MARTIN O'BEIRNE'S BLOG

Fracking comes to Gloucestershire - All activists out!

25/7/2016

We've just had the hottest day ever recorded on earth, 54 deg C in Kuwait and the last recording station not to have detected 400ppm CO2 on the planet surpassed the benchmark figure last month .

Post-Brexit UK has seen a change in prime minister and one of the first acts of the newly un-elected Theresa May, little under 2 weeks ago, was to add to her poor environmental record by closing the department of climate change. Worse, the equivalent department is now called business, energy and industrial strategy a name that many activists fear is intent on squeezing all profit possible from the oil in the soil, the coal in the hole and the gas in the rocks.

In addition the new minister for the environment is May's failed tory leadership contender, Andrea Leadsome. In the past Leadsome has written to the Prime Minister calling for cuts to wind farm subsidies, and had criticised the Labour government for signing up to an EU target that called for 15 per cent of the UK's energy to come from renewable sources by 2015. Non of those EU targets are in the way of 'progress' anymore.

In one of those moments of bizarre political speak when Leadsome was asked about her new role she replied:

"When I first came to this job one of my two questions was: 'Is climate change real?' and the other was 'Is hydraulic fracturing safe?' And on both of those questions I am now completely persuaded."

It's good that she was able to find an opinion on climate change having been given the role as environment secretary, but although the implication that she believes climate change to be real is there (as if that debate hadn't ended long ago) she has in addition conflated this with the contradictory notion that fracking is safe. Thus ignoring the weight of evidence and clearly forgetting her belief in climate change, which means only renewables are the way forward if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change by keeping the required 70% of remaining fossil fuels in the ground.

The people of Gloucestershire will now remember the first acts of the new faces in the tory administration as the acts that allowed fracking in to their/our county. That's not to say the pre-brexit administration was any less clear. In December 2015 Parliament voted to allow fracking under national parks and other protected areas. 298 voted in favour. That consisted of 296 Tory MPs, with only 4 going against the party line. The outlook from central government is bleak. The restraining factors at present is the availability of cheap imported fuel (Access to the European market may be restricted or carry high tariffs in the future) local government resistance (if it continues) and the threat of actions by local activists.

There is also the chance that frack companies are wasting their time. local free-miners and Geologists are skeptical that there is any gas to be found and if there is any deep shale the reserves are thought to be limited.

It appears that despite mixed messages it is the more destructive deeper reserves that South Western Energy will be prospecting or attempting to prospect for.

Owen Adams resident expert has written a detailed account of the situation here

Frack off our forest facebook group is the main organizing and information hub and can be found here
Frack Free Gloucestershire is here

Tolkein was inspired by the forest of dean, and Lord of the Rings teaches that you must never underestimate folks from the shire. The message to the Frackers and the government has got to be then "YOU SHALL NOT PASS"

4 Comments

US Greens adopt Ecosocialism/Communalism

15/6/2016

20 Comments

Great News! U.S greens have adopted a motion forwarding a Bookchinesque style program of communalism/Libertarian Municipalism and anti-capitalism. 78% voted in favour and the amendment will be put to conference for ratification in August. Please add any thoughts in the comments section.

Here is the motion.

Background
This new platform plank removes the old wording entirely and addresses the economic inequalities, social inequalities, and productivism of both capitalism and state socialism and emphasizes grassroots democracy in the workplace. This workplace grassroots democracy has been largely absent from the Green platform, and many believe it is the way forward for a truly ecological economy and a new system.

This new platform plank does not promote expropriation of privately owned small businesses and should not be interpreted as such. Rather, the plank outlines the type of businesses and type of economy we would like to create.
Proposal
To amend Chapter IV. Economic Justice and Sustainability
1. Ecological Economics
Paragraph 4

Current language of plank that is being addressed:

ÒSustaining our quality of life, economic prosperity, environmental health, and long-term survival demands that we adopt new ways of doing business. We need to remake commerce to encourage diversity and variety, responding to the enormous complexity of global and local conditions. Big business is not about appropriateness and adaptability, but about power and market control. Greens support small business, responsible stakeholder capitalism, and broad and diverse forms of economic cooperation. We argue that economic diversity is more responsive than big business to the needs of diverse human populations.Ó

Proposed amendment of the current language:

The Green Party seeks to build an alternative economic system based on ecology and decentralization of power, an alternative that rejects both the capitalist system that maintains private ownership over almost all production as well as the state-socialist system that assumes control over industries without democratic, local decision making. We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built-in structures that advance injustices.

Instead we will build an economy based on large-scale green public works, municipalization, and workplace and community democracy. Some call this decentralized system ecological socialism, communalism, or the cooperative commonwealth, but whatever the terminology, we believe it will help end labor exploitation, environmental exploitation, and racial, gender, and wealth inequality and bring about economic and social justice due to the positive effects of democratic decision making.

Production is best for people and planet when democratically owned and operated by those who do the work and those most affected by production decisions. This model of worker and community empowerment will ensure that decisions that greatly affect our lives are made in the interests of our communities, not at the whim of centralized power structures of state administrators or of capitalist CEOs and distant boards of directors. Small, democratically run enterprises, when embedded in and accountable to our communities, will make more ecologically sound decisions in materials sourcing, waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and more. Democratic, diverse ownership of production would decentralize power in the workplace, which would in turn decentralize economic power more broadly.

20 Comments

Curried chickpea burgers & hot mango salsa in pitta

5/4/2016

1 Comment

I love these burgers. Veggie, protein hit, sugar only in nature's own packaging, easy to make, affordable, a little bit different and great taste. They are good for people who crave meat, but have chosen not to eat it, as the burgers are chunky and something to get your teeth in to. Furthermore my 11 year old son is either food's greatest critic or just a fussy eater and even he loves them.

The main ingredient is a 400g tin of chickpeas which costs 33p from Aldi. That's enough for 6-8 burgers.

The downside: no points for food miles. I bought a pack of two mango's from Aldi. They came from Peru. So for me personally, mango is occasional, a happy food but not a staple. There are loads of local fresh food alternatives to the mango salsa. I've got my eyes on a peach salsa or maybe this year if I can get a crop of tomatoes growing on the greenhouse butty (Engineless boat that attaches to my main boat) I'll have some green tomato chutney at year-end. Beetroot would be a nice accompaniment too, pickled or fresh. What can you think of? Tomato ketchup = nul points

Ingredients
1 tin of chickpeas (400g)
2 eggs
3 tsp curry powder (I used medium, maybe 2tsp if hot)
85g Breadcrumbs

1 Mango
1 Spring onion
1 lime (Juice only)
1 tsp dried mint
1 level tsp chilli flakes (maybe reduce if very hot flakes, according to taste)

Wholemeal pittas

1. Make the paste

Add the chickpeas, eggs, curry powder and breadcrumbs into a mixing bowl. A pinch of salt and pepper too is good.

Some people add sweetcorn too with these burgers, but I like to maximise the protein from the chickpeas. Others add cumin and coriander instead of curry powder. It's all good.

You could use a blender or a potato masher (if gaps are small enough) to make the paste. I used a fork. Those chickpeas do require a bit of persuasion so if your hands aren't up to it maybe try the electric option.

Your paste doesn't need to be perfect, it's fine if you can still make out the odd chickpea.

The curry powder smells lovely as you mash the ingredients.

2. Make the burgers

I served 2 burgers each to 3 people. So I made 6 burgers. Others have made 8 smaller burgers from the same quantity. Any bigger than 6ths and you won't be able to get them in the pitta halves, so would need to graduate to buns or ciabatta or whatever.

Shaping the burgers is fairly straightforward, just get stuck in with your hands. Keep in mind your proportions as you subtract the paste from the bowl, so that the last burger is roughly the same as the first.

You'll find that the burgers are very sturdy, no chance of breaking up like some patties.

Shallow fry them for about 10 minutes turning halfway through. Get them a bit brown on each side.

You can probably make the salsa in 10 minutes, starting to dice the mango once the frying begins. If you are not sure or you don't want to feel rushed, either delay the frying or make the Mango salsa first.

3. Make the salsa

Peel and stone the Mango. I roughly aimed at pieces with sides of less than 1cm. Thinly slice the spring onion. Add the lime juice, chilli flakes and mint. Phwoar.

There are a few variations of this salsa, some add cumin, peppers, orange juice, all sorts and all sound good.

With this salsa, the mint and chilli combine with the lime, mango and spring onion to make this interesting, hot, zesty and sweet.

4. Serve it up

Cut the pittas in half and put them under the grill for a few minutes, round about the time you have flipped the burgers should do it. Do both sides and take them out when you are happy they have opened up.

Stuff some mango salsa in the pittas, then the burger and then pack as much salsa as you can round the sides.

Get stuck in and enjoy!

1 Comment

What is next in the fight against ISIS and is bombing in Syria ever OK?

5/12/2015

3 Comments

Contrary to what I think I should probably think - I don't agree that there should be no bombing/air campaign at all in the fight against Da'esh ever by anyone. I disagree with Cameron's crude strategy of UK airstrikes and heavy bombing of Raqqa. What I do agree with is the following 1. Political intervention (in particular pressuring Turkey to reconsider its increasingly blatant support for ISIS) 2. A complete reassessment of our arms trade with Saudi & Israel 3. The left doing several things that broadly come under the rubric of 'defending the greyzone' including, supporting Corbyn and attacking the media and messages it is portraying. The Sun and Daily Mail have by any standards been vile. The Caliph the conductor and we the conducted and finally 4. Being very mindful indeed with the use of the Prevent program. Administered in any other way could be counterproductive and there are reports that this is so.

I strongly disagree with the drive for militarization over the next decade, billions planned for new aircraft and trident renewal. A pillar of neoliberalism that has inevitably created this situation. This money could pay for a million climate jobs several times over, amongst other things. But I do agree with one thing. Despite playing a major role in birthing ISIS in to this world, they, ISIS, should be stopped. If the left acknowledges this, a strategy is lacking in much of the discourse, and the above mentioned strategies are only mitigation.

200,000 Yazidi leaving home, 50,000 go to mount Sinjar

Up to 5000 ethnically unique unarmed sufi-esque Yazidi were slaughtered by ISIS. An unknown number of Yazidi women are now Jihadi slaves. The slaughter was predominantly of the male population, children included. Many orphaned children were left confused, hungry and alone. 200,000 Yazidi fled. Some 50,000 hid-out on mount Sinjar.

