Jeremy Corbyn MP
working for you in Islington North

Tuesday 08 May 2012

by Jeremy Corbyn

The Place de la Bastille in Paris was packed on Sunday night in celebration of Francois Hollande’s narrow win in the presidential elections.

The cheers were echoed across the continent because his anti-austerity programme offers hope to the vast numbers of unemployed people across Europe.

In Spain, for example, unemployment among adults stands at one in four and among young people the figure is 50 per cent.

Hollande has pledged to cut presidential and ministers’ salaries, reverse Nicolas Sarkozy’s increase in the retirement age for those who have paid full insurance, freeze fuel prices and raise parental allowances for school-age children.

Assuming he wins the parliamentary elections next month, he will then attempt to push through the parliament’s tax reforms which will end tax breaks for the wealthy and introduce 75 per cent tax on earnings above €1 million per year.

It is a radical programme which, linked to the introduction of a financial transaction tax, will demonstrate that there is an alternative to the austerity that has been imposed on Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, all of which have resulted in rising unemployment, decreased spending power and worsening social conditions for the most vulnerable.

The response of the European right, whose two most prominent politicians Angela Merkel and David Cameron have never even met Hollande, has been predictable – ie stating that the European stability pact is not up for renegotiation and that austerity is the only way forward.

It seems that they never learn. The Tories in Britain did spectacularly badly in last week’s election in Britain, and in regional elections in Schleswig-Holstein Merkel’s Christian Democrats suffered big losses. They are likely to suffer even bigger losses in next week’s elections in North Rhine Westphalia.

The right-wing narrative of allowing the wealthy to continue increasing their wealth at the expense of the poor is hugely unpopular across Europe.

The Greek election results ought to be a deep warning to all centre and social democratic parties of the consequences of severe austerity measures.

The once all-powerful centrist Pasok party had its share of the vote reduced to 13 per cent and the conservative New Democracy party only won about 19 per cent support.

The combined votes of the two left parties in Greece show a heightened degree of politicisation, particularly among young people who face years of unemployment as they watch industry, services and businesses close.

However, we should not get too carried away. The economic crisis has also led to the growth of racist, far-right parties such as New Dawn in Greece and the National Front in France.

Both saw increases in their support through their simple expedient of blaming all economic problems on immigration and minorities. The nazis in Germany employed exactly the same tactic during the 1920s recession.

There is now a huge opportunity for the left across Europe to embrace a strategy of investment in infrastructure and public services, and to promote higher employment.

And Europe’s banking system, which is out of the control of any democratic forces, urgently needs reining in.

The 2008 financial crisis led to the partial public ownership of most nationally identified banks, but the transnational banks escaped this.

They have, however, all benefited from huge public bailouts and are being allowed to carry on in exactly the same way as they did during the credit boom of the 1990s.

Indeed, the very same banks are also making a great deal of money out of very high interest short-rate bonds loaned to the very governments that they are condemning for their alleged economic ineptitude.

The European Central Bank was deliberately created to be independent of democratic control and its function is to maintain price stability across Europe. It never had a requirement for either social or environmental sustainability.

As the ordinary people all over Europe face the problems of unemployment and insecurity, it is surely time to tame the banking system and focus on decent public services, rather than eternally mortgaging ourselves to something that we cannot control.

The European Central Bank does not have the answers to this crisis any more than the International Monetary Fund has had answers for the world’s poorest people with its structural adjustment programmes.

France and Greece’s election results are heartening but they have to be built on in order to see the end of this gloomy period in our history.

London Mayoral elections

Like thousands of others in London last week I worked flat out to win support for Labour candidates in the London Assembly elections and the return of Ken Livingstone as mayor. While Labour did spectacularly well in the assembly elections, Livingstone narrowly lost to the incumbent Boris Johnson.

Livingstone has suffered more media attacks and abuse than almost any other Labour politician I can think of, with the Evening Standard leading the way with pages and pages of negative stories about him over the past four years.

