SPRING/SUMMER 2025 ONLINE EDITION
|
|
Green Left is an anti-capitalist, ecosocialist group within the Green
Party of England & Wales. Membership is open to all GPEW members,. All views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily
of Green Left.
|
WHAT IS THE GREEN PARTY FOR?
Peter Allen
The GPEW
is now a BIG PARTY. What should be its priorities and how is it delivering
them?
1 1) To represent
local communities on local councils in an effective and inclusive manner,
developing practical and pragmatic solutions to immediate problems and engaging
in debate about longer term responses to economic, environmental and wider Concerns, promoting democracy and social justice.
It can claim to have had outstanding success in this, with the number of
councillors growing from a few handfuls in the early 1990’s to over 800 in
2024. Once elected in an area Greens tend to be re-elected and also to be
elected in neighbouring areas, helped by effective targeted campaigning, led by
an efficient national elections team.
2)
To increase
its parliamentary representation, to provide an alternative to the existing
stale centre-left parties, offering a politics of hope not fear, successfully
navigating the obstacles which the UK’s undemocratic electoral system throws up
whilst campaigning for a profoundly more democratic one.
The successful targeting of four seats in last year’s
general election, two in young and cosmopolitan city constituencies and two in
traditionally conservative rural constituencies, was truly astonishing and to
be applauded.
3) To continue to develop a policy response
to the multiple and multiplying problems the UK and the world faces,
seeking to do so in a democratic and inclusive manner, with policy being made
by its members rather than imposed on them.
I was pleased to be involved in a discussion within Green
Left which resulted in a submission to the Economic Policy Working Group which
has been charged with presenting a paper at Autumn Conference 2025 which seeks
to update existing economic policy.
4) To recognise that the Global
Climate and Ecological Emergency provides an immediate
and growing existential threat to humanity and that Green
Parties across the world, co-operating as Global Greens, have both an
opportunity and a responsibility to do what they can to build a
global campaign demanding a rapid and radical
international response, which offers the best possible
chance of avoiding climate catastrophe.
It is this fourth aim which is, in my opinion, seriously
under prioritised by the current party leadership and membership, This is
something I am seeking to change in my capacity as International Co-ordinator,
if elected in the all member ballot taking place this summer, and in a motion
(below) to Autumn Conference, presented last year but not debated and which I
intend to submit again, more or less unchanged.
The
GPEW and the Global Climate and Ecological Emergency.
Synopsis
The GPEW
to be better prepared to campaign about the Global Climate
and Ecological Emergency (GCEE)
Motion
Conference
reaffirms the views expressed in the Climate Emergency chapter
of PFSS that “The Climate Emergency is the greatest issue of our time. It
is a global crisis demanding a global response” and that “The UK should play a
leading role by strengthening international agreements and rapidly reducing its
own emissions”. (CC001)
Conference
also reaffirms the view set out in the Core Values Statement that
“Electoral
politics is not the only way to achieve change in society” (from 10th
core value)
Conference
believes that all governments, including the UK and
its 4 nations will only honour the commitments made at Paris and
subsequently and take the necessary action to address the Global Climate
and Ecological Emergency if they are placed under sufficient pressure from
their citizens to do so.
Conference therefore calls on the
Green Party Executive Committee, all internally elected members and
our Members of Parliament to prioritise the use
of the party’s resources to build a campaign to combat the
GCEE, working with other organisations and individuals at local party
level, regionally and at all levels of governance.
Conference
also calls on GPEX and the International Committee to prioritise promoting
co-operation with the European Green Parties and Global Greens to build an
effective global campaign to combat the GCEE, focussing on future global
summits, including COP.
Conference
resolves to add
the following to the Climate Emergency Chapter of Policies for a
Sustainable Future:
New CC015 and
subsequent renumbering:
The GPEW
should seek to work with other organisations and individuals to
demand that our government takes effective action in response to the
Global Climate and Ecological Emergency. The GPEW should also seek
to work with The European Green Party and Global
Greens to help build an effective global climate
action movement, with a focus on future global summits,
including COP.
A UNITED LEFT/GREEN ALTERNATIVE?????
P.Murry
Is a united
Left/Green alternative in British politics an unattainable, quasi mythical
ambition or a realistic and urgently necessary possibility?
Both in
parliament and outside, political organising beyond the pro-capitalist
Labour/Liberal/ Conservative centre is supported by more people than has ever.
From UKIP and Reform on the right, to Greens, left-independents and Labour
dissidents on the left; new political tendencies seem to be emerging in the
early twenty-first century. * This reflects an increasing disillusion with
mainstream electoral politics which also manifests itself in increasing rates
of total abstentions. The authoritarianism of Starmer’s party management
entailing suspensions, expulsions and resignations from Labour has contributed;
as has the failure of centrist politics to address some key issues, especially,
genocide in Palestine.
On the left
this has led to numerous repeated calls for new organisations, parties,
proto-parties or coalitions to unify an alternative political project.
Nonetheless divisions stubbornly persist.
Some of
those individuals or groups who might be calling for unity or being urged to
get themselves united come from a Socialist tradition. Some, like Jeremy
Corbyn, are now outside Labour, some, like John McDonnell, are still Labour
members but currently suspended for dissident voting.
