watermelon
Conference
Newsletter of Green Left Autumn 2024
United
Against Racism and Fascism: A Call for Solidarity with Palestine by Mohamed Miah (Muslim Green)
The Palestinian people have endured decades of
suffering, and it is our duty to stand with them. This is not about extremism
or hatred; it is about defending universal human rights. Those who seek to
delegitimise support for Palestine are attempting to silence legitimate
grievances, and we must not allow this to happen. Our stance on Palestine
should be clear: we stand for justice, dignity, and freedom for all people.
The recent riots and the rise of
nationalism are symptoms of a broader issue. These movements thrive on
division, fear, and hatred, exploiting economic and social anxieties to drive
their agendas. In this context, our role as Greens is crucial. We must work
with anti-fascist and anti-racist groups to build a society that is inclusive
and just.
Our history of partnership with progressive movements is our strength. Whether advocating for climate justice, LGBTQ+ rights, or fighting against austerity, we have always known that unity is essential. Now, more than ever, we must embrace this spirit of partnership. By co-operating, we can counteract the toxic narratives that fuel hate and division.
Building a welcoming society is at the heart of our efforts. This goes beyond words and requires concrete actions to ensure that everyone, especially the marginalised, feels valued and included. Supporting Palestine is part of this effort. It signals that we will not stand by while oppression continues. We believe in the universality of human rights and will fight for them in our communities and across the world.
As Greens, we are uniquely positioned to lead this struggle. Our commitment to justice and human rights is unmatched, but we must recognise that we cannot do this alone. We need alliances with other progressive movements and must support those on the front lines.
The current state of my country is appalling, the anger I feel cannot be understated, and the shoddy, disunited, factionalist state of the left-wing is not prepared to combat the rise in far-right ideology. Disunited, angry at each-other, bickering over century old arguments when workers on our streets are being assaulted. It simply cannot stay this way The average person who holds progressive, left-wing values does not care about historical arguments, or ideological splits. I have seen riots, looting, and the hate and vitriol some people hold. While they flock to Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage, the Left of this country bickers and struggles.
There is strength in numbers and greater strength in unity. In my city specifically, the people remember Socialism fondly and support what it stood for. Socialism saved and protected this city from Rightist thugs before, now we need to give it the chance to do so for the whole country. The people don't know what options they have, because the segmentation of the left wing means no one movement is national. A lack of education means people know not how many liberties that union action brought them, yet they cheer and beep as they drive past striking workers. That is the heartbeat of Working Britain, and that is what needs a united representation. It took until this most recent election for the Greens to field candidates in every constituency, and they have existed for decades. Through cooperative action and mutual respect, the greatest barrier to that strength can be easily removed.
The people need to be shown there's an alternative which will stand up for them. You cannot appease fascism. The U.K. needs to follow in France's footsteps. Unite before this reactionary force gets even further out of hand and build a cohesive movement.
This message is one of many, calling on a broad selection of groups, with a wide variety of ideologies, I am asking them to put aside those differences, and join in a United Front. I hope that Green Left will be a part of it.
I have made a petition. If Green Left agrees, please sign it, and note that it is on behalf of your group https://chng.it/xqmFccgxPj or, continue a dialogue here and make your support known. I am happy to discuss this at as much length as necessary. Thank you for reading.
THE BDS CAMPAIGN HELPS TO END ISRAEL'S
SETTLER-COLONIAL APARTHEID REGIME: LET’S ESCALATE OUR ACTION Les
Levidow
The West’s masks have dropped
According to the West’s dominant narrative, the persistent violence arises from ‘the Israel-Palestine conflict’, which must be somehow deconflicted. The supposed means include peace negotiations and perhaps eventually ‘a two-state solution’, featuring an independent Palestinian state.
In reality, ‘the Israel-Palestine conflict’ was always a euphemism for the basic problem. Namely, the Israeli settler-colonial regime has been pursuing the original Zionist aim to establish a racist, exclusively Jewish ethno-state in all of historic Palestine. This vision was modelled after white-supremacist European settler-colonial projects. They dispossessed, massacred and expelled the indigenous people, e.g. in North America, South Africa and Australia. Meanwhile they justified their terror as self-defence against the indigenous people.
Western regimes have likewise whitewashed Israeli state terror. They have supported the Israeli regime to counter regional forces that might resist imperialist control. Remember Joe Biden saying: "If there were not an Israel, we'd have to invent one”,
For these reasons, the
Western politicians has deployed a ‘two-state’ narrative as a long-term alibi
for supporting Israel’s colonization of Palestine. As this mask drops, more people have been
demanding an end to Western complicity.
Hence the popular slogan: “Keir Starmer, you can’t hide. We charge you with genocide.”
BDS weakens Israel’s international support
As the major obstacle to peace and justice there, the Israeli regime has been propped up by wealthy Western countries. This was the diagnosis of many Palestinian civil society groups when issuing their 2005 call for a campaign of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)
The campaign has aimed
‘to end international support for Israel’s regime of settler colonialism and
apartheid’. The call asked us to
undermine all support (economic, military, cultural, academic) for Israel in
whatever country we live. This call
marked a strategic shift from simply protesting against Israel, which easily
ignores international protest.
As demanded by the BDS call, Israel’s compliance with international law would require total withdrawal from the territories illegally occupied in 1967. This would mean the end of its settler-colonial regime, as well understood by Israel’s Western supporters.
So, they protect the regime through the Palestine Exception in several ways. In particular, Western regimes maintain their partnership with the Israeli arms industry, exempt Israel from international law, and exempt anti-Israel expression from free speech through false allegations of antisemitism. To support Palestine means to fight the Palestine Exception on several fronts.
