard said. "Fear may have won this election, but bravery, hope, and perseverance will overcome."

"As a young woman and first-time voter I will not tolerate Trump's denialism of the action needed for climate justice. Our country must undergo a systemic change and just transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy within my lifetime," said Becky Chung from the youth network SustainUS. "The next four years are critical for getting on the right pathway, and the disastrous election of Trump serves as a solemn reminder of the path ahead of us. As young people and as climate justice movements we will be demanding real action on climate for the sake of our brothers and sisters around the world and for all future generations."

"Greenpeace and millions of people around the world have all the power we need to combat climate change and create a just world for everyone," Leonard added. "Let's use this moment to reenergize the fight for the climate and the fight for human rights around the world."

And 350 Action executive director May Boeve told supporters Wednesday: "Our work becomes much harder now, but it's not impossible, and we refuse to give up. The hateful rhetoric promoted by Trump’s party will only strengthen the ties between progressive groups and make our movement stronger. Together, we will put everything on the line to protect the progress we've made and continue to push for bold action. We refuse to leave the future of our climate in Trump's hands. Now is the time to take a deep breath and fight like never before."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

US Election - Trump Wins as Democrat Voters Sit on their Hands

I'm probably not fully over the shock of Donald Trump winning the US presidential election, but some things are becoming clearer about what the hell happened in America on Tuesday.

I've watched every US presidential election since 1976, and this one is the biggest upset I can ever remember seeing. I have watched every previous election on the BBC, when that or ITV were the only options in earlier days, but this year I watched CNN on my laptop. I have to say, the coverage was much better, with in depth local psephological analysis, and a fast moving pace. The only downsides were the intervals, numerous and long, when US viewers were seeing ads.

I also watched a bit of Democracy Now's live coverage, which is a left wing news site, where they talked much more in depth around the issues in the election. I caught Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate putting a brave face on things, recounting local successes in county elections, on what turned out to be a disappointing 1% of the presidential vote. At least the Democrats can't blame the Greens for this defeat.

Although this result is being interpreted widely as a people's rebellion, turn out was only 55.6% according to provisional data, which is low by recent US presidential elections standards, which have been around 60%.

Of those who did vote, CNN exit poll results say that Trump voters were overwhelming white, with only 8% of black voters supporting him. Surprisingly, more Latino voters supported Trump than did Mit Romney, the Republican Party candidate last time around. Even so it was only 29% of them. Racism was clearly at play, with Trump's rhetoric on the back of eight years of Obama's presidency. Brexit linked, in a kind of Anglo-Saxon uprising.

Misogyny was also a factor, with 58% of Trump voters being men, to 42% women. Although this did cut across racial lines, with 53% of white women voting for Trump. Trump's treatment of women will have encouraged some men to vote for him, but it also looks as though women, white ones anyway, were able to overlook the issue. Women can be just as misogynist as men, of course.

Trump voters were mainly older, too.

Trump pulled off some notable victories in the Democrat heartlands of the rust belt, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, which are being put down to his call for trade tariffs on imports, and reviving the coal industry. It does look as though, Hillary Clinton's association with the NAFTA trade deal, and wider support for globalisation, had an impact on her vote in the area.

I think there was also a broader dislike of Clinton. She embodies everything that Trump voters were rebelling against in terms of the political establishment. She has a lot of baggage, and although the email investigations didn't help, she has record and image as being at the centre of corporate/political convenience. This probably cost her the election.

As the headline says though, Trump's vote was similar to Romney's four years ago for the Republicans, but the Democrat vote was down by 5 million on what Obama got in 2012. It looks as though, hate Trump as they did, some Democrat voters were not prepared to vote for Clinton, Susan Sarandon being probably the most famous.

Would Bernie Sanders have fared better? Well, maybe he would have. He could have at least matched, and in many ways exceeded Trump's outsider image, and he is no fan of the NAFTA agreement. The Canary makes this case here.

Trump is pretty unpredictable, but whatever he does do, and his policy ideas are terrible, he will try to maintain his winning hand by doing at least some of things he has promised. This is going to be awful, but quite how awful, we will have to wait until January to find out.