The Yazidi were rescued by a coalition of Kurds from Syria, Turkey & Iraq. Initially the Peshmerga (Iraq Kurdish forces) retreated. Leaving the Yazidi exposed. There is a tendency to inflate contributions from different forces in the available propaganda. It appears consistent in reports that the PKK and YPG/J (Turkish & Syrian Kurdish units) responded quickly and stopped Da'esh advancing but were unable to repel them. The Peshmerga who are quite different in many ways from the Syrian and Turkish Kurds with no ideological link to the incarcerated Ocalan, and are politically on the right, do appear to have made a difference later on. They are a well resourced fighting force.

What is clear is that US air strikes had a very significant impact. I have found no reports that US airstrikes caused the death of any civilians in this campaign. In any case the remaining Yazidi were saved and air strikes were unequivocally vital to the liberation of the Yazidi. US air strikes were again vital in the battle for Kobani.

I cannot then make a case that I wish this rescue did not happen and therefore cannot make a case that argues against bombing in its entirety. However I don't get to chose and those that do have the power to chose, I do not trust with such selectivity, which in practice leaves the option of joining the campaign that argues against all bombing. Which is just politics, but not entirely honest.

YPJ soldier offers support to Yazidi women

Bombing Raqqa 'cutting off the snakes head' as Cameron suggests, I completely disagree with. There is no way this heavy bombing campaign can occur without significant civilian casualties. No doubt reports to this end will start flooding in as Russian & US jets increasingly target the city. Cutting off the snakes head in this way will be more akin to cutting off the Hydra's head. ISIS, Al qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham will undoubtedly live on and become even more potent in the middle east leading to more terror elsewhere.

What should be next is an advance of Kurdish forces to cut of ISIS supply lines across the Turkish border. Specifically this means repelling them from occupied Jarabulus, the only border crossing they have left. Jihadi recruits, a lucrative oil trade and other resources depend on this. The YPG have been clear that they want to advance on Jarabulus. This would expand the territory of Kurdish Syria and potentially join with Azaz. That is to say all Rojavan cantons would then be Geographically linked. Rojava is relatively safe now. Da'esh are resorting mainly to car bombs as they can not penetrate the Kurdish forces in any other way. The Kurds are winning and the Rojava project is the most inspiring political project in the world today. Direct democracy and assemblies, potentially stateless, egalitarian and ecological, rooted in Bookchin.

Turkey however will not allow the Kurds to advance on Jarabulus. If this were to happen the new Kurdish Syrian territory would cover the entire Turkish-Syrian border. Erdogen's AKP would rather continue their faustian pact with ISIS and attack the Kurds if they advanced. Hence the next step as I see it is political. Erdogen's party were re-elected earlier this month and it is in their DNA to repress the Kurds. Politics is the next step. Deal with Turkey in negotiations but no need for the UK to bomb Raqqa, because frankly, that's just stupid.

3 Comments

Arms companies stocks soar as RAF conducts first suspicious air-strikes in Syria

5/12/2015

3 Comments

Cameron got his wish, from the safety of his own bedroom he can now play with his toy soldiers. General Dave gave the command and the British spitfires were airborne almost instantly. The plucky pilots hardly had time to spark up their pipes, don their goggles and leather jackets before they were over the Omar oil fields. With scarves horizontal and tashes oiled the pilots celebrated as the bombs rained down. The mission was just perfect. Incredibly, magnificently, unequivocally perfect.

Tally Ho! what what!

What?

A bit too perfect?

The propaganda begins as it always does at times like this or maybe it just never stops.

Who is on the ground telling us as it really is?

Remember the spoon fed 'embedded' reporters in Iraq during the 2nd Anglo-American Bush/Blair invasion and those pivotal scenes from Firdous square Baghdad when Saddam's statue was toppled by jubilant Iraqi's. Only it wasn't toppled by jubilant Iraqi's, it was entirely choreographed by a US psychological operations team, troops coordinating activities with megaphones and a US tank pulling the statue to the ground.

David Cameron attempted to justify an air campaign in Syria by putting forward his accompanying imaginary army of 70,000 moderates. This has been unequivocally ripped apart from every quarter, including the ministry of defence. The 'bogus battalions' have proven how in 2015 despite everything that has gone before (Blairs WMDs) lies and manipulation remain as acceptable as ever for those that hold the highest of offices.

If you were a British military propagandist, employed by an army psy-ops team or anyone with influence and bias and it was your job to create something that was 'incredibly, magnificently, unequivocally perfect' in response to the first British intervention in Syria; What would you design?

Something that perhaps 1. Expresses how outstanding the RAF contribution is relative to other forces 2. Alleviates concern regard civilian casualties 3. Significantly impacts ISIS operations 4. Something that does all of this and very swiftly.

Some MPs must still have been on the way home from the parliamentary vote when the first articles began to populate my news feed describing exactly this:

"MoD confirms that jets carried out ‘first offensive operation over Syria and have conducted strikes’ hours after MPs voted in favour of military action"

"Fallon said the raids targeted the Omar oilfield in eastern Syria, dealing a “real blow” to the financing of Isis"

“It’s a very good illustration of a target that is literally one side of the border and couldn’t previously be attacked.”

"We are doubling our strike force"

"The RAF jets carry a range of munitions including Paveway IV guided bombs and precision-guided Brimstone missiles.

"Before the attacks, pilots used the aircrafts' sensors to confirm "no civilians were in the proximity of the targets"

It was very neat. Let's get some perspective. US air-strikes in Iraq and Syria began in August 2014. There has been around 10,000 air strikes in Iraq and Syria by 'coalition' forces. Russia alone are reported to be flying 140 sortis per day. The UK are contributing a handful of jets and doubling that number is still a small number compared to those already in action.

If you were in the UK for the past month, you may or may not have been aware that the RAF have been in action in Iraq for over a year and quite likely not aware that the RAF have been flying surveillance missions over Syria for just as long. You may also have got the impression that the inclusion of RAF jets in Syria would be a real 'game changer'.

In reality Jets from the US, Russia, France, Belgium, Australia, Canada, Holland, Jordan, United Arab Emirates and more have been involved in air strikes over Iraq and and/or Syria. That is to say bombs have been pounding Syria for quite some time, and it's doubtful the extension of RAF air-strikes from Iraq in to Syria is really going to alter the course of events that are already under-way. To quote a Syrian citizen Journalist

"All the world is bombing Raqqa and the UK will not make any change in the situation,"

I'm not suggesting it was wrong to argue against UK bombs in Syria (as I did). But UK bombs have done little to stop ISIS in Iraq, just like all bombs from anyone in both Iraq & Syria have done little to interfere with the growth and operations of ISIS, who have doubled in number through that period (at least 1 recruit for ever target destroyed). They have also managed to make plenty of money, some estimates as high as $1billion in a year in the oil trade alone. Stolen assets and 'taxation' have also kept the money rolling in. Only the Kurds have successfully taken territory back from ISIS. And territory is in many ways the bottom line.

Just like the UK's first bombing of Syria, apparently the RAF air strikes beginning September 2014 in Iraq have caused no civilian casualties. That's what David Cameron, Michael Falon and the press report. This claim has been disputed. Data compiled by the Iraq Body Count project, staffed by volunteers and activists has a count of 487 civilian deaths. There may be no actual reports that are pointing at RAF air strikes causing civilian deaths, but when bombs are dropped on you from great heights you tend not to run for a telescope to find out which badge is on the plane.

But what is particularly odd about this first RAF air strike in Syria over the Omar oil fields, the one 'that couldn't previously be attacked' (despite the fact as already discussed, Syria has been pounded for quite some time) and 'dealt a real blow to ISIS financing operations' is that, it already happened, in October. At least that's what other reports tell us.

"The terrorists' oil field in eastern Syria (Omar) part of a half a billion dollar crude industry for the group - was obliterated in a day of bombing conducted by both Russia and the US-led coalition"

"There were 26 targets and all 26 were struck"

"The destruction of the Omar oil refinery leaves just Jabsah for oil production in Syria for ISIS"

Which reports are accurate? Was there anything left in Omar for the RAF to bomb? Not according to the October report. Have ISIS moved back in since October and rebuilt some of the infrastructure? Was there an agreement that if UK got the go ahead that a very neat target would be given to the RAF? Did the RAF mission over Omar even happen?

We just don't know for sure where reality and propaganda meet and probably never will.

Propaganda is of course not just about winning hearts and minds but winning markets.

One thing that has surprised me is that David Cameron and Michael Falon have been clear that military interventions in the middle east will be ongoing for years. Recall Bush Juniors' claim as soon as Saddam was captured in 2003 that the war was over. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," a banner with "Mission Accomplished" hanging over him. "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Here we are 12 years later.

In part the reason for this openness about this being a lengthy campaign is that markets get excited by war, constantly responding to business friendly signals. To acknowledge openly that arms companies need to get busy and remain busy makes share holders happy. In the morning after parliament voted to bomb Syria stock values at BAE Systems, Airbus, Finmeccanica and Thales all soared:

"BAE Systems jumped four points at start of trading, just hours after its Tornado jets left UK bases in Cyprus to bomb Omar oilfields. In total BAE Systems, the main private sector beneficiary from UK military spending, has seen its value increase by 14 per cent in the two and a half weeks since the Paris attacks of 13 November"

MPs voted for this action despite there being no effective ground support in place to take and hold territory, and no reconstruction plan. Bombing will not end ISIS and an approach centred on bombing commits coalition forces to action for a very long time. I have argued previously that in addition to applying political pressure on Turkey, the next step should be to support the Syrian Kurds to advance on ISIS occupied Jarabulus. This is the only border crossing ISIS have left with Turkey. Oil and recruits and other resources flow over this border crossing. To recognise this is to recognise the Kurds and Kurdish invisibility has literally been policy for generations.

War is good for capitalism. Based on the above quote even terror increases stock prices. Capitalism can never rest, it must always grow. The middle East is full of oil and there are permits to be won. War requires arms and war destroys infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt. GDP doesn't care what it is that maintains it.

Left and right agree that ISIS should be stopped. The history behind the cause of ISIS is for another time. As far back as 1957 Macmillan & Eisenhower sought a secretive regime change in Syria using Islamic extremists.