GPEW’s pro-BDS role more prominent
In 2008 and again 2014, Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW) conferences passed motions reiterating ‘our calls on the UN, the EU and the US government to ensure that Israel complies with international law’; and supporting these calls ‘by active participation in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign’.
Over the past decade, some exemplary GPEW Councillors have promoted Local Authority divestment from funds complicit with Israel. For example, Councillors Pat Cleary and Jo Bird in Merseyside. However, such motions have lacked support from Labour Party Councillors and thus lacked a majority vote.
In the July 2024 general election, millions of people voted for pro-Palestine, Left-wing candidates. The GPEW had an electoral campaign in only 4 seats, yet its vote rose nearly everywhere, partly thanks to its pro-BDS stance, Labour Party politicians are under pressure on divestment, so we now have greater opportunities to push them. We need more GPEW Councillors to initiate such motions in all Local Authorities. Members should demand that they do so.
Weakening economic support for Israel
Since last year, more campaigns for Local Authority divestment have arisen and expanded globally. Some campaigns have gained greater force through trade union activists. Here they have a new network, Rank & File Trade Unionists for Divestment from Israel,
For a long time, the BDS campaign has targeted the arms trade but made no practical difference to governments’ partnership with Israel. By contrast, Palestine Action activists have blockaded and sabotaged complicit arms factories in Britain. They have shut down Elbit Systems at several sites, These efforts need our support.
The global impetus for sanctions has become stronger. In some countries, such as South Africa and Australia, pro-Palestine protest has led dockworkers to block ships carrying supplies to Israel. Some governments have imposed their own sanctions. Colombia has blocked coal exports to Israel, Turkey has blocked all import-export transactions with Israel, this blockage has especially hurt Israel’s motorcar sector.
For several decades, Israel has benefited from its global image as a high-tech economy, which now is in decline. In June the US company Intel halted the expansion of a major microchip project in Israel and abandoned plans for another site there,
Together those pressures on Israel have weakened its economy. The country has undergone mass emigration (especially tech workers), materials shortages, lower foreign investment and greater budget deficits. The hype of Israel’s “startup nation” has turned into #Shutdownnation, now a popular hashtag. On Israel’s 76th Independence Day, Haaretz published an editorial with the headline, “Will Israel survive to celebrate 100 years?”
For specific actions,
join Greens4Palestine (how?) See the GPEW BDS Group, https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=green%20party%20bds%20group
For national actions
and local branches, see https://palestinecampaign.org/
Let’s
escalate: Yalla BDS!
References
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/neoconopticon-report.pdf
https://www.instagram.com/rank.and.file.tu/ https://www.instagram.com/actionpalestine
https://www.mining-technology.com/news/colombia-bans-coal-exports/
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/03/business/turkey-halts-israel-trade-gaza/index.html
https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/s1jpfxryc
https://mondoweiss.net/2024/07/the-end-of-israels-economy/
Support
the motion on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Recognition of Israeli “Apartheid”
& “Genocide”
👉 Link to the motion: https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/2024-autumn-conference-agenda-forum/post/post/view?id=14301
Yet the GPEW was not the only outsider political grouping to alter the British electoral status quo in 2024. Reform gained five seats, there are five independents elected on concerns over the Gaza war, and Jeremy Corbyn was also elected as independent/dissident ex-Labour. To what extent do these MP’s owe their elections to similar strategies to the four GPEW MP’s? Or did other political concerns matter; such as unprecedented disillusion with Tory politics and cynicism about Labour’s ability to offer change?
The GPEW’s strategy seems successful so far in mobilising those who have already decided to support and/or join GPEW, but is it reaching out to those who might share GPEW’s aims, if they knew more about them, or understood them better?
Some GPEW members and groups have been disappointed by its lack of visible presence at demonstrations, festivals and conferences. Some have criticised GPEW for overemphasis on ‘electoralism’ and some voice concerns that this is bringing with it over centralisation of the party at the cost of the internal democracy which it often proudly proclaims.
Recent communications from GPEW strategists understandably seem to want to repeat and expand the winning electoral formula that has quadrupled the number of MP’s. Is it safe assume that this will always work when there are indications that old patterns of British politics are changing?
Authors Peter Murry with assistance from Jay Ginn
HOW SHOULD A DEMOCRATIC PARTY MAKE POLICY? Peter
Allen
Writing before the publication of the Final Agenda I don’t yet know whether the motion I have proposed, on the Global Climate and Ecological Emergency, will be debated at Conference. If it Is then it will have received among the most votes in the recently completed Prioritisation Ballot, where members were invited to rank 31 E motions. In any event it won’t be debated until Sunday morning, or during the last couple of hours of Conference, with many participants leaving or having already left.
C Motions,
which are those ‘accredited’ by Policy Committee, will have been debated on
Saturday. This may be reasonable but means, in practice, that they have been
through a lengthy process, probably involving perusal/dissection (call it what
you will) by the self-appointed members of the relevant policy working
group(s). Not conducive to a member/ member having an idea for a motion in the
middle of (say) March or April.
When I was previously active in the party, I was involved in an effort to improve Conference Democracy. In my absence and more than a little helped by Covid I think, this has led to online participation at Conference (entirely a good thing imo) but doesn’t resolve the problem of trying to make policy in the tiny amount of time available.
To use ‘my’ motion as an example (E18): If it scores highly in the Prioritisation Ballot, the (at most) 20 minutes that will be allowed to debate it on Sunday, probably doesn’t do it justice, whether one agrees with its sentiment or not. Perhaps Annual Conference, where so much else of interest goes on, is not the place to make policy. But how else to do it?