The Green
Party of England and Wales (GPEW) now has four MP’s and is often identified as
being to the left of Labour. Socialist ideas and policies are explicitly
advocated by many of its members, sometimes through some of its internal groups
such as Green Left and Green Organise. However, GPEW does originate from a
tradition that prioritised environmental concerns, particularly combatting
climate change, over preceding political aims. Some Greens even held, and may
still believe, that they were ‘neither Left nor Right, but Green’. Now probably
many more Greens identify capitalism as the chief enabler of climate change.
This tendency is probably being enhanced by the way in which Starmer’s Labour
government seems to be steadily reneging on social justice and environmental
policies and advocating ‘greenwash’ solutions such as Carbon Capture and
Storage.
In some ways
distinctions between GPEW and socialist left policies are becoming blurred;
both are now advocating taxation of the wealthiest and some forms of
nationalisation as an alternative to punitive welfare and other cuts that hurt
the poorest and most vulnerable in the name of a rigid economic orthodoxy. Some
Green politicians, such as Zack Polanski have welcomed the idea of more Green/
Left co-operation.
Such
sentiments may well attract support but, so far, they only appear to be
sentiments. Meanwhile Green and Left candidates continue to stand against each
other in elections.
This
division has its origins and supporters both among the Greens who currently
have policy against electoral alliances and amongst those on the left who
insist that any new party must be ‘purely’ socialist in character, sometimes
while paying only lip service, at best, to the central importance of tackling
the global climate crisis.
So, unless
more practical steps can be taken towards constructing an anti-capitalist,
pro-environmental politics, Greens and Left socialists could be left squabbling
like rats on a sinking ship, or perhaps worse than that, on a ship about to be
hijacked by right wing pirates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN LEFT PAMPHLET
VIDEO Green Left online open
meeting “Challenging Reform and Austerity: The Green Way” Thursday 3 April 2025
7-9pm
https://youtu.be/B7R-udXLvro
Is support for right wing parties
like Reform growing against a background of government increasing hardship for
the vulnerable seemingly without regard to environmental consequences? How can
the Green Party respond and message effectively, whilst Reform gets
disproportionate media attention.
· Steve Jackson, co-lead of the
Greens Organise Comms/Campaigns Working Group
· Les Levidow
· Nicole Haydock, Green Left
(contribution to be read by Jay Ginn)
chair: Danny McNamara, Green Left
Green Left
Meeting On “Challenging Reform And Austerity: The Green Way”, 3rd April 2025.
Reverse
the theft of public goods and take back control: a Green way to challenge
austerity and Reform UK
Les Levidow
Millions of
people have been suffering the effects of UK neoliberal policies, especially
post-2010 austerity, which aggravated the damage from the 1980s-1990s austerity
programme. People’s deprivation and
anxiety have led many to search for simple culprits, especially migrants, as
demonized by Reform UK and more recently by the Labour government.
GPEW
policies offer many remedies, such as ‘Public Services in Public Hands’. More fundamentally an effective alternative
must target the systemic culprit, namely:
neoliberal policies have shifted political control and economic wealth
to a super-rich elite, while intensifying scarcity and economic competition
among everyone else. Effective remedies
would depend on a strong collective agency to implement them, especially by
shifting class power against neoliberal state institutions.
Neoliberal
austerity: legalizing theft of public goods
The term
‘austerity’ has served a long-time deceptive narrative. It has implied moral frugal habits which save
money to benefit the common good. This narrative disguises neoliberal
austerity, which has worsened socio-economic inequalities.
Since the
1980s all UK governments have promoted neoliberal globalization as if it were
an inevitable future. It has
subordinated government policy to
international investment and currency markets.
It has marginalised, off-shored or cheaply sold off high-skilled
industry and public services. By
legalizing the theft of public goods, such policies have aimed to strengthen
capital over labour and limit democratic decision-making. Meanwhile the greater exploitation of labour
extracts more unpaid labour, a hidden form of theft.
Such changes
have been driving people into more unhealthy working conditions and causing
systematic health damage, likewise greater stress in both paid work and unpaid
care work, worsening mental health problems. All this damage has generated
greater legitimate claims for disability allowances and Personal Independence
Payments (PIPs), even more so given the inadequate or delayed NHS treatment for
such problems. The damage has likewise
generated greater need for social care, which has been increasingly outsourced
or privatised since the Thatcher period.
Meanwhile
the state has continued funding or facilitating corporate welfare. In
particular, privatisation has attracted global investment funds, especially to
real estate and utilities (gas and water), resulting in foreign corporate
control. Fossil fuels still receive
subsidies of around £10 billion per year, as well as tax-free status for
aviation fuel. Thus, state finance
drives climate change.
The 2010 the
ConDem government’s austerity regime imposed extra damage, in particular: Cuts
in public amenities or their privatisation made access more dependent on
individual income, thus worsening poverty.
Cuts in social welfare and social protection increased the burden of
unpaid caring, especially for women.
Neoliberal austerity has generated scarcity and thus envy towards others
who supposedly get favourable treatment (like migrants, benefits claimants,
disabled, etc), despite their vulnerability.
Neoliberal
austerity has been promoted by many beneficiaries, e.g. private equity firms,
hedge funds, billionaires and politicians who gain funds from the main
beneficiaries. Moreover, some pension
funds have sought to maximise profits and so help undermine the public
good. Trade union activists are needed
to change those investment priorities.
Obstacles: Starmer regime and the Far Right
The Starmer
regime has worsened the structural oppressions which it inherited. Worse than a failure, it has been further
degrading the UK’s public sphere. while making the economy even more predatory. Its corporate-welfare policy worsens
socio-economic deprivation and inequalities.