War time propaganda has many functions. We cannot trust the press and our politicians to tell us the truth.

What do you believe?

3 Comments

Ecosocialism Against ISIS - A Salute to Murray Bookchin

26/11/2015

In the spring of 2004, incarcerated PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan's lawyers contacted Murray Bookchin explaining that he (Ocalan) considered himself a student of Mr Bookchin and that he had acquired a good understanding of his work, and that he was eager to make the ideas applicable to Middle Eastern societies.

He asked for a dialogue with Murray and sent one of his manuscripts.. At eighty-three Murray was too sick to accept the invitation and reluctantly declined.. He said this in response:

“I am pleased that he finds my ideas on libertarian municipalism to be helpful in thinking about a future Kurdish body politic. . I am not in a position to carry on an extensive theoretical dialogue with Mr. Ocalan, as much as I would like to. . . . My hope is that the Kurdish people will one day be able to establish a free, rational society that will allow their brilliance once again to flourish. They are fortunate indeed to have a leader of Mr. Ocalan’s talents to guide them.”

Murray and Abdullah did not meet , Murray died in 2006. Ocalan wrote several books directly inspired by Bookchin applying it to the 'Kurdish question' Signalling a complete strategy shift from the Marxist-Leninist Kurdish nationalist independence movement.

In March 2005, Öcalan issued a 'Declaration of Democratic Confederalism in Kurdistan' calling for:
“a grass-roots democracy ... based on the democratic communal structure of natural society.” It “will establish village, towns and city assemblies and their delegates will be entrusted with the real decision-making, which in effect means that the people and the community will decide.”

The declaration affirms individual rights and freedom of expression for everyone, regardless of religious, ethnic, and class differences. The declaration specifically support women's liberation and:

“promotes an ecological model of society”

He urged the Kurdish people to consider the program:

“I am calling upon all sectors of society, in particular all women and the youth, to set up their own democratic organisations and to govern themselves.”

Janet Biehl comments:

"When I visited Diyarbakir in the fall of 2011, I discovered that Kurds in southeastern Anatolia were indeed putting this program into practice"

The Syrian Kurds however have not been able to concentrate solely on the project.

Following 2011's Arab Spring the Syrian civil war began. In 2012 The YPG (Syrian Kurdish People's protection units) repelled Assad's forces from some predominantly Kurdish parts of northern Syria. The PYD (an associate of the Turkish PKK, although there is some dispute here) gained a foothold and later that year launched 'the Social Economy Plan' later renamed the 'People’s Economy Plan (PEP)' The PEP's policies are based primarily on the work of Ocalan and ultimately seek to move beyond state and capitalism and toward democratic confederalism.

The hopes of building this new society have been deeply complicated by the rise of ISIS.

However the YPG have had plenty of success fighting them.

In June 2014 ISIS defeated Kurdish forces in the border city of Tell Abyad. ISIS fighters made an announcement from the local mosques that all Kurds had to leave or be killed. Thousands of civilians, including Turkmen and Arab families fled the city. On 16 June 2015, the town was taken over by the YPG and has remained under their control.

At the beginning of August 2014 ISIS began the Sinjar offensive. The Iraqi Kurdistan regional government estimated in December 2014 that the total number of killed or missing Yazidi men, women and children from Sinjar was around 4,000. This was an ISIS ethnic cleansing exercise of a distinct unarmed and spiritually unique sufi-esque population. Remarkable that the Yazidi received such little media coverage.

Mainly men were murdered, an unreported number of women were taken as slaves. Some estimates are as high as 5000 Yazidi dead. By the middle of August Joint Kurdish forces mainly the Syrian YPG and Turkish PKK along with US air support took back mount Sinjar and surrounding area and it still remains under their control.

The YPG took control of Kobani in 2012. Kobani is the administrative centre of Rojava (One of the 3 cantons) It has been subject to sustained attacks from Daesh. In September 2014 ISIS launched a full scale offensive. However in January 2015 YPG, PKK the free Syrian army and Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga with US airstrikes successfully liberated Kobani, 979 ISIS fighters were reportedly killed, however scuffles still persist. During the conflict many refugees fled to Turkey where they had their vehicles and live stock confiscated.

Turkey has a long antagonistic history with the Kurds and did not initially allow the Peshmerga (Iraqi Kurdish military) to cross the border and fight alongside the PYD and PKK. It backed down after significant international pressure and protest. Turkey has been subject to repeated allegations of ISIS support, from buying cheap oil from them, allowing them to export oil over the borders, directly bombing YPG positions and even allowing a market of human organs from ISIS victims.

The US have been supportive of the Rojavans but not the UK. In January 2015 a parliamentary committee asked the government to explain and justify its policy of not working with the Rojava military to combat ISIS. It did not evoke any change in the policy.

Despite everything that is against the Kurds In January 2014 the Rojavan Constitution was published and autonomy from Syria declared.

The influence of Bookchin and Ocalan the ideological leaders of the movement is clear. The Rojavans are attempting to build a radical new democratic, egalitarian and ecological society, without a state. It is a stark contrast and antidote to the violent sectarian despotism that plagues the region. It is concordant with ecosocialism and grounded in real struggle as it applies to their specific situation. They are attempting this whilst simultaneously and successfully fighting ISIS the Assad regime and duly noted interference from Turkey. Furthermore it has potentialities far beyond Rojava.

Where there is barbarism there is ecosocialism.

Solidarity, Solidarity, Solidarity

In hearing of Murray Bookchin's death in 2006 the PKK released this insightful and touching salute to Murray Bookchin

"Bookchin showed the ability to analyze capitalism, which has brought humanity to the point of possible extinction, in great detail; demonstrating that it is the worst of all systems in the history of humanity thereby opening new horizons in the struggle against capitalism. His definition of capitalism, as a cancerous disease effecting humanity and nature, proved without doubt that the struggle for the development of freedom, democracy, and socialism was an obligation and not a matter of choice"

"His contributions to our leader’s thesis on social ecology will always be remembered. To attain the democratic socialism that we envisage, his contributions to the ideas of “confederalism”, his thesis on the state, power and hierarchy will be implemented and realized through our struggle and hence will continue to make its impact"

Bookchin has not died, he will live through his work and through the work of others"

Here it is in full:

“One of the greatest social scientists of the 20th century, Murray Bookchin, has passed away. We extend our condolences to his family and friends together with all those who struggle for freedom and democracy. His thoughts, struggle, and passion for freedom shall continue through the freedom and democracy struggle of humanity.
Murray Bookchin, c. 1989

Bookchin broadened the consciousness of humanity: the ecological consciousness. He introduced us to the thought of social ecology, and for that he will be remembered with gratitude by humanity. Through his thesis a great service has also been provided to humanity to achieve a better understanding of itself

Social ecology is not only a product of ecological consciousness, it is also a philosophical and an ideological method which helped to overcome the shortcomings of socialist theory. Therewith important shortcomings of the 19th and 20th century socialism have been completed.

Bookchin was an intellectual who was militantly devoted to his ideals of freedom, equality and democracy. He will be remembered as an intellectual who has completed his militancy with science. It is precisely this characteristic that enabled him to continuously approach things that are wrong and/or incomplete. Hence he was an intellectual from revolutionary circles who criticized the shortcomings and the errors/mistakes of Marxism as well. Through his critical method he made a great contribution to the ideals of freedom, democracy, and socialism.

He showed the ability to analyze capitalism, which has brought humanity to the point of possible extinction, in great detail; demonstrating that it is the worst of all systems in the history of humanity thereby opening new horizons in the struggle against capitalism. His definition of capitalism, as a cancerous disease effecting humanity and nature, proved without doubt that the struggle for the development of freedom, democracy, and socialism was an obligation and not a matter of choice.

Contrary to those who claim that serious criticism of Marxism and socialism was an attack on Marxism and/or has weakened socialism, we believe that he helped to develop socialist theory in order for it to advance on a firmer basis. Hence socialists owe a lot to Bookchin for the ideas he developed. Despite certain shortcomings of his theoretical thesis and repetitions of ‘real socialism’s’ errors, nothing minimizes the importance of his contribution.

One of Bookchin’s most important findings is that democracy, freedom, and socialism can only be realized in a system outside of the state machine. This may have been said before by others, especially the anarchists; however Bookchin showed how this will become reality and hence opened up new horizons. In order to establish a nonstate formation and democracy, he proposed the concept of ‘confederalism,’ a model that we believe is creative and realizable.

He held a revolutionary theory which says that without a proper analysis of state, power, and hierarchy one cannot struggle for democracy, freedom and socialism. He showed that this was one of the biggest mistakes of Marxism and hence helped to improve our understanding of this issue, in order for socialists not to fall into the same trap in future. Those who hold to the ideals of democracy and socialism should take seriously his analysis and thesis if they want to avoid falling victim to another denomination of oppressive systems.

Bookchin was not only an intellectual but at the same time an organizer and an activist. He has also aspired to practice the important work he had done on ecology and local administration. His contribution to the development of such work around the world through his thesis and efforts are immense.

It is well known that Bookchin went through difficult and adverse periods of struggle throughout his life. The general dogmatic and incorrect approaches of Marxists, together with their intolerance to alternative thinking, impeded Bookchin from expressing himself and those who have freedom, democracy and socialism ideals to benefit much earlier from his thoughts.

Ecological movements not able to detach themselves from the system and being integrated into the system is another factor why the importance of his ideas and actions have not been understood well. The experience of his struggles has shown him how human beings can be integrated simply by the capitalist life style hence keeping them away from the struggle. At the same time his personal experience taught him that not being organized is equivalent to not being able to struggle and thus surrender to the system. And that is why he always focused on the theoretical and practical measures against it.

Bookchin’s theoretical thesis and struggle shall be discussed even more and become a part of the history of freedom in the future. His devotion to the scientific method, his principles and sincerity and morality, which failed to corrupt his mind, are some of his personal characteristics that could be taken as an example.

Bookchin has made his contribution for the 21st century to become the century of socialism. Those who struggle for freedom and democracy will continue to gain strength from his life and morals. His thesis advances the development to freedom, democracy, and socialism more than ever.

The PKK has also learned from Bookchin. His contributions to our leader’s thesis on social ecology will always be remembered. To attain the democratic socialism that we envisage, his contributions to the ideas of “confederalism”, his thesis on the state, power and hierarchy will be implemented and realized through our struggle and hence will continue to make its impact.