However, he should not be downcast, and should be thanked for his incredible contribution to radical politics in London ever since he was first elected as a borough councillor in 1971.

His work on the Greater London Council (GLC) from 1973 onwards, brought about some ground-breaking policies – free bus passes for the elderly, a London-wide housing programme and, crucially, a transport policy based on buses and trains rather than private cars.

I stood and marched with Livingstone against the Tories’ planned motorway for London in the ’70s and against the later East London Assessment Study under which the Tory government tried to build a motorway across north and east London.

Livingstone should also be recognised for the way in which, well head of his time, he stood up for equal rights, for women and gay and lesbian communities in London.

Under his leadership from 1981 to 1986, the GLC became a powerhouse for progressive policies on individual rights and community development, helping to boost local government’s role economic development.

That administration is well remembered for its popular appeal – his billboard of London’s rising unemployment figures on the side of County Hall, directly opposite Parliament, was especially memorable, not least for the Tory MPs in the House.

As the first elected mayor of London, in a system that he never really wanted, Livingstone was denied the Labour nomination for mayor and stood as an independent and triumphed.

His first term saw the introduction of the congestion charge and the development of a planning policy which improved public transport and ensured that there was some social housing in all new developments.

Livingstone showed great moral principle in his determination to give a voice to all communities in London.

His promotion of the celebration of national days for Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities, as well as big events like St Patrick’s Day and his support for anti-racism festivals, showed just what a progressive mayor in London could achieve.

The richest 10 per cent of Londoners are 273 times as wealthy as the poorest 10 per cent. This is the widest gap of any city in the developed world – and that is the real issue facing the London Assembly, which Johnson doesn’t begin to understand.

Sadly Livingstone will not be mayor, but hopefully the substantial Labour group in coalition with the Greens on the assembly will manage to push for fare reductions, education maintenance grants for hard-up youngsters, vital council housing and control of the private rented sector in London.

We should all thank Livingstone for the huge contribution he’s made to radical debate, not just in London but in the Labour Party and in a much wider community of people who want to see social justice and a fairer society.

Johnson’s poverty of ambition meant that all he could do was follow through on Livingstone’s programmes, including the bicycle hire scheme absurdly dubbed “Boris bikes” by the Evening Standard. How about renaming them “Kenny farthings”?

Thanks Ken, I know you won’t give up the fight.

Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

Donate to the Fighting Fund here

To listen to an undistorted version of my words at the Sheikh Raed Salah press conference, following the Home Office Debacle, follow the link here to see the footage of my speech.  The evidence of precisely what I said is here, and certainly puts Martin Bright’s Jewish Chronicle version into perspective!  For very obvious reasons if you’ve followed the case at all, I target the Home Office and Theresa May if you listen, and this has been my narrative all along:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJDPV7hEsdc&feature=player_embedded

Ben White has also commented on the matter:  http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/04/23/how-the-jewish-chronicle-is-trying-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-mp/

AND his website is:  http://www.benwhite.org.uk

I am not the first person to be misquoted by the Jewish Chronicle and I certainly won’t be the last, but it’s a disgrace to journalism and an insult to all those who concern themselves with equality and human rights.

If you wish to read more about the Sheikh’s experience and views refer to yesterday’s Guardian:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/19/britain-duty-to-palestinian-people?INTCMP=SRCH

by Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday was Palestinian Prisoners’ Day and to acknowledge this 1,200 Palestinian prisoners started an open-ended mass hunger strike in Israeli jails.

They were joining 10 inmates who had begun their hunger strike over 40 days earlier in protest at both their imprisonment and their conditions.

In 2010, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics reported that there were over 7,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails. Of them 264 were held without trial, often not knowing why. Children too are treated abominably, often for throwing stones and other similar minor offences.

Last weekend there was a remarkable conference in the Qatar capital Doha organised by the Palestine Return Centre and supported by the Al-Jazeera Centre for Studies.

The conference, which was broadcast on the Al-Jazeera Arabic channel, was attended by delegates who had recently been released from prison in return for the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Their contribution was fascinating and electrifying.