I intend to stand for the post of International Co-ordinator next year (this year’s elections having been postponed because of the GE) using the motion and the supporting document which accompanies it as the basis of my ‘manifesto’. It shouldn’t however be necessary to stand for office in order to present an argument ‘from the floor’ so to speak.
GREENS TO
GO THE CO-OPERATIVE WAY
Nicole
Haydock North East Wales Green Party
Manchester is where the first
British Utopian Socialist Robert Owen (1711- 1858) founded the Co-operative
Movement. Owen believed that if a community shared everything and made
communal decisions democratically, they could create a utopia. Co-operatives
are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality,
equity, and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members
believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and
caring for others and the promotion of equality.
In legal terms, The Green Party of England and Wales is akin to a cycling club or a residents’ association. It has no legal rights. In practice, it means that it cannot start legal action to defend itself – although legal action can and has been taken against the party as evidenced recently. It also cannot borrow money, nor can it hold properties or enter contracts in its name. Worse still, all legal and financial responsibilities lie with elected individual members of the Executive or any other “agent” of the party.
In December 2023 members of the Green Party Regional Council (GPRC) set up a new “Party Structure Working Group: to deliver incorporation as company limited by guarantee and “revise the party structures processes and constitutional documents to enable the successful delivery of the Political Strategy, maintaining alignment with the party’s agreed values and philosophical basis”.
Background to motion D16 “Moving forward co-operatively”
Incorporation was finally approved at the Spring Conference of 2023.
As a result, Article 1.v) of the
constitution now reads: “The legal form of the Green Party shall be a company
limited by guarantee (from the Commencement Date of that company)
“. Left with no mandate, no specification as to which model the party
would be incorporated and no “date of commencement”, the party therefore remains
dangerously unincorporated and showing signs of a worsening level of
dysfunction.
Recommendation from the party’s solicitors
Going back to their “Incorporation Scoping Paper” (2015) which explored all options as requested by the Green Party Executive, solicitors Bates Wells Braithwaite recommended : “If a commitment to co-operative principles is important to the GPEW and its membership, then GPEW should proceed with option C ( the co-op company limited by guarantee model ) as there is considerable overlap with the co-operative principles and the GPEW’s philosophy and approach to party members representation”.
How could this work?
As opposed to the confusing existing structure - the co-op model of incorporation would have a basic two tiers structure with directors and a national council elected by “company law members”. At present, local parties are unincorporated; that is not legally part of the national party.
A solution to be considered could be for local parties to become the “members by law” with an option to retain their autonomy, if they so wished. This would put local parties in the driving seats in terms of policy making and resources allocation. It would also create a solid and democratic foundation to our party with a direct and transparent line of accountability between local parties and members elected to serve on our instruments of governance. Alternatively, Regions could become the “members at law”, although legal advice will be required as to their role in serving and representing autonomous local parties. Any new Memorandum and Articles of Association will have to be approved by a ballot of all members with a 2/3rd majority to become the party’s new constitution.
D 16 motion “Moving forward co-operatively”
Synopsis
The principle of incorporation has been approved by Conference. The next stage is to adopt new Articles of Memorandum of Association to complete the process. Both the Co-op Party affiliated to the Labour Party and the Welsh Labour Party are co-operative companies limited by guarantee.
https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/2024-autumn-conference-agenda-forum/
*BWB incorporation Scoping paper - final_.doc
https://mutuals.fca.org.uk/Search/Society/14086
Mutuals Public Register: Co-operative Party Limited
ZAPORIZHZHIA UPDATE: nuclear power in
war
by Malcolm Bailey *
Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP)
in Ukraine is the first instance of a nuclear power site located in the midst
of an armed conflict. Events at ZNPP have implications for the future of
nuclear power worldwide.
It is the largest nuclear power site in
Europe, supplying 20% of Ukraine’s total electricity before the war. The risks
are enormous. There are no precedents or protocols for avoiding a potentially
catastrophic nuclear disaster. During the two and a half years of war raging
around ZNPP nuclear safety has often been on a knife edge.
The fog of war descended. There has been
scant information reported in the media about the fate of ZNPP since the war
began in February 2022. Within a month, Russian soldiers were in control of
Zaporizhzhia with its six nuclear reactors, near the city of Enerhodar.
Under the auspices of the United
Nations, after protracted negotiations, an International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) monitoring team first gained access to ZNPP in September 2022. Despite
many obstacles and numerous rotations of staff the IAEA presence has been
continuously maintained. IAEA has since issued regular detailed weekly updates
of the work of the monitoring teams which are accessible in the public
domain,
In May 2023 at the UN Security Council
the Director General of IAEA Rafael Mariano Grossi established five ‘concrete
principles’ for the protection of ZNPP:
·
There
should be no attack of any kind from or against the plant, in particular
targeting the reactors, spent fuel storage, other critical infrastructure, or
personnel.
·
ZNPP
should not be used as storage or a base for heavy weapons ie multiple rocket
launchers, artillery systems, munitions, or tanks, or military personnel that
could be used for an attack from the plant.
·
Off-site
power to the plant should not be put at risk. To that effect, all efforts
should be made to ensure that off-site power always remains available and
secure.
·
All
structures, systems and components essential to the safe and secure operation
of ZNPP should be protected from acts of sabotage.
·
No action
should be taken that undermines these principles.
However, in clear violation of the principles, in early April 2024, for the first time since November 2022, ZNPP was targeted in military action, by three drone strikes, endangering nuclear safety.
Following the drone strikes Director
General Grossi said “I firmly appeal to military decision makers to abstain
from any action violating the IAEA’s five concrete principles to prevent a
nuclear accident and ensure the integrity of the plant and I urge the
international community actively to work towards a de-escalation of what is a
very serious situation.” He stressed
that “no one can conceivably benefit or gain any military or political
advantage by attacking a nuclear power plant.”