It
marginalises public-good alternatives, such as renewable energy truly replacing
fossil fuels, house retrofitting with better heat insulation, and
better-quality social care. Such
alternatives could be funded by several means, such as a wealth tax and/or
public bonds paying a fair interest.
Such alternatives are crucial to build a realistic durable hope in a
better future.
The Far
Right is a broad category, including fascists such as the EDL. Our focus should be Reform UK, for several
reasons. Its leadership represents the
wealthy elite benefiting from the neoliberal policies of the major parties and
so has a vested interest in continuing those polices. Its racist agenda has recently set the
national agenda, as the mass media have given it disproportionate attention. Worse, the main parties imitate its racist
policies.
Reform UK
attracts people with diverse or confused ideas, many warranting political
engagement. It is necessary to acknowledge people’s deprivation and anxiety
about the future, at the same time as to assign blame, namely: For several decades a wealthy elite has
robbed public goods, turning them into private financial assets, whose
beneficiaries include main backers of Reform UK.
Take back
control
To counter
austerity and the Far Right, a slogan could be: ‘Reverse the theft of public
goods and take back control’. A crucial
means is bottom-up collective action of many kinds, alongside a community
support base for workers’ rights. Such a
community is not ready-made. It requires
creating communities of resistance.
New
community organisation will be necessary to defend and create commons, beyond
the state and capitalist markets. Such
initiatives are essential to push or bypass the state, which otherwise will
continue its collusion with predatory neoliberal practices.
Although
campaign slogans are necessary, they gain political force only through an
action-learning process. Activists need
to try out new mobilisation strategies, discuss their strengths and weaknesses,
evaluate results, and then draw lessons for more effective action.
Such a
strategy applies to both the Green Party and independent Left-wing
parties. We should try to cooperate
locally through joint demands, while avoiding electoral competition for the
same seats. Given the rising popular
distrust towards the Labour Party, together we should seek to replace it.
Note: This is a short version of the full
article available on the London Green Left blog
https://londongreenleft.blogspot.com/2025/04/reverse-theft-of-public-goods-and-take.html
Bio-note:
The author
joined the Green Party and likewise the Green Left in 2014. He is author of the book, Beyond Climate
Fixes: From Public Controversy to System Change
The
publicity webpage has his blogs linking class struggle with climate justice, https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/beyond-climate-fixes
CHALLENGING REFORM UK THE ECO-SOCIALIST WAY
By Nicole Haydock
Lesson from the 2016 Brexit referendum
The 2016 Brexit Referendum was a landmark in UK
electoral history where an unprecedented 72.2% of the electorate took part in
the ballot. People on the ‘Leave’ side who had never been seen at any previous
elections appeared to suddenly find their voices and became organised.
There is much that can be learnt from that referendum
and the mobilisation of Nigel Farage’s army of Brexiteers. Notwithstanding the
importance of their charismatic leader Nigel Farage, they did not simply go
about door knocking and leafletting. They conducted a highly creative campaign
to maximise voting registration amongst first-time voters and non-voters.
Eight years later at the 2024 General Election and
under the First-Past-the-Post voting system, Farage’s Reform UK became the
third largest party with 4,117,610 million votes or 14.3% of the vote in total.
The Green Party’s vote share was 6.7%.
If we had a fairer and proportional voting system,
Reform UK would now have 100 MPs instead of 5 and the Green Party 71 MPs
instead of 4. Labour would therefore not be in a position to form a government
on its own and Starmer would have to negotiate with both the Lib- Dems and the
Greens. This would not be a “dual power” scenario, but it certainly would put
the existential climate crisis, the race for renewable energy and wealth
redistribution on the political agenda.
Democratic means or insurrection?
In the socialist tradition, it is often imagined that
only a revolutionary insurrection organised by a mass socialist party can take
power. In 1917, elected Bolshevik Party representatives actually achieved a
majority in Russia’s Duma, but this was with the backing of their long-standing
alliance with workers’ committees - or Soviets - summed up as “Peace, land and
Bread” that toppled a weakened Tsarist regime.
August 1852, Karl Marx had published “Free Trade and
the Chartists” in the New York Daily Tribune. He envisaged that British
universal suffrage would result in “the political supremacy of the working
class”. Engels echoed this with regard to his native Germany where he believed
the proletariat would emerge as the decisive power before which “all other
powers will have to bow” (Broue 1971) *. Neither Russian nor German
revolutionary socialists were naïve enough to think that the ballot box alone
would bring about a socialist transformation of society, but they did not
ignore the pivotal role of parliamentary democracy.
Disappointingly, contemporary socialists – including
Eco-socialists – do tend to ignore, miss or fail to comprehend the importance
of elections and the role of the nation state in the advancement of
anti-capitalist and environmental policies.
We are now living in a global and post-industrial
capitalist world where the working class and working people generally face far
more powerful forces in military, institutional and ideological ways than did
Russian workers and peasants in 1917 or the German working class in 1920.
Nevertheless, with our political system based on
universal suffrage, the working class does possess potential electoral power
where masses of votes can turn into Parliamentary majorities.
Counter-intuitively, this has proved to be the case with populist Donald
Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign where he won the popular vote.
Members of the Democratic Party are in shock, but are
slowly showing signs of waking up to a desperate need to reconnect with
‘ordinary’ people. Will such a liberal pro-capitalist and identity politics
driven party ever regain its former support from the working class as a class?