The conference focused on the huge Palestinian diaspora beyond the Gaza Strip, West Bank and those living within the 1948 borders of Israel, including the seven million who live in refugee camps scattered all over the Middle East or indeed all over other parts of the world, such as the significant communities in Brazil and Chile.

One of the primary demands was for the right of return. While this principle is recognised by UN resolutions, the reality is that for 60 years many Palestinians have survived in refugee camps in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Many have suffered the political changes across the whole area. One example of this occurred after the US invasion of Iraq, when little or no recognition was given to Palestinian refugees from Iraq. Many were relocated to other countries with the support and co-operation of the UN high commission for refugees, but they were not given the opportunity to return home to Palestine.

Many Palestinian refugees have contributed hugely to the economic success of Middle Eastern and Gulf countries but feel that their identity is constantly under threat.

Education in Palestine and in the refugee camps is the responsibility of UN relief and works agency.

Conference delegates complained that the history of the Palestinian people and the Nakba was barely taught in the camps, and that the way in which Palestinians were thrown out of their homes in 1948 does not have any kind of international resonance.

Terry Rempel from Exeter University gave a fascinating talk on the right of the refugees to participate in future talks on a durable solution.

A brilliant paper was presented by Basheer al-Zoughbi on the role of Count Folke Bernadotte in events of 1948, analysing the way in which the expulsion of Palestinians violated all customary principles of law, amounting to war crimes against a largely unarmed and defenceless people.

Count Bernadotte was assassinated in 1948 after he had explained the illegality of what Israel was doing.

Another delegate, Hanin Abou Salem, presented a paper which showed how most of the world had chosen to ignore Palestinian refugees. They are often denied citizenship in the country where they reside but are not recognised as Palestinian citizens either, so over the generations they live a life in limbo.

The anger of the people of Palestine imprisoned in Gaza, occupied in the West Bank or living in exile in refugee camps has to be recognised.

And any solution cannot be a cosy arrangement between respective governments – it must be a recognition of the human rights of a whole people who were inconveniently “in the way” in 1948.

The current hunger strike is one example of of the Palestinian people’s cry for help and support. They are one – in exile, Israel or occupied Palestine.

Let’s get the vote out for Ken

The Evening Standard, which is available free to any Londoners who care to pick it up, gleefully reports that Ken Livingstone is behind in the opinion polls and that his message is not getting across.

The paper’s line is entirely predictable – it acts as a daily bugle for Boris Johnson and the Tory Party, never missing an opportunity to denigrate Livingstone or any other progressive politician in London.

However, on the doorstep and in the town centres of London the narrative is very different.

The anger is palpable over youth unemployment, homelessness, public service cuts and the government’s most recent Budget, which further redistributed wealth in favour of the rich and powerful.

Despite what the Standard says, the opportunities for significant progressive advances in London if Livingstone wins are very clear.

By using the surplus in Transport for London’s budget – generated by excessive fare rises – he would be able to cut fares and thus help the large number of Londoners who rely on public transport.

His proposal to introduce a form of London-wide education maintenance allowance for poorer 16 to 18-year-old students is welcome and would build on his success in introducing free travel for school students.

This plan would make a big difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands of London’s young people and get them prepared and equipped for college and university places.

Housing in London is an acute disaster. Amid the wealth and glamour of London there lies another story.

A property bubble partly created by rich oligarchs buying up much of Chelsea, Mayfair and parts of Hampstead has ramped up prices, and at the same time there has been a lack of house-building over many years.

Council housing is in desperately short supply and local authorities can only house the homeless by placing them in private rented accommodation.

The coalition government’s response to the huge housing benefit bill generated by excessive rents has been to cut housing benefit, thus socially cleansing all of central London of poorer people not living in council or housing association property.

While the mayor would not be able to solve the housing crisis completely, Livingstone intends to create much more social housing and use his political office to campaign for rent controls, thus protecting tenants rather than the Johnson alternative of throwing them out of the “expensive” areas.