All six reactors are currently in ‘cold
shutdown’ ie generating no power, which whilst minimising risks still requires
cooling functions. The reports from the regular walkdowns around ZNPP by the
monitoring teams record many instances of access denial to various areas
without explanation. The visits include the main control rooms of the reactors,
the radiation monitoring laboratory, and the radioactive waste storage
facility. There is the frequent sound of military action near the site.
On 6 June 2023 the nearby Kakhovka Dam
failed, probably deliberate action by Russia to frustrate an expected
counter-offensive, causing widespread flooding. There was apparently no
immediate risk to ZNPP but concerns about potential problems with water supply
for cooling purposes.
There are recurring references by the
monitoring teams to problems with the loss of off-site power lines, essential
for nuclear safety. It seems Europe’s largest nuclear power facility sometimes
depends on only one or two power lines. There are frequent power cuts. Since
August 2022 there have been eight instances of complete loss of off-site power
at ZNPP
In August 2024 intense forest fires in
the vicinity of ZNPP and surrounding villages have increased the risks to
off-site power supplies. Fires have also been reported at the cooling towers
located a short distance from the reactors.
The overwhelming impression from the
IAEA monitoring reports over two years is one of an incredibly precarious state
of nuclear safety and security at Zaporizhzhia. There are also major concerns
at the other nuclear power sites in Ukraine away from the front, and lately in
the adjacent Kursk region of Russia. Fortunately, there has been no major
nuclear disaster to date. But the sheer number of incidents and problems must
be of great concern for the future. Certainly, the continuing meticulous work
of the monitoring teams, in difficult and often frustrating circumstances, is
vitally important.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-241
* Malcolm Bailey is a member of Green
Left, formerly a radiation physicist working in the NHS.
WATCH OUT KIDS - IT'S A CORPORATE
TAKEOVER
Early on a May morning there is a chill
in the air in a quiet suburb of London, front gardens are full of blooms and
blossom. An occasional early riser starts on the journey to work but otherwise
all is still You are suddenly aware of shouting and chanting and turning the
corner you see a crowd outside a school holding up placards and waving
flags. They chant ‘Save Our School’,
‘Byron Court Not for Sale’, ‘Whose school? Our School!’ and ‘Kids NOT Quids’.
This is the first strike day of what turns out to be 16 against the forced academisation of a popular community primary school because of an Inadequate rating by Ofsted in an inspection that took place in November 2023 but not published until February 2024. Government legislation means that an academy chain will take over the school on the assumption that they are more capable of improving schools than local authorities.
Staff and parents were shocked at the Inspection outcome although they were aware that there had been problems in terms of turnover of senior management. Nevertheless, they felt that the inspection report did not reflect the true strengths of a school valued by its community. There were complaints about the way the inspection had been carried out and poor communication from the inspection team.
Problems of communication were also cited between the school (including the governing body) and parents as well as the local authority. Better communication it was claimed would have meant that the Inadequate rating would not have come as such a shock.
In such circumstances staff and parents flee but some Byron Court parents, staff and local community members decided to stand by the school, fighting for its retention as a community school and opposing forced academisation. Save Byron Court was born.
As it developed the campaign began asking questions about the actions of the local authority. The LA had recognised the school had problems well before the inspection and had set up a Rapid Improvement Group (RIG). Why were parents in the dark about this and more importantly, why had it not succeeded in its improvement role? This was a weakness when later staff and parents called for the school to be given a chance to work with the LA on an improvement strategy to make academisation unnecessary.
Questions were asked about the role of Ofsted, especially after a headteacher’s suicide was attributed to the stress of inspection. Ofsted’s increasingly politicised role in furthering the academisation agenda of the Conservative Government, its personnel’s links with academy chains and how it contributed to the narrowing of the primary curriculum through an emphasis on test results, became a subject of debate.
Research was undertaken on the Harris Federation, earmarked by the DfE regional office to take over Byron Court. Campaigners were not impressed by the CEO’s enormous salary, the corporate approach to school management and the narrowing of curriculum in pursuit of test results. The NEU reported on the many disputes with Harris that they were involved with over pay and conditions. The campaign argued that staff working conditions were children’s learning conditions.
Staff, parents, and pupils support for a broad and creative curriculum with many learning opportunities came up time and again as one of the main reasons to oppose academisation. Harris was seen as the ‘worse fit’ for Byron Court in terms of its philosophy.
I have already mentioned communication
as an issue and partly this was blamed on the Governing Body’s reduction of
parent governors from four to just one.
This is a school with 872 pupils.
The school had been expanded by the LA despite opposition and that
expansion had created its own problems in terms of management.
In a speech on one of the many picket
lines I expressed Green Party support for the campaign and talked about our
policies for the abolition of Ofsted, against academisation and for the return
of academies and free schools to the local authority family of schools, an end
to high stakes testing in primary schools, and for an entitlement to a broad
and enriching curriculum including the arts.
Save Byron Court worked on several
fronts. The NEU approved strike action against forced academisation based on
wages and conditions. Political support was gained from Barry Gardiner, the
local MP and from several local councillors. The Brent Trades Council got
behind the campaign and spoke on picket lines. Retired NEU members leafleted
parents at the end of the school day to explain the strike action. Parent members of the Campaign spoke at both
Brent Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee. The Lead Member for Schools became bolder
after initially seeming to accept the forced academisation as inevitable and
wrote to the Secretary of State calling for its suspension while the school
worked on improvement to be followed by a reinspection. At Scrutiny Committee
she called the process ‘illogical and punitive’.