Reform or Greens?
According to the latest IPSO poll in the UK, people
lending their support to Reform believe that “it is the party which is most
likely to provide the UK with the change it needs” and that “they will do what
they say they will”.
There is no evidence that Nigel Farage will deliver on
what his working-class supporters need, or that his Party can be trusted to do
what it promises. Hundreds of Green Councillors on the other hand, and in spite
of two decades of austerity and massive cuts in Local Councils’ budgets, have
banked a good record in delivering local services and protecting the
environment. They are also generally trusted to do what they say they will do.
But if Greens and eco-socialists are to challenge
Reform successfully, it is important to address the reasons why a deep mistrust
and fear of immigrants remains its supporters’ primary driver. Brushing aside
such concerns as being racist or fascistic fails to grasp the root causes of
such negative emotions and can only further alienate many more working-class
voters.
Making the connection
We probably all agree that our ‘green’ concerns are
not exactly on Reform voters’ radars. Global warming, the melting of the ice
cap, the rising seas or the loss of biodiversity are fairly removed from
working people’s daily lives.
However, it would be hugely damaging to us to park our
own analysis and eco-socialist policies for opportunistic reasons. The impact
of global warming and the over-exploitation of the Earth’s finite natural
resources may often be perceived as an abstraction for people who are
struggling to make a living and worried about the future.
But that is precisely our biggest challenge to Reform
UK and their obsession with immigration. So, how do we make the connection
between a long lost sense of security and well-being and address the unfounded
fear of immigrants exploited by Reform UK?
Building on the Beveridge’s Report and his ‘5
Giants’*, we must do this by campaigning as never before for our radical 21st
century policies and prioritising meeting people’s basic needs such proposed in
the Green New Deal, a universal basic income, access to cheap and healthy food,
affordable housing and public transport, local health and social care
provision, cheap electricity, as well as a cleaner and safer environment.
In other words, we must develop a climate class
consciousness both in theory and in practice.
·
Pierre Broue (1971) “Revolution en
Allemagne, 1917 -1923”, Editions de Minuit.
·
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zwhsfg8/revision/3
May Day 2025: a pivotal moment for
the trade union movement
Tahir Latif: Secretary, Greener Jobs Alliance
As we approach international workers day, this year is shaping to be a pivotal moment year for the labour movement and for the concerns we represent in the Greener Jobs Alliance - green skills, the secure jobs of the future, trade union rights and protections, and solidarity around putting these things together to build a better future for all. With so much going on, good and bad, this year will be key to the outcome of that struggle.
But we
cannot ignore the ascendancy of a political and ideological outlook
diametrically opposed to the principles outlined above. Arguments
for climate-oriented jobs are being swamped as all the main political parties,
abetted by the mainstream media, prioritise anti-migrant, anti-trans and
anti-welfare narratives above the day-to-day economic hardships that increasing
wealth inequality is bringing about, and where the economy is discussed it is
usually to argue that dealing with catastrophic climate change is a 'luxury' we
cannot currently
afford.
Worse, the
term ‘green issues’ is used pejoratively as a scapegoat for economic
downturn. For example, blaming
the closure at Port Talbot and that threatened at Scunthorpe, and the
associated job losses, on net zero targets when it is the absence of policies
to safeguard workers as we transition from a fossil fuelled economy to a
renewables-based one that is the problem. As with Trump in the US,
the Right peddles outright falsehoods like the 'high
cost' of renewables to justify its position. The need for
organised opposition to these opportunist and fake narratives has never been
more imperative.
That is why
a Trade Union Year of Action on Climate is such a critical event for the union
movement to redress the balance. Too many workers are being led towards a
cliff edge by the ‘drill baby drill/scrap net zero’ ethos of Reform and their
ilk; regardless of the rhetoric, fossil resources are dwindling and the future
of the sector is finite. Trade Union leaderships cannot simply be
reactive and follow where these charlatans take them with a false promise of
jobs. We should be taking the lead in arguing for climate jobs as the key
to long term job security for workers.
Thankfully,
the overwhelming majority of unions and members recognise this, that’s why the
Year of Action was passed without opposition at last years TUC. Now
we need to put those words into effect. A number of unions, with NEU
at the head of the line, are in the process of calling for widespread action on
climate across the whole twelve month period starting with the highly
significant COP30 in Brazil this November. This will include 'seasonal'
events linked to, for example, Heat Strikes
and fuel poverty during winter, sectoral actions around education, transport
and others, and linking with the broader We
Demand Change events to take place around the country.
These kinds
of trade union initiatives are how we will build towards making that Year of
Action a success. Plans will be further developed and discussed at an
important online meeting, The Climate Crisis Is A
Working Class Issue - Building A Year Of Trade Union Climate Action, hosted
by Campaign Against Climate Change, on Wednesday May 7th; register here
to join us. Solidarity.