We undertake to make Bookchin live in our struggle. We will put this promise into practice this as the first society which establishes a tangible democratic confederalism.

We hope that all social scientists and revolutionaries will attain the characteristics of Bookchin; principles, consciousness, revolutionary moral values, and most of all that they practice this in life.

Bookchin has not died, he will live through his work and through the work of others"
“PKK ASSEMBLY
“August 2006”

In response to the Socialist Party of GB's slur on the Green Party & Ecosocialism.

24/11/2014

33 Comments

Earlier today the Socialist Party of Great Britain published an article on its blog, socialist courier "Eco-Socialism another grand concept with an adjective". It makes some good points about the deleterious effects of capitalism the limits of reformism, quotes Morris and starts with every ecosocialist's favourite green Marx quote:

“From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation, the private property of individuals in the earth will appear just as absurd as the private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth, they are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations, as boni patres familias” [good heads of the household]”

First observation is that the author does not distinguish between the Green Party and Ecosocialism. Such basic an error that the whole article can almost immediately be dismissed.

Ecosocialism is much more than the green party and doesn’t by any means have to include the Green Party. The Ecosocialist movement is, as I have argued elsewhere ‘multi-focal’. It has to be. Time is thin, too many ecological boundaries are being trounced, of which atmospheric carbon is only one. In my view the movement requires a reformist political wing, this is a mitigation strategy. My personal preference and being resident in England is that this is to be the Green Party of England and Wales. We also need a mass movement against climate change and to promote new ways of existing, prefigurative, perhaps moneyless, primitivist, eco-technic or some combination. Something that points the way to that which can exist beyond capitalism.

I will pick out key parts of the critique and address them accordingly.

“Ecological sanity can only come when we recognise that the present economic system of capitalism is a social construct that must be overthrown”

Agreed. However and developing from my earlier point we can’t simply sit back and wait for the overthrow of capitalism to try and limit damages from the efficient cause, that being capitalism.

When is the global capitalist system likely to be overthrown? Is the author able to predict this or at least make an informed guess? The system lets face it, is obscenely resilient. It will for sure be thrown into turmoil as ecological degradation leads to resource wars, salvage economics, food shortages and the like.

The point is we don’t know how long capitalism will last, how many crises it will absorb, new forms it will take (eco-fascism) but we do know that islands in the pacific are disappearing under rising seas now. It has been predicted that an additional 250,000 people will die annually between 2030 and 2050 from conditions caused or exacerbated by climate change.

If there is an argument against the kind of mitigation measures that can be born under reformist projects let’s hear it - please.

The enclosure and commodification of labour is the most important form of enclosure.

I agree, this is concordant with Joel Kovel’s conception and Marxism generally but I don’t see any great merit that leads us to say enclosure of Labour is more important than that of land, other ‘property’ and so on.

Do you not think that a universal citizens income, a green party policy would go some way into freeing labour from capital? I fear already at this stage that the author only think in absolutes, in binary, 'must wait for capitalism to end'

The Green Party and many of its supporters do not recognise that they require a struggle against the capitalist system.

Let’s assume this is true. What would be the detrimental effect? Perhaps that the Green Party of England & Wales will not go on to overthrow the global capitalist system? Do those in the Green Party that do recognise we need to struggle specifically against capitalism think that the party will achieve the overthrow of global capitalism (no)?

Clearly, however well developed an analysis of capitalism is amongst green party members, it does not change the fact that it is a reformist project that may through pressure politics (affecting governing parties) or decision making politics if its growth continues, be able to have some positive impact nationally, both socially and ecologically. This may as a G8 nation extend further afield.

If we acknowledge that a left wing Green Party could make significant improvements within the constraints of capitalism, what is the logic of dismissing it?

Ecosocialism is multi-focal, what is the problem with having a reformist wing. More than one well-considered line of attack can be advanced simultaneously. I repeat, we cannot wait for the overthrow of capitalism, real life working class people are suffering now, ecological limits are being surpassed now.

If you suggest that we simply ignore the Green project or other reformist projects such as Podemos in Spain or Syrizia in Greece, or potential for future eco-socialist coalitions, what project do you advance in its place, that will:

1 Be effective within ecologically imposed time-constraints.

2 Improve the well-being of human and non-humans in the near term.

If the author is not advancing a program that can answer either of these two questions, I believe this brand of socialism, is narrow minded and has little or no practical relevance.

I argue that it is possible to have a well developed analysis of capitalism and be a member of the Green Party fully aware of its limitations. Maybe you will argue that voting changes nothing, but if we are talking about the minimal effort required to support the green project, that is, to turn up to a voting booth twice every decade, why try and turn people against it?

but they seem to have no real conception of what "socialism" might mean. The working class, exploitation, the labour movement, do not figure at all. Neither does collective ownership. Their "socialism" is more a catchphrase for good causes in general than a vision of the democratic transformation of society, by workers, from below. While the Green Party may hold some good socialist members, and present some reforms, it is not a party of socialism and in the end will degenerate into a party that offers bike-lanes and budget cuts. Socialists must challenge green politics showing how ecological issues are of top relevance to the quality of life of working people.

Your point about lacking a conception of what socialism may mean is interesting. Traditionally Marxists have been associated with an acceptance of reformism, to gain improvements for the working class, whilst simulateously being fully aware of its limitations and need to overthrow capitalism. It is in my understanding that it is anarchists that dismiss reformism in its entirety. My point being that labels can be vacuous and your conception of socialism differs from others. Podemos are interesting, clearly reformist socialist but are superficially avoiding much of the traditional terminology.

I may be wrong but i'm not convinced the author is fully aware of many of the GPEW policies or they would have been acknowledged in the article. I'm not going to quote myriad Green Party policies here. One example to make a point.

WR610 We will grant employees the legal right to buy out their companies and turn them into workers co-operatives.

This policy was, like all others, suggested by a member, any member can do this, voted for by all in attendance at conference and accepted. The point being that the Green Party of England & Wales is one of the oldest Green Parties, it is a complex organisation, as is any of its size. It is always a work in progress. If you are in it, you can help create the party you want, just like the member who suggested this policy.

Socialists must challenge green politics showing how ecological issues are of top relevance to the quality of life of working people.

This has been one half of the leading mission of ecosocialists. To make the greens redder and the reds greener. We would not be having this exchange if it were not for the work of ecosocialists. Our efforts are clearly working.

We possibly have one more generation before it is too late. There won’t be any socialists, there won’t be any socialism, when nobody can breathe.

Sobering in the extreme. Ecoscialism or Barbarism indeed. This is precisely why we cannot wait, for capitalism to end and why we need to get behind the ecosocialist movement and push, not rubbish one element of it that resides in reformist politics.

Climate change is real and it’s as urgent as it gets that we make radical changes if we want a future on this planet. The working class have to continue to see ourselves as revolutionary because we are the part of humanity most indispensable for our survival. The Socialist Party viewpoint simply means that, until the working majority sets the rules of the political and economic game, any gains in such battles are provisional and vulnerable to co-option and reversal.

It saddens me to say it, but we the working class, do not see ourselves as revolutionary, indeed the working class are often not even sure what constitutes working class and accordingly whether or not they are even 'it'. Capitalism and consumerism, manufacturing consent, keep the multitude docile chasing trinkets and so on.

We are barely politicised, we are politically apathetic, many working class people in this country are being duped by a school boy fascist, you cannot fight this as a tiny socialist sect. There is much work to be done.

Certainly the unfolding ecocatrosphe will lead to a new class consciousness, this is another initial aim of the ecosocialist movement, to build this consciousness now, embedding ecological awareness with working class awareness.

The author goes on to make many points that I agree with about the limits of reformist politics. To which I can only refer to earlier points I have made.

It's important not to confuse what ecosocialism is and what green parties are. This exchange has certainly reinforced what I have long known to be true. That I am an ecosocialist first and foremost. The label is not so important, I accept that not everyone uses it. John Bellamy Foster for example prefers not to.

The point is that we need to unite, sectarianism has no place in the battles ahead. We need to stand together, put our bodies on the line, marches, occupations, eek out new possibilities for a post-capitalist world. The threat of eco-fascism looms. We have to contribute whatever we can as individuals based on our skills, talents and available resources.

When we view what is ahead as ecosocialists, party associations mean so little. If not in the name of ecosocialism but for what it represents, we must unite.

Best

Martin O’Beirne.

33 Comments

What's going on? The rise of the Greens, Russell Brand, Left Unity, Occupy & Podemos.

22/11/2014

3 Comments

In this series I will attempt to combine news and opinion with some historical and maybe even some philosophical interludes to answer the question 'What's going on?'.

In this entry I will consider Left Unity, its possible future(s) its rather clunky past and its relationship with the Green Party ( see Left Unity & Left Unity) I will look at the most exciting unfolding political development in Europe, the Spanish Party, Podemos, and ask what we can learn from their meteoric rise (See Podemos: We Can - They Did) In addition, to fully address ‘What is going on?’ at least in my political reality right now, I will try and determine how Russell Brand (see Parking the Brandwagon) and the Tarpaulin Revolution fits into the current political landscape of the British left. First to give some context, a moment in 2011 and then a look at the key features of the #Greensurge.

WATERMELONGATE

2011 and infamous climate change denier James Delingpole calls Caroline Lucas a watermelon (red & green) on national TV. This was an intended slur. In response she calmly deflects with “I don’t have a problem with that James”. A group of green party lefties become drunk with possibilities.

James Delingpole authored the Telegraph article ‘climategate’. An exposé, intended to rubbish all of climate science. It received 1.5 million hits. He said in a speech that followed that ‘climategate’ had changed his life and that he felt it would " save western civilisation from the greatest threat it had ever known" He was simultaneously both mocking the threat posed by climate change and referring to the threat posed by the rise of green left politics to the neoliberal hegemony, which he advocates.

In the years that followed Delingpole was discredited on many occasions (see Horizon interview). He continues to deny that scientific consensus has any validity. He wrote a book ‘Watermelons: How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children’s future’. He has since disappeared into obscurity, signing off from his Telegraph blog earlier in the year and bidding farewell to his fans, who he refers to as the knights of Delingpole. He is a self confessed ‘tea partier’ and one could expect that he’ll present in the future as an environmental advisor for UKIP.