The campaign collected more than 2,000
signatures on a petition calling for the same thing and this was presented to
the DfE.t was a challenge to maintain the optimum level of support for the
strike from parents as they faced childcare problems and worried about their
children getting behind. Some also questioned campaigner’s faith in the local authority.
However, campaigners were buoyed when Key Stage 2 SAT results showed a huge
recovery, above national levels in some areas, demonstrating improvement was in
progress.
When an early General Election was
called the campaign met with the Shadow Secretary of State, Bridget Phillipson,
to put their case. Shortly after the election they met with her again, now as
Secretary of State, in the hope that the change in political climate.
Campaigners were hopeful but they were faced Labour’s failure to take a clear
stance on the issues involved and eventually received a letter, not from
Phillipson but from the Regional Schools Commissioner:
In a letter to the Chair of Governors,
Claire Burton, the DfE Regional Director, stated that the Secretary of State,
had confirmed the takeover by Harris from September 1st. She rejected the
campaigners' call for a pause in the process to enable the school to show its
progress through a re-inspection.
Many local stakeholders have voiced
their desire for certainty, for the pupils, the parents, the staff and the
wider community. This is particularly acute given how close we are now to the
start of a new academic year. Pausing the process now will bring further
uncertainty without a clear alternative. In all likelihood, it would lead to a
longer period of upheaval, which is not in the best interests of the children
at the school.
Staff and pupils were left unsure at the
end of Spring term of whether Labour would halt academisation so only heard
officially when the Harris Federation wrote to them on July 31st,
2024 Harris announced that from September 1st 2024 the school would
be called Harris South Kenton Academy, it would have a new uniform and a new
principal from within the Federation. That of course is not ‘upheaval’.
'CLIMATE JOBS - BUILDING A WORKFORCE FOR THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY' (https://greenerjobsalliance.co.uk/)
GJA Statement on the abuse of the law to imprison JUST STOP OIL
activists
Jul 20, 2024
The Greener Jobs Alliance is appalled at the record prison
sentences handed out to five Just Stop Oil activists by a judge. We
believe this is a miscarriage of justice and represents an assault on civil
liberties and the right to protest that is fundamental to a democratic society.
The ‘direct action’ tactics of JSO, XR and others
are very different to the area in which GJA seeks to fight the climate struggle
– in the workplace, through unions, and collective action by workers.
Opinions inevitably differ about the nature and value of JSO actions.
But what we are clear about is that (a) we are all engaged in a common
struggle in the face of catastrophic climate change, and (b) there is a place
for a range of different approaches and that these complement not contradict
one another.
The four-year prison sentences given to four JSO activists (five
years in the case of Roger Hallam) for ‘conspiracy to cause a public
nuisance’ by holding a Zoom call to discuss direct action, is a
travesty of justice. The average prison sentence for violent crime is 1.7
years, for criminal damage 2.4 years (1) – the activists ‘crime’ contained
neither of these elements.
Equally disturbing is a comment by the presiding judge – ‘each
of you some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic’ –
which is not just highly subjective, but hardly justifiable given the gravity
of the climate situation and the ineffective government ‘actions’ taken
thus far to address it. The general public, whether inconvenienced by JSO
actions or not, are highly supportive of the idea that much more needs to be
done to combat climate change.
And yet, these activists and many others are told not to mention
the words ‘climate change’ during their trial, while any
evidence of climate impact is excluded from proceedings. Michel Forst,
the UN special rapporteur for environmental defenders, also condemned the
sentences handed down to the five defendants and stated that these may be in
contravention of international law (2).
What this sentencing says about the future of peaceful protest
in this country, and how the powers that be will act to preserve a status quo
that is driving us to the brink of catastrophe, is too sinister to contemplate.
We join other campaign and activist groups in seeking not only to have
these sentences reversed but also in calling on the new government to repeal
the awful, repressive legislation perpetrated by their Conservative
predecessors.
We wish to acknowledge that information in this statement
is drawn from:
(1) Novara Media Just Stop Oil Receive Longest Jail Sentences
For Peaceful Protest In British History youtu.be
(2) The Guardian You may find Just Stop Oil annoying. You
may dislike their tactics. But they do not belong in prison | Chris Packham and
Dale Vince
WHAT CIVIL LIBERTIES WOULD A TRUMP AMERICA OR REFORM UK AGENDA SACRIFICE TO RESTORE A NATION’S ‘GREATNESS’?
By
Alan Wheatley
Decades before White Europeans deployed
machine guns against one another in WW1, colonising Western Europeans and
Americans deployed machine guns against indigenous populations toward
implementing ‘Western civilisation’ around the globe. I first read that fact in
Anthony Samson’s 1977 publication ‘The Arms Bazaar: A Study of the
International Arms Trade’. That book expanded my understanding of the impact of
Western colonisation way beyond what had entered the UK state schools
educational curriculum in 1964. Nonetheless, I would say that in the wake, too,
of the Windrush generation’s arrival in Britain, I was blessed with a more
comprehensive view of the humanity of ‘immigrants’ than that afforded to
earlier generations of White Britons, particularly in those Reform UK voting
hotspots that include the North and South Herefordshire,
Perceptions differ regarding what is ‘racist’ and what is ‘normal’ of course through time, space and individual backgrounds, and it can be incisive to classify racism as a form of xenophobia or ‘othering’ – which I link to what I’d call ‘the faux unity of the collective pointing finger’. Illustrating my point, I note that a former pupil of my secondary school whose father was white European and mother of African-Caribbean descent joined the Parachute Regiment and at a subsequent ‘lads’ night out’ spoke a lot about his hatred of ‘Pakis’ [sic]. I liken that behaviour to my mid-1970s to mid-1980s behavioural transition. In the mid-1970s I recited homophobic jokes when those were very common and I had experienced various forms of scapegoating based on my disability, in my secondary schooling and early work experience; then, in the 1980s –I began to recognise a shared humanity with gays and lesbians through getting to know some as people to converse with. In reflection, I came to recognise that the vehemence of my previous ‘finger-pointing’ was an attempted means of being seen as ‘part of the clan’, I would also point out that, of course, the fact that the educational curriculum under the Wilson Government began to recognise the harms done under colonisation did not automatically promote increasingly anti-racist generations. Much would depend upon the skills of the teachers, attitudes of parents, local demographies, etc.