Links:
Home - Greener Jobs Alliance
Keir Starmer: Labour
ditches £28bn green investment pledge - BBC News
Scrap
net zero to make 'success' of British Steel, Reform deputy urges - amid
scramble... - LBC
Reform
is very wrong about net zero - New Statesman
Heat Strike
We Demand Change | WE DEMAND CHANGE
Help build a trade
union year of climate action | Campaign against Climate Change Trade Union
Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE SOCIAL CARE: WHAT IT MEANS AND
HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN
Anne M.Gray
The GPEW’s
demand for free social care is one of irrefutable importance and popularity. It
is shared by many organisations, including the Lib Dems, the TUC, the National
Pensioners’ Convention, End Social Care Disgrace, the Women’s Budget Group, the
New Economics Foundation, and Independent Age. But what do we actually mean by
it – how can we define who needs it and what kinds of support would be
provided? How can we explain the
difference between the Lib Dem policy paper on free care, which suggests a budget
of only £5bn, and the Green Party proposal to spend £20bn? Finding that money is clearly a long job –
first to gain enough power, then to implement the major tax changes envisaged
in our 2024 manifesto to restore public services. What can we - and especially
Green councillors - do meantime? My book just published (see below) tries to
address some of these questions.
Firstly,
what kinds of care should be free? The Green manifesto follows the Scottish
model in limiting the free care service to ‘personal care’ – mainly about
washing, dressing, eating, medication and toilet needs. But this leaves out
many key tasks that some people need help with – like meal preparation,
cleaning, shopping, escorting them outside the home, paperwork and electronic
communications. Our manifesto’s £20bn is a good start, but probably still not
enough.
Based on
research done by the New Economics Foundation with the Women’s Budget Group, I
estimated in my book that we need an extra £30 billion on top of current
spending on adult social care. Beyond ‘personal care’, that would provide a
more comprehensive service for all those with ‘severe needs’ - who need help
with two or more ‘activities of daily living’, a metric widely used in
legislation and in research on care needs. It would give care workers a wage of
£15 per hour, as recommended by the Home Care Association, compared to the
national minimum of £12.21 which they even struggle to get now, due to some
employers not paying for travel time between clients.
The Lib Dem
proposal for £5bn is a much narrower reform, basically just removing existing
local authority charges and raising care workers’ wages to the ‘living wage’
standard of £12.60 – or £13.85 in London, set by the Living Wage Foundation.
But this level of budget would not help the hundreds of thousands who don’t
access a care service – they are still waiting for assessment or discouraged
from applying because it takes so long, or the means test will make them pay.
Some of these are supported by often over-burdened relatives, others just
struggle to cope alone.
So, most of
the difference between the Lib Dem proposal and the Green proposal is due to
providing for more people whose needs are currently unmet, and to raising
workers’ wages to the level needed to recruit and retain staff in an industry
with around 130,000 vacancies.
The Lib Dem
proposals, but surprisingly not ours, include extra help for unpaid
carers – the relatives and sometimes friends who provide the vast bulk of care.
Whilst the government has met the Lib Dem demand by increasing the amount
carers can earn without losing Carers’ Allowance, they haven’t changed the
weird rule that anyone who earns tuppence over the limit loses the whole
allowance. In the book I estimated that providing carers with a wage-like
allowance that would not be offset against earnings might cost around £15bn. If
we consider unpaid care to be work, surely we need to work towards that.
What can
Green councillors do?
1)
Work
towards following the example of two London boroughs who have pioneered making
home care services free. Hammersmith and Fulham have done it for a decade.
Tower Hamlets had free care for some years, then stopped due to insufficient
government funding, but returned to a free care policy in 2025/6. Scrapping
charges is obviously easier for areas that have relatively few seniors and
where a high proportion already pass the means test for free care. Both
boroughs score on both counts. For councils with more care-needers or more
charging income (which comes mainly from seniors with savings), free care would
be more difficult to achieve.
2)
Try
to generate non-profit care and ‘micro-enterprise’ – small groups of
self-employed carers, sometimes working as cooperatives and sometimes linked to
volunteer schemes. A shining example is Equal Care in Yorkshire – their web
site ( https://www.equalcare.coop ) is
well worth studying, as is Community Catalysts, developers of micro-enterprise
in many areas; https://www.communitycatalysts.co.uk/publications/communities-care/
3) Revive the mutual aid movement
that became widespread during the pandemic, offering shopping, cooking meals,
moral support and keeping people company, growing a culture that cares about
care and about securing good professional services.
4)
Ensure
frail seniors and disabled people are included in community life and have a
voice in co-production of policies that affect them, ranging from care to
design of public transport, housing, shopping centres and parks. A useful
framework is the Age Friendly Communities agenda promoted by the World Health
Organisation, and in the UK by the Centre for Ageing Better. Worcester Green
Party, with 12 Green councillors, has pushed for Worcester to join over 70
councils who have signed up.
A major
inspiration for me was the concept of the ‘caring society’ envisioned by the
Women’s Budget Group and the Care Collective, essential reading for all those
concerned to achieve real social inclusion. That involves sharing
responsibility beyond the family both for provision of unpaid help and to
finance comprehensive support from paid professionals, as well as through
giving those who need support a real voice.
References
– available from the author on request or see the book
RADICAL APPROACHES TO THE CARE CRISIS
Bristol University Press April 2025 ISBN 9781447374084
Launch events in Leytonstone 10 May and Wood Green 9 June – amgggg2@yahoo.co.uk for information
How
Privatisation, Not Immigration, Bankrupted the Country
By Mohamed
Miah | The Narratives
For decades,
Britain’s leaders have told a familiar story: public services are failing,
prisons are overcrowded, the NHS is overstretched, and the welfare system is
unsustainable. The blame, we are told, lies with immigration, an ageing
population, and so-called “welfare dependency”. But this narrative is a
smokescreen.