This election is about the type of city we want and Livingstone when he was mayor and previously leader of the Greater London Council did a great deal to promote multiculturalism and community harmony, recognising the enormous contribution made by all communities.

London has a very good transport system, but it is in need of further investment. But even despite transport underfunding, car ownership is lower than in other parts of the country – a positive situation, which should be built on.

This election is not just about issues facing London. It’s also a massive opportunity to defeat the Conservative candidate and to demonstrate that there is a political agenda in Britain that is not about austerity and support for the greed of bankers, but rather is about creating a society and community of inclusion of all people.

Progressive forces in London are supporting Livingstone’s campaign for mayor.

For him to win it will need Labour supporters to make sure they go to the ballot box, particularly in inner-city areas.

Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

10 February  2012

The Rt Hon William Hague MP                                                                                                      First Secretary of State for Foreign/Commonwealth Affairs

Dear William

I write to you about the imminent eviction of Palestinians in Silwan, a suburb of occupied East Jerusalem.  I have visited Silwan and met many of the residents whose houses have been marked for demolition, and I have shared their stress at the uncertainty of their own futures. Currently Silwan is the target, but I am aware that there are 30,000 herders in the area who are also to be relocated, and to where?  The political implications should not be overlooked in the humanitarian urgency.  In a sentence, these actions brings Israel one step closer to disrupting the territorial contiguity of the West Bank and sealing East Jerusalem off from it; thus doing irreversible damage to any peace process which remains to be salvaged.

Please can you advise me, and my constituents (writing to me because they care about human rights issues) what urgent representations are being made to the Israeli authorities about the flagrant flouting of international law here.

Both yourself, and Alistair Burt have made the government’s position against Israel’s illegal settlements quite clear but I feel that for all of the diplomacy and condemnation in this, the tragic impact and sense of urgency many of us feel on behalf of these poor people who are finding themselves with no roof over their heads and no viable direction in which to live out their future, is falling on deaf ears. 

Aside from the Silwan population, in particular, the West Bank Bedouin population  are on the receiving end of inconsistent Israeli provisions of international law protecting indigenous peoples.  Indeed one of the relocation areas chosen for them by the Israelis was an area immediately bordering the Jerusalem Municipal rubbish dump which apart from anything else, is indicative of the disdain with which the Israelis treat Palestinians.

Israel’s current actions and victimisation of the people of East Jerusalem is an abomination that is totally illegal.  Surely the only logical way forward here is to take concrete action to penalise Israel via the most obvious method.  You’ll have seen a parliamentary motion that I tabled on the eve of the House rising (attached), and there is clearly no time to lose to take actions via the EU-Israel Association Trade Agreement.  Let the suffering of Palestinian people no longer be so familiar to us that all we do is “make representations” when there are tools at our disposal that our government and other governments are choosing to ignore.

I am copying this letter to Alistair Burt, as well as Mathew Gould, the UK Ambassador to Israel.

I appreciate that the House is in recess but I eagerly await your reply and some reassurance that the immediate matter of the occupants of East Jerusalem is being addressed by the UK.

Yours sincerely

Jeremy Corbyn MP
Islington North;  T 020 7219 3545;  e corbynj@parliament.uk

Copy to:               Alistair Burt MP
Matthew Gould

Jeremy Corbyn: I have four minutes in which to deal with the world’s human rights, so I will do my best. There is a message in that comment—this situation is ludicrous. Allowing one and a half hours to discuss the human rights of the whole planet, in what is apparently the first debate on this subject since 2008, is ludicrous. I appeal to the powers that be to ensure that something changes in that regard.