There has also been the influence of mainstream mass media over the decades. In 1977 I had been given notice by my bed and breakfast landlady that I needed to move as her family were going on summer holiday as was their wont, and they only took lodgers on board annually. Thus, while my brother-in-law managed to find accommodation for me in Handsworth, Birmingham, I was getting very fearful regarding what reception I might receive there, as the Birmingham Post & Evening Mail front page news items stereotyped Handsworth as a hostile environment for Whites, as regularly attacked by African-Caribbeans. Yet when I got there, I found that the local youths would wave ‘Hello’ to me from the steps of their terraced houses on the occasions that I returned late at night.
Yet move the calendar forward to 2024 and consider the impact in a predominantly White enclave such as Herefordshire, of, say, a Daily Mail front page courtroom sketch depicting a Non-White person. Mercifully, in Herefordshire the Hereford Times is much more egalitarian, hosting many of my letters.
What price greatness?
Reform UK owner Nigel Farage MP’s pal Donald Trump, referring to America’s murderous annexation of the Philippines involving a genocide of Muslims, claimed that General John J Pershing, “a rough guy … caught fifty terrorists who did tremendous damage . and he took the fifty terrorists, and he took fifty men, and he dipped fifty bullets in pig’s blood … and he lined up the fifty people, and they shot forty-nine of those people, and the fiftieth person he said you go back to your people and you tell them what happened. And for twenty-five years there wasn’t a problem’.”(1)
Now it has emerged, Fred Trump III just revealed what Donald Trump said about
Americans with disabilities like his son: “Those people . . . ” Donald said,
trailing off. “The shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of
people should just die.” (2)
Against such a backdrop, a Revd David Hewlett wrote Hereford Times that the
Green Party is “on the far left of UK politics,” and I note that Reform’s
manifesto did little to spell out what they regard as “government waste.”
Notes
1 https://www.the-tls.co.uk/history/twentieth-century-onwards-history/massacre-in-the-clouds-kim-a-wagner-book-review-adam-hochschild/
2 https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/jul/24/trump-nephew-book-disabled-son-die
We should recognize the positive contributions of degrowth
proponents: Rethinking of economic growth under capitalism, critiquing its
measure, the GNP/GDP. Recognizing capitalism’s unsustainable use of natural
resources, in particular fossil fuels in its production of commodities
regardless of their impact on the health of people and the environment, along
with a growing ecosocialist perspective. Pointing to the negative impacts of
“green” extractivism in the creation of renewable energy supplies
My main critique of the Degrowth Agenda
“Walter Hollitscher, an Austrian materialist philosopher
maintained, in discussions occurring in the late 1970s, that the only thing
which should definitely grow is the satisfaction of needs. Basically, from a
socio-ecological point of view the question of growth or de-growth is simple:
there cannot be a yes or no answer. Some flows, stock, and activities should
grow; others should not grow but decrease, for example, the production of
weapons. It does not seem useful to use “de-growth” without indicating what
should decrease, because the general use of the notion “de-growth” easily can
easily also be understood as an undifferentiated attack on the standard of
living and livelihood of many groups of people, especially broad low-income
sectors of society.” (1). I submit a
better slogan is “Grow the good, degrow the bad”. Grow: renewable energy
supplies, green cities, electrified public transport, provision of health and
education Degrow: wasteful consumption of global elites, but most of all,
degrow and terminate the Military Industrial Fossil Fuel Nuclear State Terror
Complex (MIC)
Global energy capacity should grow in the form of renewable
energy to confront the challenges of energy poverty in the global South (e.g.,
India) and climate adaptation/mitigation. Degrow global North energy
consumption, grow the global South capacity, but redistribution alone is not
sufficient. Now global capacity in power units is 20 TW, 2.8 kW/person x 8
billion people = 22.4 TW, 2.8 kW/person being the rough present minimum to
achieve the highest life expectancy.
But leading degrowthers advocate a global reduction in energy
consumption (2). This is a terrible
prescription for most of humanity, because it would condemn them to a state of
energy poverty even worse than present as well as prevent the creation of the
wind/solar power capacity necessary for climate adaptation, especially for
extreme heat stress, and mitigation, making it impossible to meet the 1.5 deg C
global warming target, increasing the potential for climate catastrophe with
horrors much worse than we now witness.
Degrowthers advocate for the goal of a “satisfactory” quality of
life for most of humanity living in the global South, in contrast to a higher
standard for many in the global North (3), instead of demanding and mapping out
a path to the highest state-of-the-science life expectancy/quality of life
achievable for all children in their lifetime.
Finally, degrowthers claim that the “global material and energy
has to degrow, starting with those nations that are ecologically indebted to
the rest…because the materials extracted from the earth cause huge damage to
ecosystems and to the people that depend on them” (4). Degrowth theorists argue
that GDP must contract along with material throughput, and that a contraction
of the latter is necessary for achieving a good life for all within ecological
boundaries.