The truth is
that Britain has been systematically stripped for profit. It is not migrants,
pensioners, or the unemployed draining the system. It is corporate greed,
facilitated by successive governments who have sold off national assets,
outsourced essential services, and funnelled billions of pounds of public money
into private hands. Britain is not failing—it is being looted.
A Country
Sold for Parts
Once,
Britain owned and controlled its prisons, hospitals, schools, care homes, and
public infrastructure. Today, these services are increasingly managed by
private corporations, whose primary focus is not public welfare but profit
maximisation. The result is a country where:
• Prisons
are run as businesses, where keeping more people incarcerated means higher
revenues for private security firms.
• Children’s
care homes operate like investment portfolios, where vulnerable young people
are shuffled between placements at extortionate costs to local councils.
• Elderly
care has become a money-making scheme, with private firms reducing staff and
cutting corners while charging families thousands per month.
• The NHS is
quietly being dismantled, with services outsourced to private companies that
deliver substandard care at inflated prices.
The pattern
is the same across the board. Costs are cut to boost profits, services
deteriorate, and when public frustration boils over, the government shifts the
blame onto immigrants, pensioners, or benefit claimants—anyone except the real
culprits.
The
Shadowy Forces Behind the Sell-Off
Behind the
privatisation agenda lies a well-funded network of lobbyists, think tanks, and
corporate donors. Groups like the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Policy
Exchange, and the Adam Smith Institute have spent years advocating for the
outsourcing of public services, the weakening of unions, and the dismantling of
state protections. They claim privatisation leads to efficiency, yet the
evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.
The same
firms benefiting from these policies are also deeply embedded in the political
system. Companies like Serco, Capita, G4S, and Sopra Steria secure lucrative
government contracts despite repeated failures. Scandals involving
overcharging, fraud, and mistreatment of vulnerable people have done little to
dent their influence. Each time a contract is lost, another is gained
elsewhere.
Adding to
the problem is the role of hedge funds and private equity firms, which now
control large segments of the care sector, housing, and even parts of the NHS.
These firms operate with a single goal: extract maximum profit before selling
off their stakes. The result is a public sector filled with short-term
profiteering and long-term decline.
A Media
Landscape Built to Distract
The
corporate capture of Britain would be far harder to maintain without a media
industry complicit in its cover-up. Instead of scrutinising the companies
responsible for deteriorating public services, mainstream outlets repeatedly
redirect public anger towards the most vulnerable.
The Daily
Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, and even sections of the BBC have pushed the idea
that immigrants are the cause of NHS delays, benefit claimants are draining the
economy, and crime is a result of social decay rather than economic failure.
This narrative serves a purpose. By dividing the working class along racial and
social lines, it prevents collective resistance to the privatisation agenda.
When, for
instance, the NHS faces yet another winter crisis, the headlines do not ask why
billions have been siphoned off through outsourcing. Instead, they focus on
“health tourism”, even though evidence shows that migrants contribute far more
to the NHS than they take. When crime rises, the discussion is about “soft
policing”, rather than the reality that private prisons and probation services
have created a revolving-door system where rehabilitation is discouraged
because repeat offenders are more profitable.
Legal
Protections for the Corrupt
If
corruption at this scale were happening in a developing country, Britain’s
politicians would be the first to condemn it. Yet, at home, the system is
designed to protect those profiting from failure.
Regulators
such as Ofgem (energy), Ofwat (water), and the CQC (care homes) routinely issue
reports detailing failures and mismanagement, yet rarely impose serious
penalties. The same firms responsible for overcharging councils, neglecting the
elderly, and cutting prison staff continue to win government contracts.
Attempts to
expose wrongdoing are often met with legal threats and gagging orders.
Whistleblowers from the NHS, social care, and the justice system who reveal the
extent of corporate negligence face job losses and blacklisting. The Post
Office Horizon scandal, in which hundreds of postmasters were wrongfully
prosecuted due to a flawed private IT system, is just one example of how the
establishment protects corporations over ordinary people.
A Global
Playbook for Corporate Control
The
systematic privatisation of Britain’s public services is not an isolated event.
It mirrors what has happened across the United States and much of the Global
South. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have long pressured
developing nations to privatise public assets, often leaving them indebted and
dependent on Western corporations.
Now, similar
strategies are being applied at home. The US healthcare model—where essential
services are fragmented, unaffordable, and designed to benefit insurers rather
than patients—is gradually being replicated in Britain. Big Tech firms like
Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are moving into public service contracts, controlling
everything from health records to border security. The more data and
infrastructure they control, the harder it becomes to reclaim public ownership.
The Real
Crisis is Corporate Greed, Not Immigration
Britain’s
economy has not collapsed because of migrants, pensioners, or public sector
workers. It has collapsed because it has been deliberately asset-stripped by
corporations, aided by politicians who claim there is no alternative.
Every time
the government insists “we can’t afford” something, the question should not be
whether we can afford it, but rather why the wealthiest companies and
individuals are not paying their share.
• If the NHS
is unsustainable, why are private healthcare firms making billions from
outsourcing contracts?
• If
pensions are unaffordable, why are CEOs receiving seven-figure bonuses?
• If
immigration is supposedly overwhelming the system, why is the government
increasing work visa allocations while cutting public funding?
• If crime
is out of control, why are private prisons profiting while rehabilitation
services are underfunded?
The truth is
simple. The same people telling us the country is failing are the ones who sold
it off. Until the public recognises the real cause of Britain’s decline, the
cycle will continue.
Because in
Britain today, crime does pay—just not for the people inside the cells.