Very quickly, there are several points that I want to make. The first is about participation in the UN Human Rights Council. Britain is a full participant in that council, which I frequently attend on behalf of a non-governmental organisation called Liberation. The council has greatly reformed its ways, and the in-country peer group review that takes place every three years is a valuable tool, which we should use to the full. The British Government appear to have broken with the tradition of allowing the European Union to represent us at the council, and they make regular contributions, particularly on the death penalty. I hope that that extremely important new tradition continues. If we allowed ourselves to be represented solely through the European Union, an awful lot of cases would simply never be raised, such as the treatment of Roma people in Hungary and other places, so it is important to maintain an independent representation.

My first point is about human rights in Europe. I was present, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who presided over it, at the launch of Human Rights Watch’s “World Report 2012”. In the report is a fascinating essay by Benjamin Ward of that organisation, part of which states:

“At first glance, the idea of a human rights crisis in Europe might seem farfetched. But scratch beneath the surface and the trends are truly worrying. Four developments stand out: the rollback of civil liberties in state responses to terrorist attacks; the debate around the place of minorities and migrants in Europe, a debate too often laced with xenophobia; the rise of populist extremist parties and their baleful influence on public policy; and the diminishing effectiveness of traditional human rights institutions and tools. Unless governments wake up to the scale of the threat, the next generation of Europeans may see human rights as an optional extra instead of a core value.”

Those are very tough words, and very well put.

The narrative that has been developed by the popular press of constant attack on the European Court of Human Rights and its processes and potential judgments, is very unfortunate and misplaced, and it is damaging and dangerous to our own human rights. I regret the way in which the Prime Minister decided to go to the Court, and how it has been presented as an inefficient, incompetent organisation. Yes, there is a very large number of outstanding cases. Most of them are inadmissible. The issue, however, is one of resources for the court rather than of criticism of it. The Chagos islanders have a case before the Court’s grand jury, and I look forward to the result. I hope that the Government accept and abide by whatever decision the court takes, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that they will.

We attack the institutions of human rights at our peril, and I hope that the Minister will say that the British Government intend to continue their participation in the European Court of Human Rights, and to continue with their acceptance of the European convention on human rights and its place in British law. The convention is an instrument of defence. Roma people in Hungary, and Travellers in other countries, have nowhere else to go, and victims of racist attacks across Europe are in part protected by the judgments made. We do well to state our strong view that we believe in human rights, and in the UN and European conventions. We should be proud of that, not afraid of it, frightened by it or intimidated by it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on India and on human rights; I also welcome the Select Committee reports and the responses by DFID and the Foreign Office. However, it is unfortunate that two debates are being conflated into one afternoon. Traditionally, for the past 10 years or so, there has been a specific one-day debate here on human rights. I hope that what has happened today is not a harbinger of a future when the human rights debate will be added to something else, rather than being given a stand-alone debate. That is not something for Members at this sitting to decide, but I hope the message will get back to the Backbench Business Committee that an undertaking was previously given that human rights would take up a whole day throughout this Parliament. I hope that that will be adhered to in future.

I want, if I may, to refer to both human rights and India in the debate, which I understand goes on for three hours and can cover both subjects. Am I correct on that, Mr Davies?

Philip Davies (in the Chair): The first half is about India. The second half is about human rights.

Jeremy Corbyn: So why does the Order Paper say they are together?

Philip Davies (in the Chair): One follows the other. The next debate is about human rights.

Jeremy Corbyn: And at what time are we concluding this one?

Philip Davies (in the Chair): We conclude this first and the next debate will be about human rights.

Jeremy Corbyn: So I am half right; I have got half the time.

Philip Davies (in the Chair): The hon. Gentleman can speak in the next debate—I think he indicated that he wanted to speak in it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Yes indeed.

Philip Davies (in the Chair): Human rights should wait for the next debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to speak about India he can do so now.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall briefly make a couple of points on India. My points will be half made, because, as I said, time is restricted and it should not be.

I welcome what has been said about the enormous poverty in India, and the number of people involved. I do not agree with the view in the popular press that we should not give aid to India; I think we should. I want to draw attention, as I did when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), to the treatment of Dalit peoples. I say that because I am chair of the trustees of the Dalit Solidarity Network.