With respect to material throughput, we argue that it should
increase globally in an ecosocialist transition as a culmination of a Green New
Deal. In this transition, as at least we envision it, the plan would not be
simply for degrowth, but for a complete phasing out of the MIC. Its
disappearance would liberate vast quantities of materials, especially metals,
for the creation of a global wind and solar power infrastructure (5). The throughput in closed industrial ecologies
in a fully solarized physical economy will be limited by the level of renewable
energy being supplied to drive it.
There are two extractivist challenges, fossil fuels and mining
of metals used in renewable energy technologies driven by “green” capital.
Recycling rates of the rare earth metals are currently very low.
Increasing these rates, as well as implementing alternative technologies, could
greatly reduce mining for these and other metals used in renewable energy
technologies.
Degrowthers rely their thermodynamics on Georgescu-Roegen’s (GR)
fallacious “4th law” which was rejected over thirty years ago even by leading
ecological economics scholars who recognized that incoming solar radiation
could be the energy supply of global civilization. GR’s fallacy was his conflation of isolated
and closed systems. Informed by GR’s “entropy law” degrowthers fail to
recognize the critical difference between the high efficiency capture of the
solar flux generating wind/solar power and the fossil fuel/nuclear fission
energy supply. Global solar power will pay its ‘‘entropic debt’’ to space as
non-incremental waste heat, without driving us to tipping points towards
catastrophic climate change, while facilitating recycling/industrial ecologies phasing
out extractivism.
Reaching an ecosocialist transition will require organizing a
transnational movement strong enough to defeat the imperial agenda of
militarized fossil capital while implementing a global Green New Deal
increasingly guided by an ecosocialist agenda.
Growth and degrowth of the global economy are necessary to
create a global human civilization which optimizes the lives of its human
inhabitants while preserving biodiversity for future generations. As an alternative, the degrowth program is
problematic because of its failure to analyze the qualitative aspects of
economic growth and its emphasis on the local economy without recognizing the
urgency to address global climate change.
Footnotes
(1) p.33-34, Baum (20 11) pp. 33-45, transform! European Journal
For Alternative Thinking And Political Dialogue, Hamburg.
(2) e.g., Kallis (2019) Capitalism Nature Socialism (CNS) 30
(3): 188–206; Mastini, Kallis and Hickel. (2021) Ecological Economics 179:
106832.
(3) e.g., Millward-Hopkins et al, 2020. Global Environmental
Change, 65: 102168.
(4) p.192, Kallis (2019)
ibid. Likewise LaVenia Jr., and Busk (2024) CNS, DOI:
10.1080/10455752.2024.2380846.
(5) Schwartzman and Engel-Di Mauro (2019) CNS.30 (3): 40-51.
For more see our book website: https://www.theearthisnotforsale.org and https://climateandcapitalism.com/2024/01/08/an-ecosocialist-strategy-that-can-still-make-1-5-possible/;
https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/05/a-critique-of-degrowth/.
Defiant Amazon Workers will continue to fight on for Union
Recognition, A pay rise of £15 hour per and improving workers conditions.
By Roy Sandison member of Coventry Amazon Workers Support Group
(Personal Capacity) Unite Community Member.
Low paid workers at one of the richest companies in the world
(Jeff Bezos the owner is the 2nd richest person in the world with a
net worth of $211 billion dollars) have come very close to a significant
victory over this virulent anti trade union company.
The ballot in July for statutory recognition of GMB union at
Amazon’s BHX4 Coventry site was narrowly lost. 49.5% of the 2,600 workers voted
for GMB to be recognised, short by just 28 votes!
The real struggle started in 2020 when Amazon workers were
offered a paltry pay rise of 35-50p per hour. This was met by spontaneous walk
outs at Amazon sites throughout the country. Contact was made by the handful of
GMB Union members at the Coventry site requesting help from their trade union
and to their credit the GMB region officers put together a plan with them to
fight for a proper pay rise and improved conditions at the site.
Model Struggle
Part of the plan was ballot and rolling strikes amongst members
of the union – with the aim to recruit new members to build up strength. The
local Trade Union was also approached to help leaflet the site and get the word
out. All this was done in the pioneering spirit of the early days of the
workers movement in the UK. Mass pickets took place, and many donations were
made and speaker tours over the past two years. Trade Union membership rose to
over the 1200 mark. Workers also spoke at our Green Party Trade Union Group
about International support for the fight.
Amazon spends £millions to fight back.
Amazon was now running scared with the numbers clearly for the union,
so they had to step up its attacks on unionisation. Workers were bribed with
free meals on strike days. Anti-union messages popped up across the site – from
TV screens to posters in toilet cubicles. Union members reported that managers
were drafted in from other sites just to lurk around the warehouse speaking to
staff about the ‘dangers’ of the union. QR codes were placed across the
canteens with a direct link to cancel GMB union membership. Workers were pushed
into attending multiple anti-union seminars.
Many of the workers at the site were migrants with English not
being the 1st language this was enhanced as Amazon ‘recruited’
thousands of workers from this demographic to dilute the workforce at the site.
The GMB did very well in producing leaflets in different languages as well as
union members from the different communities taking the lead in communication.
Unfortunately, by a very narrow margin the recognition ballot
was lost, some legal action is planned over the activities of Amazon in the
ballot. Under the anti-Trade Union 1992 act the workers cannot be balloted for
3 years.
Green MPs need to work with others on workers’ rights.to repeal
anti trade union laws.
The Green Party policy is for vicious Anti Trade Union
legislation to be scrapped. Workers in the UK have some of the worse rights in
Europe.
Green MPs’ must be putting pressure on the Labour Government to
scrap these laws. Greens need to work with other voices in parliament. The GMB
and Unite sponsor many Labours MP’s and as a matter of urgency a coalition of voices
for change must come together to support workers in struggle.
So many positive lessons to be used in other struggles.