The Green Party of England & Wales has had different fortunes since watermelongate; this TV moment that we can now recall with some affection. Caroline Lucas has just won an award for MP of the year. The Party has grown by a staggering 88% since the start of 2014, nearly 60% since the May elections, and now has over 26000 members, with a new person currently signing up every 10 minutes. The Scottish Greens have grown by 450% since the indyref up to approximately 7500. And The Welsh by 120% since the start of the year.

Back in 2011 when Caroline Lucas and James Delingpole were on the TV together, how ‘left’ the Green Party was, or should be perceived as, was a key and pivotal discussion point (neither left or right, just straight ahead, yawn). Now the ‘leftness’ of the greens is a given and it is this more overt leftward shift that is responsible for its rise.

Bizarrely the majority of other European Green Parties have failed to evolve and are too often practicing the politics of dullness and wasted opportunity. Josiah Mortimer reports: Ska Keller “We’re known for the environment – we should start from our core.” She argued that all our policies should come from that, half-joking that we should play on our ‘tree-hugger image’ through our PR.

Faced with the choice between far right anti-immigrationists and neoliberiberal technocrats, there is clearly space for a politics that is both populist and entirely concordant with Green political philosophy.

#GREENSURGE

Galvanising the party, Delivering the Green Message

The new party leader Natalie Bennett has not been encumbered by a seat in Parliament and has been able to focus solely on Leadership duties. She stood to be re-elected earlier in the year and was unopposed. It seems that she has been almost everywhere in England over the past year, galvanising the party and delivering an increasingly resonant social justice/anti-austerity narrative.

This incorporates the best stances that were once, associated with the grey parties; with the Labour Party, a reversal of privatisation or privatisation process of public services, NHS, rail, energy and water, and with the Liberal Democrats, free tuition (No more broken promises). There is also backing for an EU referendum. There is much that is characteristically green; such as the wealth tax, rejection of TTIP (Corporatocracy), an increase in the minimum wage to £10, the introduction of a universal citizen’s income (with far reaching implications) the tobin tax, banking reform with removal of powers of banks to create money, transparency measures to prevent corporate tax avoidance and the cessation of the trident program with an immediate saving of £2.4 billion and £100 billion in total.

I can say all of this, whilst excluding so much, without mention of policies for worker ownership and control and without mentioning that other thing that Greens do. The environment, and I won’t because that’s a given.

There have been so many changes since ‘watermelongate’. Only a matter of months ago, Green party commentary was the preserve of a declining blogosphere (with the exception of Another Angry Voice) and the odd article in the Morning Star. Nowadays, if I pick up a discarded Independent or Guardian there is a good chance that a decent Green Party article will be in it. Online there are many Guardian Blogs and the Huffington Post has proved a reliable source. Open Democracy attracts many Green writers and on Monday of this week there was an article in the Sun (which may not be very pleasing for myriad reasons but still; the Sun) reporting that the Greens are polling at a record high for yougov at 8% and are once again ahead of the Liberal Democrats, a government party.

On Sunday there was an article in the Guardian (“We’re like you – Labour Pitch for Green vote in bid to quell revolt on the left”) and Independent (“The Green Party is a growing threat to Labour - could its surge be the next big political story”) these articles are making it clear that Greens are shifting debate to the Left and posing a threat to Labour who have appointed Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary to prevent the leaks and win back support heading towards the Greens.

Natalie Bennett’s communications and press background has clearly been a significant factor. A Young Green, Josiah Mortimer has also been prolific, having articles published on many green & left wing sites and publications. He is now involved with a rejuvenated Bright Green. I can’t include all here but Georgia Elander is another writer and young green, whose name constantly presents when looking for good quality material. This piece published on tuesday was written from the heart called ‘There’s no need to apologise’ explaining that we must take the leap, even if it means more Tory government in the short term because “taking votes from Labour is not a case of splitting the left-wing vote but of creating one”

Technological Developments, TV Debate Petitions, Social Media, Online Votes, Crowd Funding

The young greens again, radical & left are approaching a 200% increase in members this year and in isolation are one of the fastest growing political groupings in Europe. They are as a group or as individuals, very much at the fore of the development of the new social media infrastructure. I understand the official green party page has now got more ‘likes’ than the Liberal Democrats for example and many discussion groups and local groups are lively.

Using techniques that have been key in the rise of Podemos; the Young Greens have just successfully conducted an online vote for its executive committee, setting a new precedent for e-democracy in this country. We are also seeing the rudimentary uses of crowdfunding, the first was rolled out successfully in Plymouth where 2 candidates are now able to stand and afford the production of various campaign materials.

Enhanced social media is funnelling member talents in a way that I have not seen before. There are some great grassroots collaborations occurring producing increasingly decent campaigns material. As more people get on board, it’s moving on from memes to video clips and even radio. The balance between open creativity, real word constraints (copyright infringements and the like) and quality enhancement seems to be being met with maximum collaboration and with feedback from official party sources. Great news for the cash strapped GPEW who don’t have to pay for these efforts.

Despite the undeniable need to keep developing in the technological sphere, independent media and social networking and transcend the need for establishment outlets, it is the ongoing denial of mainstream coverage and exclusion from the TV debates that has played such a significant role in the #greensurge; An unintended political gift. Whatever happens from now on in, the net effect of exclusion from the election debates has been positive.

To illustrate just how much more attention the Greens now receive, a government e-petition calling for inclusion in the election debates back in March 2013 received only 4385 names. Portia Cock’s petition (which I covered here) in June of this year had 50000 names. Before the big petition sites had taken off I wrote about the need to start lobbying the BBC, whilst I was occupying St Pauls way back in 2011. I think that article was seen at best by 500 people.

Contrast these earlier efforts with the c.270,000 (>1/4 million) strong petition just handed into the BBC by one of two deputy leaders (and more than happy to be called a watermelon) Amelia Womack.

Which Green leader should be put forward for the TV debates?

There is a danger that now the big petition is in, that the green surge will begin to wither. Natalie Bennett is due to appear on the ITV’s Live Leader debates series this coming Monday (26th). In each episode of this series 1 of the main party leaders will appear, taking questions from an audience of young people. The graph below shows membership surges in relation to key political moments. This TV show may create another spike and exert more pressure on the TV channels for Green inclusion in the Election leader debates. ·

Key political moments against member growth.

A controversial suggestion that as by-product may maintain coverage, and accordingly the #Greensurge and acting as a strong statement of intent, is to have an online member vote, to decide who will be the Green Party representative.

It’s Controversial because it could be viewed as a loss of confidence in the Green Party of England and Wales leader. Therein lies a kind of arrogant assumption that I have been guilty of, that the representative for a UK election debate would be from a party representing only England and Wales (although the Welsh wing also has a leader) thus excluding the other UK Green Party leaders: Patrick Harvie & Maggie Chapman, Co-convenors from Scotland and Steven Agnew from Northern Ireland.

In any case, a decision has to be made, and that is most likely going to be made by an executive committee or just amongst the leaders themselves. Natalie Bennett you would assume is most likely to stand and in the default position.

If the definition of ‘Leader’ for ‘Leader debates’ is stretched beyond national determination (beyond that of Scottish co-convenors, Northern Irish leader, and possibly Welsh leader (although that is more cloudy), you could also include Caroline Lucas in the mix, as she is leader of the green parliamentary group. There are then, several ‘leaders’ that could go forward. If an internal, online vote were to happen it would be a good example of how the greens do things differently and a good demonstration of internal democracy.

In any case all of the national party leaders have enough experience and the backing of the most popular policy set to do well, as of course does Caroline Lucas.

Eyes to GE 2020.

This era of membership growth should mean significantly more ‘feet on the ground’ and the development of more rounded local groups. That is to say there are some underdeveloped local groups that act more like chapters of friends of the earth, with narrow focus, objecting to phone masts and the like, not representative of the full gamut of green political philosophy; social, economic and environmental justice.

Despite the many positive developments discussed here, there is a sobering possibility that there will be no Green MPs in 2015 and at this stage reasonably likely that there will be no more than one (It could be argued that if Greens get a chance in the TV debates that Caroline Lucas should go forward as this may secure her Brighton seat) But at this pivot point, if the overwhelming support for Green coverage continues and succeeds that anything up to 4 seats is possible, with most likely breakthrough seats in Norwich & Bristol.

What is certain is that there will be a significant increase in overall vote share and a much stronger foundation for the General Election in 2020. In a poll released on thursday of this week Greens were shown to have more potential support than UKIP, that is to say, despite relative media invisibility, there are signs that this foundation is well under construction already. The poll also implies that this potential support may not be converted into votes as it is largely scuppered by tactical voting due to First Past the Post.

In 2020 the current young green cohort will have had a further 6 years to progress. There is a likely hung parliament ahead, a fragmentation of 2 party politics and further deterioration of validity of the first past the post system, manifold possible coalition combinations and likely overall continuing rightward shift, taking Labour with it.

At this stage there appears to be enough wisdom in the party to be able to absorb new influences without compromise. Time will tell. If Labour fail to shift to the left, and if we have a conservative UKIP coalition in 2015, who could rule out the Greens having to evolve from a place of pressure politics to decision making politics come 2020.

PODEMOS - WE CAN - THEY DID

Podemos Leader Pablo Iglesias

Podemos translates 'we can' and Podomos really 'did' and at pace. It is the second largest Spanish political party by membership and now ahead in the polls, looking like they will win in 2015. For anyone who hasn't yet heard of Podemos, none of this would be particularly remarkable until they were to learn that they are new, so new in fact, that they only formed in January and have only been accepting members since July. It attracted 100,000 members in its first 20 days.

You can never photocopy neatly the success of one party in one country into another. That doesn’t mean you can’t learn from it. It is also difficult to fully understand the conditions or collective consciousness of any country without being fully intimate with it. Spain has its staggering 50% youth unemployment, a generation of angry voices where being apolitical is a luxury the multitude cannot afford. Also the existing 2 party establishment formed after the fall of the Franco dictatorship, still has its roots, its birth, at that point in history.

Since Franco, social movements have persistently felt betrayed by the powers they helped to elect. Podemos then is ‘new’ and represents a kind of post-Franco post-Francoism. It refers to the political/corporate/revolving door establishment as the ‘caste’. It has its roots in the 15M/Indignados movements and was organised as a reformist project of the revolutionary Izquierda Anticapitalista (Anticapitalist Left). Many Spanish academics and celebrities came out in support of the new project, as they did with Left Unity in the UK.