HOPE
AND RESISTANCE: FOR THE EARTH TO LIVE!
Not quite
Muddy Waters’ heady offering of ‘Champagne and Reefer’, but ‘Hope and
Resistance’ offer a much more effective response to the existential problems
now facing humans and all other Earthlings because of the unfolding ‘logic’ of
capitalism.
One of the
purposes of For the Earth to Live https://anticapitalistresistance.org/for-the-earth-to-live/
is to
encourage mass effective civil resistance. Which means in today’s UK,
where you can be sent to prison for 5 years just for attending a Zoom meeting,
that if you buy a copy, you’re at risk of arrest – probably!
To help
build that mass resistance, I’m not taking any royalties from the sale of this
book – all profits instead go to building resistance campaigns. For the same
reason, I also donated the fee I got – for talking about the book at Keswick’s
recent literary festival – to XR North Lakes.
‘Creeping
fascism’
However,
before addressing hope and resistance, something about ‘creeping fascism’
– and the way it’s undermining hope. Recently, neoliberalism’s ‘hollowing-out’
of democracy has produced a very worrying political trend: significant sections
of young people (particularly young males) – previously often much more
leftwing than older demographics – have begun turning to the far right and even
to outright fascists.
In last
year’s European Parliament elections, large numbers of young people voted for
such far right parties. While in the UK, a survey published in January this
year, showed that 20% of young people now prefer the idea of a strong leader
and no elections, over what they perceive to be ‘democracy.’ And the biggest
authoritarian threat in the UK comes from Farage and his latest reactionary
political business venture.
With local
elections due in May – and with the next general election maybe coming before
2029 – the whole question of voting, or not voting, in key/marginal
seats, may well prove to be one crucial element in blocking the rise of
the far right in the UK.
Last
November’s presidential elections in the US brought this issue to the
fore. In the 7 crucial swing states,
many Democrats and young radicals – understandably disgusted by the Democratic
Party’s awful stance on Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and
disappointed by the little that Kamala Harris was offering – largely
abstained.
What they,
the rest of the US, and the world, got was… Trump. Yet in 2020, when such young
people turned out in force to vote in those swing states, they got rid of
Trump. There’s perhaps a useful lesson to take from those two elections. As
Rebecca Solnit has said: “Voting
isn’t a Valentine – it’s a chess move”
Lesser
evilism
Starmer’s
version of New Labour is increasingly disappointing on a number of key issues.
But, with opinion polls regularly putting Farage’s political abomination on
similar percentages as Labour and the Tories, surely, in marginal seats,
it’s sensible to vote for the ‘lesser evil’ of a Labour candidate to block a
Reform UK candidate? If, that is, there isn’t a credible Green or
independent left candidate capable of winning.
Surely this is better than running the risk, by abstaining, of ending up
with a Badenoch-Farage – or even worse, a Farage-Badenoch – coalition? The key
word being ‘lesser’!
But, for
those still with mixed feelings about voting for a ‘lesser evil’, there’s the
history of Germany in the early 1930s. Then, the leaders of the Social
Democrats and the Communists refused to work together against the rising Nazi
Party – the Communists even argued that the Social Democrats were ‘social
fascists’ and therefore a bigger threat than Hitler and the Nazis!
Trotsky, however, argued strongly for a United Front Against Fascism – and, at
the end of 1931, warned the German Communist Party that:
“Should
fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific
tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with
the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists,
you have very little time left.”
However, the
leaderships of those two parties ignored his warnings – and, as they say, the
rest is history.
Hope: and
Anger and Courage
First of
all: genuine/valid hope is revolutionary – because it leads to
resistance. This is what Rebecca Solnit
said about it:
“Your
opponents would love you to believe that it’s hopeless, that you have no power,
that there’s no reason to act, that you can’t win. Hope is a gift you don’t
have to surrender, a power you don’t have to throw away. And though hope can be
an act of defiance, defiance isn’t enough reason to hope. But there are good
reasons.”
Some of
those good reasons come from remembering our victories – they may have been
hard won at times, but we have had victories the 1% didn’t want. One was
the ending of apartheid in South Africa – as Nelson Mandela said: “It always seems impossible…until it is
done.”
But as well
as Hope being important, so too are Anger and Courage. It may surprise some to
know that St. Augustine wrote this: “Hope has 2 beautiful daughters: their
names are Anger & Courage. Anger at the way things are, and Courage to see
that they do not remain as they are.”
Increasingly,
there are plenty of reasons why we should be angry about capitalism. But well-founded hope and even justified
anger are not enough – we also need courage! As Irish novelist Sally Rooney
wrote at the end of last November:
“We know
what’s happening around us.
And we
know what’s coming next.
When are
we going to have the COURAGE to stop it?”
And the way “to
stop it” is by building a strong and broad movement of resistance,
that aims – eventually – to build an ecologically-sustainable and socially-just
ecosocialist world. Time to put Thee Faction’s song “Scared of us”
into practice – and make the 1% s**t bricks!
==========================================
Allan
Todd is a member of
Anti-Capitalist Resistance’s Council, and an ecosocialist/environmental and
anti-fascist activist. He is the author
of Revolutions 1789-1917 (CUP); Trotsky: The Passionate
Revolutionary (Pen & Sword); Ecosocialism Not Extinction (Resistance
Books); Che Guevara: The Romantic Revolutionary (Pen & Sword); and
the recently-published For the Earth to Live: The Case for Ecosocialism
(Resistance Books)
LETTER TO AN
M.P.