Getting back to the struggle in Coventry, there are so many
lessons and good practice to be learnt from the struggle that you would need a
handbook on how to defend the workers movement in the UK and globally.
WORKERS ARE NOT ROBOTS!
Are we
sleepwalking through the biggest unregulated social experiment in human
history? The Age of Humachines argues that 21st century growth capitalism has
entered a reckless, scientific phase aimed at eliminating the difference
between humans and machines. The AI-enabled humanization of machines and
mechanization of humans involve a vast array of digital, robotic, genetic,
medical, military, and industrial technologies which are rapidly transforming
everyday life. The techno-utopian vision driving this revolution claims it has
solutions to every problem. But is Big Tech more likely to take us to an ecologically
ravaged techno-dystopia which spells the death of democracy and equality? Topics
covered include:
• The philosophy, economics and “post-biological” science of 21st century
ontocapitalism
• AI, superintelligence and “AImageddon”
• Job automation, social inequality and the surveillance state
• How Big Tech business empires threaten sustainability, democracy and human
wellbeing
• The history of technological society
• Automated decision-making in medicine, justice, war and business
• Robot sex, care, parenting and work
• The machine mindset psychology of Silicon Valley’s unelected billionaire
leadership elite and their CIMENT ideology
• Brain-computer interfacing, artificial organs and personal eugenics
This book shows
how degrowth economics, participatory democracy and radical psychology assist the
best possible choices about the future which is rushing towards us.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE how can we regulate AI?
by Malcolm Bailey
The current furious growth of AI seems like the wild west, where anything goes, a totally unchecked free-for-all, driven by predatory surveillance capitalism. It is easy to be confused by where it is all leading: is it a benign power for the good, or sinister.
The Green Party should take urgent action to adopt policies regulating artificial intelligence for the public good. A comprehensive set of detailed policies will be tabled for debate at the Autumn Conference 2024 in motion E.05. If agreed these policies will be added to the Science and Technology chapter of Policies for a Sustainable Society.
Generative AI and large language models like Chat GPT use enormous quantities of data trawled from the internet and elsewhere. Academic publishers are even selling access to research papers to technology firms.
Surveillance capitalism is an operating model used by big data organisations like Amazon, Facebook, WhatsApp, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and others. The corporation provides a service enabling it to retrieve digital data about you; some of this data is sold and acquired by other companies for advertising and profit. This personal data may be taken without consent or knowledge. It is often stolen by subterfuge, with or without click-wrap on-line ‘contracts’ which themselves are a unilateral seizure of rights without consent. The sources are widespread and increasing, capable of yielding huge quantities of personal data.
European Union regulations are in place, but
how effective remains to be seen. The tech giants are often a step or two ahead
of the game. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (2018) ensures the right
to be informed when automated decisions are made affecting your life, and to
challenge the outcomes. The recent European Union Artificial Intelligence Act
(2024) establishes a common regulatory and legal framework within the EU.
Organisations must now disclose data on which their AI is being trained.
The proposed Green Party policies on the regulation of artificial intelligence are comprehensive. They recognise the potential of AI to be of great benefit, and a positive step towards achieving a sustainable future for our society. They also address current threats from AI, and the potential existential risks from artificial general intelligence (AGI) if and when machine intelligence matches or exceeds human intelligence. Therefore, the proposed policy insists there should be a comprehensive, legally enforceable regulation of AI to address ecological, social, and economic harm, and guide developments to better serve people and the planet.
A regulatory system will be established to provide oversight and coordination for sectoral regulation of data and AI. The system will use regulation to effectively drive AI development and usage in line with the precautionary principle. When risks are well managed, AI has the potential to make a positive contribution to our society, economy, and environment.
This policy motion to conference emphasises securing workers’ rights in the challenging and changing workplace circumstances due to the introduction of AI. There is concern that AI may lead to job losses and cut workers’ salaries. Some economists believe that rising inequality is linked to increasing levels of AI. Whereas previous increases in automation have displaced low-paid staff, it may be that AI will have a greater impact on higher paid workers. The motion highlights that workers and other stakeholders must be actively involved in decisions. Trades Unions must be fully involved in all aspects and at every stage.
The policy commits support for those whose livelihoods are disrupted by AI and ensures workers’ rights and interests are respected when AI leads to significant changes in working conditions. The introduction of Universal Basic Income is important in this respect and a commitment is made to create an AI Ombudsman to champion the rights of individuals.
Increased energy and water consumption by AI systems will become more significant and are often overlooked: this motion calls for appropriate labelling of AI systems. The motion will also prohibit certain uses of AI by law, including lethal autonomous weapons systems, AI systems that use deception to influence democratic elections, and emotion-recognition systems in workplaces or educational settings. Developers of AI systems will be required to respect all applicable copyright laws. A Green Party AI regulatory system will foster international links and encourage global collaboration.
This policy proposal is comprehensive. If approved by conference it will establish a sound basis for Green Party artificial intelligence policy in this rapidly evolving field.
I walked into an ancient computer, In an echoing suburban sports hall, I watched its components all working And they looked back at me. I watched them processing the data, Which was my task to see. Paper data arrived in boxes It was spilt out onto table tops. A component checked around carefully For data missed or dropped. Human hands sorted the data, By human eyes each item was seen Could there be fewer errors If fed through a digital machine? Bribery blackmail and prejudice Can alter what humans do, Machines are not intelligent enough, But they can be corrupted as well. Waged workers sitting at tables Are the ancient computers parts They might care about democracy Since their votes will be counted too, But a soulless machine Just rapidly does whatever it’s going to do Counting votes, dropping bombs Or playing a stupid tune Or all of these things at once And it does not care because it cannot care About anything that it has done. |
No comments:
Post a Comment