I kept a blog ‘the ecosocialist’ back in 2011 at the time of the 15M movement and had an article mailed to me from a representative. The article was called “The Left at the Abyss of Democracy” It’s interesting reading and provides some insights in to the frustrations of the Spanish people and also insights as to what was to become the Podemos project, 3 years later: Here are some quotes:

“the recognition of the commons, the right to education and free movement”

“The left has taken on board concepts like cuts, reforms or austerity in order to return to economic “normality”. But we have already seen that this crisis is, above all, a crisis of politics as we know it”

“They have not attempted to think through other forms of democracy, other relations to the State or to the social body”

“Had (President Zapetero) understood that current tension between social powers and counter-powers was the condition of possibility of his victory, perhaps he would have tackled the economic crisis in a substantially different way. Perhaps he would not have negotiated with economic and supra-institutional powers such a set of undesirable measures––cuts designed to foreclose any hope in our future—he would not have waited until the last minute to look back at his voters, he would not have needed to trump everything on the fear of the right. Those who Zapatero failed to govern, social counterpowers, the potency for democratic mobilisation that is always latent in society, have regained their shape to say, this is enough!”

That regaining of ‘shape’ those new forms of democracy and other relations of the political body to the social body, that declaration that ‘this is enough’ we know now as Podemos.

Podemos have created a positive and engaging vehicle not quite like a traditional political party. It is very much 'of its time' and this is what other reformist 'lefts' or new lefts in particular have to be guided by.

It describes itself not as party but as a "a citizen’s initiative that aims to build democracy through citizen participation and popular unity". Democracy, participation and transparency are at its core, not just empty words. It wants the workings of the party to be the workings of society. It wants people to be able to participate first and foremost, it achieves participation with free membership and uses the internet and social media to its full. In the words of Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias: "We want to build a political majority that reflects the social majority of Spain."

The emphasis is not on conferences, expensive venues, the hire of hotels to stay for the weekend and so on. Much can be achieved without money and has to be achieved without corporate influence. Political parties around the globe are woefully slow to catch on, perhaps such transparency and participation are a threat to party elites.

You can chart its rise through various social network milestones. In August Podemos already had 442,000 more supporters in Facebook than the "Likes" of the rest of the parties combined and they only formed in January.

It's not only an online entity of course, despite only having a fraction of the campaigns budget as the other parties and virtually no media coverage, It had 5 MEPs elected in May. Since then it has used online crowd funding techniques and raised enough to fund popular assemblies. Crowd funding is important because it keeps contributions down to what people can afford and allows the party to be free of big money corporate influence. Can you perceive of an American political system that kept big money out. A key Podemos focus is anti-corruption leaders constantly condemn 'revolving door’ politics.

Local groups are called circles, hence the circle in the Podomos graphic. Online voting has been used to establish and prioritize its core policies and its developing party structure. This is how it engages, how it empowers and forms its new relations of the party body to the social body. Tens of thousands of people voting from the comfort of their homes. Last month members voted for 5 resolutions. Any member could submit a resolution, 97 were put forward. The approved resolutions were on improving public education (45%), on anti-corruption measures (42%), on the right to housing (38%), on improving public healthcare (31%), and on auditing and re-structuring the debt (23%)

Embracing technology meant that Podemos did not get bogged down in bureaucracy from the beginning. Very different to Left Unity. It has a charismatic anti-politician type figurehead Pablo Iglesias, an MEP since May who has mistakenly been referred to as their leader in the British press over the course of the year. He was in fact only elected as secretary-general in an online poll of party members earlier this week.

He is an interesting character. His grandfather Manuel Iglesias was given the death penalty in the Franco era, though this was not carried out because the accusations against him were proven wrong. He is an honorary professor, with several degrees, covering a range of subjects including politics, law, psychiatry and media. He is 35 years old and has become a regular on Spanish TV over the course of the last decade, even presenting his own show. I don’t think there is an equivalent in the UK, Russell Brand will be discussed later, Owen Jones is closer to the mark navigating brilliantly an anti-establishment narrative whilst counter-intuitively remaining firmly glued to his Labour roots. There are of course many people in the UK that could have broken through to become this kind of political figurehead but the mainstream media here are very selective with who they let slip through the net. Hence the observation that if you cannot infiltrate the already existing you have to transcend it.

Despite his Marxist background (a member of the communist youth) he and Podemos avoid putting Marxism ‘on the tin’ or even Socialism for that matter. In addition he doesn’t suffer from the affliction that many academics suffer; he is able to talk plainly. When asked what the idea behind Podemos is:

“"It's citizens doing politics. If the citizens don't get involved in politics, others will. And that opens the door to them robbing you of democracy, your rights and your wallet."

Outside of the plain speaking & effective PR which side steps much of the old terminology of the left, it is nonetheless clearly a Socialist organisation, with optimum internal democracy. Iglesias has focused on the application of the 128th article of the Spainish constitution:

The entire wealth of the country in its different forms, irrespective of ownership, shall be subordinated to the general interest. Public initiative in economic activity is recognised. Essential resources or services may be reserved by law to the public sector especially in the case of monopolies. Likewise,State intervention in companies may be imposed when the public interest so demands.

Setting a good example the 5 Podemos MEP’s are taking only approximately ¼ of the standard MEP salary. When Iglesias was elected he said:

"We're not going to travel to Brussels in business class. If any lobby group approaches us, we'll make that information public." & "not one of our MEPs will earn more than €1,930, an amount that's three times the minimum wage in Spain". The remainder of the salary goes either to the party or a chosen cause.

The Greens are clearly adapting to the technological advances mastered by Podemos. Also similar to Podemos the Greens are free of the revolving door and don’t have any big corporate donors. They too have refused monies that they could have accepted. Also they don't have whips, anyone can forward a motion and any one individual can openly disagree with policy. Greens are a well established political body, developed over decades, a complex organisation that does'nt have the opportunity to be new again with all the advantages that brings, but they can adapt and they are doing so.

LEFT UNITY & LEFT UNITY

"The anomaly which leaves Britain without a left political alternative – one defending the welfare state, investing for jobs, homes and education, transforming our economy – has to end. For this reason we are calling on people to join the discussion on forming a new party of the left" Film Director Ken Loach March 2013

It’s just possible that a new left party could have formed in the UK around the time of Left Unity and been an equivalent of Podemos. It would have had to have cut the perfect narrative, been slick, been technologically advanced, and had its roots in radical grassroots movements, building from Occupy 2011, and like it or not (policies not personalities) it would have needed to have had some charismatic figureheads.

Left Unity was never going to be this formation. None of the above criteria were met. It cut a negative narrative from its birth. It was formed to be a UKIP of the left, to shift debate to the left and as vehicle for the disenfranchised. It was like it was reluctantly forced in to being, it felt stale, it was defined not by what it was but rather by what it wasn’t . Podemos’ narrative was based on empowerment, it was about more than what had gone before, it was something new. The respective names of the two parties are a case in point.

The prospects of Left Unity have been tied to that of the Green Party, although the Green Party casts a wider net, it is fair to say that the continuing expansion of the greens has dampened the overall impact potential that Left Unity can have. Left Unity reached its membership of around 2000 in quick time. At the time greens were around 13000.* You could say it was ‘game on’ for the left. Left Unity stagnated quickly, holding on to the disenfranchised that it immediately attracted whilst leaking a few back to the Greens, and has since been acting like a kind of holding chamber in need of clomiphene. The greens went on to add a further 13000 to its ranks now at 26000.

At the time of formation we can imagine that there were two possible extreme outcomes for Left Unity: on the one hand a ‘Podemos moment’ a scenario in which it was to quickly ascend and become THE party of the left, surpassing Labour and competing for state power. Although it's hard to imagine that it could ever have achieved this as quickly as Podemos. On the other hand is a scenario that sees Left Unity either quickly disband, disintegrating as it combines a volatile mix of sectarian flavours or becomes a sect that exists only for the education of the left, providing seminars and publications, no electoral ambition, perhaps dismissing reformism, reverting to revolutionary politics, transitional demands and waiting for the right socio-political conditions.

Despite the Podemos moment being missed, if indeed it ever existed, it is impossible to rule out what may happen in the very long term, measurable perhaps in many decades. At such time, its newly founded position, from this weekend’s conference to call itself an ‘ecosocialist’ party will be entirely irrelevant. That is to say the biosphere isn’t going to wait many decades for Left Unity. A future ecosocialist coalition however…

The development of the Greens, who are clearly shifting debate to the left, starting to alter the political landscape, and now no longer a perceived empty space on the left for Left Unity to fill, requires that it has to adapt. Greens were not on Left Unity's radar initially, 'green blindspot' and focus was on Labour. Now however things have changed. A new focus could bifurcate in to:

1. A subordinate role to the Green Party, acknowledging that it is they that have the opportunity to achieve what it itself was formed to do: Shift debate to the left. Will not stand candidates where the Greens are standing and if there are isolated pockets where greens are weak it will play a supportive role. The focus is only ever based on discrete local areas. A pressure group, a unifying presence that may put forward its own members to stand only if absolutely necessary.

2. More optimistic, to keep its focus on Labour, and national, you can’t shift the debate to the left with a focus on a few local areas, the above approach therefore has no merit. There is a plan to grow over the medium term and gain seats in Westminster and surpass the Greens.

In reality there may be some middle way & there are signs in places like Wigan, that Left Unity could become a vehicle not 'for Left Unity’ but for ‘achieving Left Unity’ amongst the smaller groups and Greens. If this occurs along ecosocialist lines then we should be taking note.

If we are truly strategic & reductionist we could argue that Left Unity have an opportunity right now to achieve what it originally set out to do. This would involve disbanding and as many members that see fit joining the Greens. The publicity and influx of new members into the Greens would arguably fulfil Left Unity’s mission. Cementing what is already occurring, shifting debate further to the left and strengthening the Green party. This would be a grand statement of its name sake ‘Left Unity’, and would prevent any splitting of the left vote in the future ( A distraction the political reformist wing of the ecosocialist movement cannot afford)

But that’s not going to happen is unrealistic, there are too many vested interests and historical associations now, and I don’t think it should. Yet. Left Unity may have a role to play in providing what the Greens are not always able to on a local level at this stage. They may have a role to play in the future in keeping the Greens ‘honest’.