Dear Jesse
Norman
Now that you
are an opposition MP as well as being my elected representative in Parliament,
I believe this is a good time for me to draw to your attention a book that
outlines links between a disgraced American health insurer and successive UK
governments regarding 'the planned demolition of the UK welfare state'.
Anne Gray of
the Green Party wrote in the attached document:
"The
Green Party is ... very concerned about the strong role of one or two private
companies in advising the government about the development of welfare to work
proposals, particularly in relation to the restructuring of incapacity-related
benefits. (see Jonathan Rutherford, http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/debates/36rutherford.html
) It seems extraordinary that so much attention has been given to the views of
a company which is on record as saying that it sees the UK benefits system as
one of its major markets for the future; one would expect advice to have been
taken from a wider and more balanced range of sources. As Rutherford’s paper
shows, the credibility of Unum — formerly Unum Provident - has been badly
damaged by having been prosecuted for fraudulent business in the USA."
That was
later picked up on by medically retired RAF medical veteran Mo Stewart who,
through years of research, built evidence of the extent to which Unum was
backseat driver of UK welfare reforms from the time of peter Lilley, as
outlined at
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/disabled-researchers-book-exposes-corporate-demolition-of-welfare-state/
Now, I
suspect that Rachel Reeves increasing Employers National Insurance
Contributions so as to lessen the load on the state with regard to State
Pensions will make matters worse and is hypocritical.
In the
decades that I was a disabled jobseeker and thus 'parked' with far too little
support in 'getting me back to work'
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/the-hidden-dangers-of-outsourcing-welfare-reform/
successive
governments bragged about the numbers of lives they would 'save' from enforced
idleness, while they kept quiet about the numbers of 'overstayers on Jobseekers
Allowance'.
Now, while
much attention is justly being given in my Morning Star to Rachel Reeves'
planned cull on disability benefits
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/search/results/rachel%20reeves%20disability%20benefits
I believe
that driving up Employers National Insurance Contributions will be a further
nail in the coffin of State Benefits as well as jobs.
The jobs
destruction aspect is emphasised at
1.
https://forumcentral.org.uk/third-sector-leeds-responds-to-national-insurance-rise/
2.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g7x6p865zo National
Insurance hike 'pain' to hit jobs and pay, firms warn - BBC News
3.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2013990/social-care-protest-Rachel-Reeves Rachel
Reeves tax rises drive social care providers onto the streets
What happens
then?
The working
age benefits bill will soar as more and more people are made redundant, and
there will be an expansion of a casual labour market in which there is no real
'duty of care' on 'employers' as service providing companies will insist that
those who actually supply the labour are not classified as 'employees', and
'the precariat' that Basic Income economist Guy Standing (copied in here) talks
about in more detail.
And of
course Elon Musk's insistence that those who labour for him are
'self-employed', thus eliminating the prospect of collective bargaining power
and any 'duty of care' such as holiday entitlements is likely to be regarded as
a beacon light of progress by others in the UK, while Reeves and her DEFRA
senior Civil Servant hubbie take in two six-figure salaries off the State into
their family home as both the welfare state and UK food self-sufficiency are
demolished.
I think UK
government needs to re-examine the motivations and credibility of its advisers,
don't you?
Your
constituent ALAN WHEATLEY
Covid
Inquiry Transform Council member Joseph Healy writes:
(This piece
appeared in today’s Transform Party newsletter 18/3/2025)
March 2025
marks the 5th anniversary of the start of lockdown. Covid is another one of
these crises that just won’t go away.
“Millions of
pounds of public money disappeared during the pandemic in sordid deals between
Tory ministers and various nefarious companies, some of whom had no experience
in supplying PPE. This is now being investigated by the Covid Inquiry in Module
3 and has already led to a clearly rattled Michael Gove snapping back in the
witness box, as evidence of him arranging deals via the notorious VIP channel
emerged. Transparency International has already pointed out that the UK was the
only country which used this method to source vital medical equipment at the
height of the pandemic. Every other country used the normal state channels for
sourcing equipment for its medical services.”
This
afternoon (18/3/2025) a number of Covid organisations protested outside the
Covid Inquiry at Dorland House, near London’s Paddington station. At a time
when this government is forcing through the most appalling cuts due to a stated
‘black hole’ in the public finances, it is essential that we make our voices
heard against this sheer corruption and misappropriation of public funds and
demand that those responsible are brought to justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASEEM’S EYES
By Patric
Cunnane
Waseem’s
eyes were full of dreams
Too young to
be bereft of hope
Cherished as
all children are
His life
worth the same as yours
How can an
army steal our children?
They never
learned to hate
Their loss
denies our future
Their right
to make a mark rubbed out
No chance to
ride a bike, to throw a ball
To grow, to
fall in love, to shape the world
Waseem’s
eyes were full of dreams
He loved to
play, to sing, to shout
Who condones
such terror from the skies?
Shattering
futures, crushing hopes
Waseem’s
eyes were full of dreams
Let’s build
new dreams for him
Safe homes
like yours or mine
Don’t let
the future be extinguished
Young lives
abandoned on the line
Eight-year-old
Waseem was killed when an Israeli bomb hit his grandmother’s house in South
Gaza at the Nuseirat refugee camp. The
Observer began a report ‘Waseem’s eyes were full of dreams’ (26th
November 2023).