We all have to hope that both groups can cooperate in the spirit of the greater Green left movement, acknowledging it is more important than individual parties and egos. Greens are expecting to stand in about 75% of constituencies for GE 2015. Many Left Unity members will vote green. At least I would hope they would. It is expected that only 12 LU candidates will stand in 2015.

The collaboration in parliament of Caroline Lucas, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn amongst others show that the ‘Party’ isn’t everything and this will become more the case as we head toward a new era of politics that is about much more than 2 (or 3) parties. Maybe one day we will see a Syriza type, ecosocialist coalition in this country, 'Ecosocialists Unite' but only if we can move away from viewing support for parties like support for a football team.

PARKING THE BRANDWAGON

"Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and their politicians as a joke." —Will Rogers (said some time before 1935)

Although Russell Brand had a few articles published here and there, and was around the activist scene for a while, and did great work for drug reform, he only really 'arrived' late last year, when he edited a special edition of the New Statesman and then of course that Jeremy Paxman interview which now has approaching 11 million hits on youtube.

If we were to take a slightly awkward social networking determinist view, we would conclude that he is now one of the most influential political figures in the world. He has 8.59 million twitter followers. David Cameron a measly 846k and Ed Milliband 358k. If we try to extend the limits as far as possible as to what constitutes a political figure, we could include Leonardo DiCaprio for his climate speeches at 11.5 million but that's stretching the definition too thinly. If we accept that Russell Brand is a genuine political figure now, he is in fact, based on this line of enquiry, which is obviously a bit daft, second only to Barack Obama. Both of whom are trumped by Russell Brands ex Katy Perry and Justin Bieber.

So what happens to a movement when an A-List celebrity infiltrates the mainstream media and talks quite a lot of sense, the kind of sense we are only used to seeing within the confines of relatively small echo chambers?

A lot of people become confused.

Perhaps some remember the radio pranks that went wrong, or were never that taken with Russell Brand as an actor or stand up, or that american talk show and dismiss his opinion. Others may find a level: 'he's a narcissist, but he's our narcissist'. Others are less concerned with whoever the hell he is and actually focus on what he is saying, dismissing him because of the no vote thing, or ask who's revolution is it - ours or his? Some are perhaps a little bit awe struck, personality cult, whatever he says is pretty great.

I think now, over a year after the first newsnight interview, it is a good time to begin to park the brandwagon, that is to say we now know how it fits in to the political landscape.

I see Russell Brand move into politics as a mixed blessing, a nessesary one and one where the positives far outweigh the negatives. In addition I think that a breakthrough like this was both inevitable and would only happen if it were a mixed blessing. I think it was inevitable because the collective consciousness of a need for major change 'revolution', however you interpret the word, is augmenting and is inevitably going to manifest as it's tentacles multiply, grow larger and penetrate new arenas.

Based on my personal experience, I also think its no surprise that it was someone like Russell who grew up, working class in the 90s. That is to say he reminds me of people I knew, creative peoples, organic intellectuals, not politicized by Das Kapital, but by a mix of eastern philosophy, Zen for me, and by subversive pop culture. A generation who started primary school when a break down in the family unit seemed like a tragedy but by the the time they finished school it was odd if parents were not yet divorced. It was the trainspotting generation; think of the dissilusionment with the 9-5, lame consumerism, nihilism and inevitable solution (kind of) as posed by the character Renton:

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suit on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?

Or a bewildered 17 year old, watching his mates dissapear into the abyss (I did angst)

A million crushed skulls of suckling infants who's tears come not with deprivation but with insanity and muted breath and dig deep with powdered talons

Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club

I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables, slaves with white collars, advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history man, no purpose or place, we have no Great war, no Great depression, our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives, we've all been raised by television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars, but we won't and we're slowly learning that fact. and we're very very pissed off.

Or the Wachowski brothers, where human beings themselves become the means of production (batteries) and their reality is an illusion designed to keep them subdued. The male lead character, Neo is the 'chosen one'

"You are a slave Neo, like everyone else you were born in to bondage"

"You have to understand most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many of them are so inert so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it"

To me Russell Brand represents much of the anguish, pains, confusion and hopes, intelligence and creativity of that cohort of that, of my, generation. I also see a person who knows suffering and as much as anyone is on his own journey to find peace and to contribute and be accepted.

I say a mixed blessing and inevitable that it would be as such, because in our plastic anglo/american culture it would only be someone, that could prospectively be dismissed by the establishment that would be able to break through on a radical platform. The zapatistas don't get much airtime. If you lurch in to a more conspirational line of enquiry you could argue that this is by design, that these ideas have deliberately been allowed to funnell through a character, a kind of discrete revolutionary commodity that could be dismissed hence nullifying the threat to the establishment. I don't think that some intelligence agency that monitors the collective consciousness has set this up though. That's daft and ill judged.

What is more likely is that it is a mutally exploitative relationship. Russell Brand means ratings, hits and views. In turn he has an opportunity that we don't have to raise radical ideas with a mainstream audience. It's cat and mouse. He will simultaneously be 'type cast'. The second installment of news night interviews had a huge backdrop of that comedy red brand/che image. In the first he was told by the producers to talk about his history of no voting and Jeremy Paxman, increasingly lost for words, repeated it several times to discredit him.

If he were to simply have said, yep I vote for the Green Party, its doubtful that he could have developed this niche platform. I don't agree with the no voting thing, reformist politics has a place but I agree we need to develop spaces outside of the state, but its not that simple and in itself is a line of enquiry that can lead to dissilusionment. I live off-grid on a solar powered boat for example, the boat is called 'prefiguration'. In the absence of a Zapatista style movement in the UK, this was the next best thing.

Outside of the vote boycot and ideas tied to eastern philosophies, i.e. the elements that were his 'in' what remains is straightforward progressive, green politics; creative direct action, Saving the NHS, challenging corporate power, and dealing with ever increasing inequality.

So in summary I do cringe at a book called 'Revolution' with a picture of a celebrity's face on, released just in time for christmas. Who's revolution? does seem a reasonable reply, but these are the terms of engagement in this culture and if this is creating debate and delivering progressive ideas to new arenas surely the net effect is positive. Russell Brand is clearly aware of the games and is uniquely placed to be able to compete. The Trews is really popular and that response to the Parklife jibes was great.

Verbal dexterity plus estuary accent is what leads to the parody of PARKLIFE. but words used efficently can be a dangerous tool that slices through propaganda like a SHARP KNIFE we can’t get our heads around the fact that five families have as much dough as 12 million Brits, that can’t be right in any accent CLASS STRIFE You can’t be polysyllabic or talk about important things unless you went to school in a top hat and tails ETON I suppose we could just distract ourselves with trinkets from companies that exploit our resources and don't pay their taxes - STARBUCKS...........

The first person I spoke to when I was at Occupy Parliament Square said they were there because they had been following Russell Brand, there was no hero worship its just that Russell Brand is a popular outlet. It does'nt deny agency as some critics suggest. It is effective 'bridge politics'

Occupy Democracy #TarpaulinRevolution

At the first outing for Occupy Democracy last month, some Occupy veterans were pretty cynical "What does Occupy Democracy even mean?". I would say that it means that the movement is being reborn and reshaping, get behind it and allow it to evolve.

The best thing about these movements, in particular occupations is that it opens a space for the discussion of radical ideas and new initiatives. Occupy university in 2011 was great for this. We have already discussed how Podemos had its roots in the 15M movement also in 2011.

Political party involvment in grassroots movements is always an awkward issue, Ken Loach spoke on behalf of left unity and creative direct action is in the DNA of Green politics. Green Party politicians attended, Caroline Molloy from our NHS, all the leaders and I understand that on the back of networking, deputy leader Amelia Womack is now involved in the birth of a new radio show.

New faces always emerge with a surge in protest. Green party activists were amongst those arrested, including uber proactive Pete Kennedy who is producing very popular propoganda and also Michael Holt who was interviewed by the artist taxi driver.

I asked Pete Kennedy to summarize what Occupy means to him:

The Occupy Movement is the physical manifestation of our objection to a political and economic regime that is causing destruction and misery across Britain and the World. It's a non-violent shock and awe campaign against the state, who at times outnumbered protestors with police by three-to-one, in an attempt to harass, intimidate and forcibly remove us from the square. Occupy Democracy found a tickly weak spot in the Establishment narrative - a peaceful, non-violent protest of pro-democracy ideas that laid bare the simple truth: Democracy has failed in Britain, and the State will go to all ends to stamp it out.

As I write Parliament square is being re-occupied. (Live stream here) There have already been arrests. This is immediately following the largest student protests since 2010, bringing 10000 to the capital. The tarpaulin revolution was not part of a global Occupy movement as in 2011 but we are clearly on the cusp of a new wave of protest.

Certainly if the current ideological socio-economic conditions continue, and if there is some kind of right wing coalition government ahead, protest movements and progressive politics have the potential to surpass anything seen here in the UK for decades.

Which is a nice place to end this article.

If you stayed with me to the end - Thank you
Please like and tweet or leave comments below.

3 Comments

The Nurses Fight Back: RCN overwhelmingly rejects NHS shock Doctrine #TTIP

24/6/2014

4 Comments

It's customary to refer to NHS privatization with a time-scale appendage e.g. ‘slow motion privatisation’ ‘creeping privatisation’ ‘step wise privatisation’. This makes the process sound ominous but not entirely inevitable. It provides a reflective pause, a sense that if we play our cards in the right way, there still remains discrete moments of opportunity en-route, to either slow down or reverse what has been or will be done.

TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) would be NHS privatisation on amphetamine, a 360 degree plan and once allowed in, would close the door in on itself and throw away the key.

TTIP talks have been alarmingly secretive and it’s about much more than trade. There are not really major trade barriers between the US and EU, some tariffs that could be reduced maybe.

What it boils down to is a corporate wish list for access to untapped markets and the attenuation of standards, regulations and access rights, many of which have been fought for over many decades: workers rights, food standards, financial regulations, healthcare services and so on. In short anything that is prohibitive to profit could face the chop.

One part in particular is of great concern, the toxic 'investor-state dispute settlement' (ISDS) which allows big corporations to throw their toys out of the pram if they don't get what they want and accordingly sue governments. There are numerous examples from numerous countries where this kind of mechanism exists and has been enacted.

An example from the health sector has occurred in Poland. The Polish government was sued under the ‘Netherlands-Poland investment protection treaty by a multinational investor in health insurance (Eureko) to the tune of €1.8billion, including a commitment for further privatization of the formerly government owned health insurance company PZU. The government's crime was to stand in the way of Euroko’s profit making potential by refusing to float shares of PZU on the stock exchange.

More - TTIP also envisions the establishment of a 'Regulatory Cooperation Council'. Big Business has been lobbying for this for years. It basically means that corporations can 'nip in the bud' government policy, stuff that would potentially be a corporate inconvenience would never progress past the proposal stage. If it did then there is the previously mentioned 'investor-state dispute settlement'. A thorough 'stitch-up'

The NHS is a world renown symbol, an institution that represents such notions as people over profit, cooperation over corporations. A thorn in the cold heart of neoliberalism. TTIP would signal the beginning of a rapid shift, a corporate power grab and the realization of neoliberal shock doctrine; the progeny of those no longer living; Friedman, Pinochet and his loyal colleague in arms Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher got the ball rolling with the NHS when the community care act came into fruition in 1990. Labour and Conservative governments are complicit in the gradual movement and developments thus far. We now stand at the precipice, with TTIP, a race to the bottom.

Researching the current conservative PM's contribution makes for painful reading. He said in the Mail in April:

"So many of us have been there. You're in the waiting room as your child goes into the operating theatre. The minutes feel like hours, and the hours go on forever. As you wait for news, a nurse comes to put your mind at rest, reassuring you that your child is in the best possible hands. And in that moment you feel overwhelming gratitude towards our National Health Service."

The thrust of the coalition governments ‘Health and Social Care Act’. (To quote from the corporate dictionary’) is to ‘harmonise’ the UK with the US health system. “Harmonise” (Allowing American corporations to compete for NHS contracts)

TTIP adds the muscle to the bones as it were. There is a risk that if ISDS were applied to the NHS, that repealing the Health and Social Care Act would be deemed to be in breach of the free-trade agreement. It would be set in stone.

Although any current talk of a move toward “harmony” between the US health system and the NHS doesn’t come at a particularly good time for the free marketeers; given that the NHS has just been declared the world's best healthcare system by the Washington-based Commonwealth Fund, and the US the worst.

Current talk however, there has been. The right wing think tank ‘Reform’ have released a report regarding the benefits of moving the UK health system in the direction of the US system. Incidentally David Cameron’s chief health advisor Nick Seddon, a private healthcare advocate, was a chief lobbyist for Reform before walking the corridors at no 10. In itself a cause for enormous concern.

Despite his sweet sweet words regarding the NHS, David Cameron has said of TTIP that :

“It is a once in a lifetime prize”

When asked in the house of commons if the NHS would be excluded from TTIP he gave a ‘political’ response:

“I am not aware of a specific exemption for any particular area, but I think that the health service would be treated in the same way in relation to EU-US negotiations as it is in relation to EU rules”

Being ‘not aware’ has little relation to not actively pursuing an exclusion and besides, one should really do one's homework on such issues.

Furthermore, with Cameron in NHS spin salesman mode:

“We should not be frightened of our NHS being a great British success story, parts of which can be exported to the rest of the world"

Nick Clegg openly supported TTIP in the European Union TV debates and has not spoken of an exclusion for the NHS. Shadow secretary of state for Health, Andy Burnham has been clear in his stance that the NHS should be protected from the treaty, but outside of the NHS labour have not opposed TTIP. It is UKIP policy to put the NHS out to tender, and the Green Party are opposed to TTIP in its entirety. Caroline Lucas tabled an early day motion to that effect in November of last year.

The good news is that the fight against TTIP is taking off.

The Royal College of Nurses are leading the way with the fight back to protect the NHS: Gay Lee, of the Inner South East London branch proposed the following resolution to congress:

“That this meeting of RCN Congress urges Council to lobby against the inclusion of health services in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)”

Gay said:

“If health is not excluded, then it could be traded in the same way as baked beans or energy - The NHS is not about making money but about putting patients first. That’s what we all love about it.”

John Hill of the Scunthorpe branch said:

“I would suggest that a couple of months ago the vast majority of you would never have heard of TTIP. But this is one of the biggest threats to the NHS that there has been”

Calling for increased openness in the way TTIP is being negotiated, RCN Deputy President Cecilia Anim said:

“This needs to be done in an open and transparent way with full public engagement. There have to be red lines that can’t be crossed - and the NHS is one of those red lines. TTIP will have wider irreversible implications for all of us in our working lives. We’re being kept in the dark and we have to stop it”

The resolution unsurprisingly was passed with overwhelming support. 97.16% (461) For
Against: 2.84% (13) and 14 abstained.

Its not quite 100%. There will always be ‘outliers’ As is reflected by the London nurse Andy Mcgovern who made the papers yesterday having proposed a £10 fee for GP visits (A suggestion that was overwhelmingly defeated) There will always be these moments where founding principles of the NHS need to be defended, in this case free access at the point of use.

A national day of action looks to have good support for July 12th, uniting activists, unions, environmentalists, health campaigners, food campaigners etc. A convergence representing the vastness of the power shift that TTIP represents.

There are no signs that public support is dipping for the NHS, despite the constant ideological heckling it receives in the Murdoch papers. The report by the Washington based commonwealth fund that places the NHS as the best healthcare provider in the world is a great and much needed tonic, for both service users and workers. It is also a much needed lift as the next big fight, the fight against TTIP gets underway.

Related Articles:

Pssst - They don't want us to, but it really is time we talked TTIP (aka dances with corporotocracy)

A version of this article was first published at Open Democracy/Our NHS

4 Comments

Whilst Labour alienates the young and the left, the Green Party becomes increasingly relevant.

20/6/2014

8 Comments

Ed Miliband digging a hole

The political question of the week is 'what is the purpose of Ed Miliband?'. His posing with the Sun and capitulation to puppet master Murdoch was a propagandist's dream.

The image in all its photoshopped glory will make many outings over the coming year, with the Sun newspaper being exchanged with whatever topical item is required to mock Labour with. If Ed does not have a radar for such things, does he not have advisors that well.....advise?

As cringeworthy as party politics is, with emphasis on personal popularity over policy, it is noted that his has plummeted to a level, you may not have thought possible.

In the latest Guardian ICM poll the Labour leader's satisfaction rating slipped from -25 to -39 and deputy Prime Minister Clegg slips to -37. In other words, Ed is behind Nick Clegg, who has himself faced calls from his own members to step down.

Yesterday's news of the Labour assault on the young has been genuinely shocking. Their latest plan is to revoke JSA for 18-21 year olds in exchange for a kind of imposed Labour. Why target this demographic with so much stacked against them already?

The coalition government have produced a massive increase in long term youth unemployment. 57% since 2010. There are several deep-rooted causes, all of which serve up on a plate, an opportunity for an opposition Labour party to be........opposing. What we have seen instead is yet another corroboration of the Tory austerity narrative.

We know that the financial crisis was caused by greed and de-regulated banking. We know that the response is one of ideology not real solutions. We know that the Tories' narrative that the national debt was caused by Labour overspending is a diversion. We know that both the Tories and Labour contributed to the financial crisis by taking the brakes off the bankers.

In response, what we expect is a Labour opposition to offer contrast to the Tories, not be more Tory than them.

Labour members are leaving. One now ex-member posted this yesterday, in an article entitled 'Why I am tearing up my party card'

I cannot be a member of a party that accepts the dominant narrative of looking down on the poor, of looking down on certain jobs, of sanctioning the most vulnerable. This is why today I am leaving the labour party, the conversation it is having is one that does not include me.

Whilst labour are alienating the young and the left, the greens become increasingly relevant. Polling neck and neck with a government party for the next general election, a party they displaced on May 22nd, and receiving relatively high votes in the under 30's age group.

Membership is rising and retention is historically very good. Once people are in they tend to stay, perhaps as a consequence of the manner in which the party embraces internal democracy. There is also a large cohort of under 30's (Co-chair of the young greens Siobhan MacMahon informs me that about 1/4 of the party is a member of the Young Green group). A party that appeals to young people and is itself full of young people.

Siobhan MacMahon said yesterday:

"This latest lurch to the right by Ed Miliband just shows how discredited the Labour party has become - inflicting yet more pain on a generation already struggling with a housing crisis, youth unemployment, low wages and tuition fees which Labour introduced.

"Young people need social housing, decent jobs and a Living Wage - not benefit cuts which only punish the most vulnerable for a crisis they didn't create. The Greens would deal with the deficit by ending the enormous subsidies to rail profiteers, scrapping Trident, ending costly state surveillance of citizens, and taxing the rich properly.

"The solution isn't to go after an already jilted generation by abolishing Job Seekers Allowance but to create hope for a demographic that has been betrayed by the three main parties through creeping privatisation of education, higher tuition fees, benefit cuts and falling wages.

"Ed Miliband has slapped his young voters in the face. With that, the Greens will continue to provide a progressive alternative to the failed austerity consensus that has gripped mainstream political leaders."

And finally, in response with reference to Saturday's People's Assembly, Romayne Phoenix, Green Party Spokesperson on Welfare and Co-Chair of the People's Assembly, said:

"Today’s announcement has confirmed what we already knew: the Labour hierarchy plans to continue with the Tories’ macho approach to welfare – inflicting yet more pain on the lives of those who should be supported rather than stigmatised by the state.

“Young people leave school or college looking for work and keen to start their career are not only being faced with a shortage of decent jobs, they’re being told they’re going to be punished for this government’s failure to invest in their future.

“We need a completely new approach – one that reshapes the economy and our welfare system so that it puts people first. That’s why thousands of people will be joining together this Saturday under the banner of the People’s Assembly, marching to Westminster in a mass-call for an end to austerity. Join us and together we can create a brighter, fairer future."

8 Comments

<<Previous

WATERMELONGATE

#GREENSURGE

PODEMOS - WE CAN - THEY DID

LEFT UNITY & LEFT UNITY

PARKING THE BRANDWAGON

Occupy Democracy #TarpaulinRevolution

Author