26 Jan 2012 : Column 157WH

Dalits are the largest group of people in the world who are systematically discriminated against on the basis of their descent and caste. They perform the worst jobs in the dirtiest conditions, and have the shortest life expectancy, the lowest level of education, the worst housing and the lowest pay and employment levels of any group in India or, indeed, the rest of the world. After numerous meetings with DFID, I accept that its assurance that British aid is tied; the Department makes the point that we are not going to be involved unwittingly or otherwise in discrimination against Dalit peoples through our aid programmes, and that several projects and programmes enhance the lifestyle, values and opportunities of Dalit peoples. I welcome and support that aspect of what is happening.

I want to draw attention to the issue on a wider scale. It was raised at the Durban millennium summit in 2000 and will no doubt continue to be raised elsewhere. It cannot be right that a country with India’s aspirations to modernity and to taking its place in the world, including a permanent place on the UN Security Council—a country that is obviously a major power in every aspect—can allow such discrimination to continue. Whenever I have raised that matter with Ministers or politicians in India, during visits to India, or with the high commission here, those concerned always point to the Indian constitution, which was written by the great Dr Ambedkar, who was himself a Dalit, although he later changed his faith from Hindu to Buddhism. Dr Ambedkar’s constitution is a remarkable document and clearly outlaws discrimination on the basis of caste or descent. However, it is equally clear that in reality Dalit people’s opportunities to get access to justice do not exist in many parts of the country. Denial of access to the law, discrimination against them by the police and by employers, and the traditions that are continued in many villages, are inimical to the interest of Dalit people.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to discrimination against Dalits, and not just Hindu Dalits. There is continuing discrimination even among people who identify themselves as Christians, or even Buddhists or Muslims, who are from Dalit families and communities. However, he must acknowledge the long-standing campaign by the Government of India to reduce discrimination and provide work opportunities. The Government should take considerable credit for the progress that they have tried to make with an admittedly enormous social problem.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and I accept and understand that, because of the constitution and pressure from leaders of the Dalit community—which he rightly points out is not entirely Hindu but includes many different faiths—for a long time the Government of India have established reserved occupations and employment levels for people of Dalit descent. There is therefore a certain level of public employment of Dalit peoples, which is often the only access to any kind of normal, sustainable employment. The discrimination operates through the informality of other work, and through discrimination by a large number of private sector employers—but, interestingly,

26 Jan 2012 : Column 158WH

not usually the international ones; it is much more likely to be the smaller, local businesses. Some progress has been made, but the protection of a proportion of employment in public service for Dalit people often enables Governments to feel satisfied that they are doing their bit. However, it does not address the wider issues of the fundamental discrimination that goes on elsewhere.

I know that the Minister is fully aware of the matter, and I hope that the Select Committee on International Development, and the rest of the world, will keep its eye on it. The way in which 200 million people in India and in some other countries, such as Tibet, are treated because of discrimination by caste and descent is simply wrong. Apartheid in South Africa was wrong, and Dalit discrimination is equally wrong anywhere in the world.

Wednesday 25 January 2012

by Jeremy Corbyn

The drumbeats of war are sounding again. In a carefully choreographed series of events of increasing pace, more US naval forces, including an aircraft carrier, have been deployed into the Persian Gulf from the naval base in Bahrain.

The United Nations (UN) Security Council and the European Union have imposed some sanctions against Iran, complaints have been made to and by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), Press TV has lost its broadcasting licence in Britain and there has been a general denigration of the Islamic Republic for its military capabilities and its development of civil nuclear power.

In response to an Iranian threat that it would block the Straights of Hormuz in the event of sanctions against the sale of its oil, the US, Britain and France heightened the tension by arrogantly sailing a naval flotilla through these troubled waters last weekend.

The superficial background to this is that Iran has developed a substantial civil nuclear power programme and, it is claimed, is enriching uranium to a level approaching weapons grade which would be the essential ingredient of a nuclear bomb.

There is huge debate about nuclear power around the world but, even though I am adamantly opposed to it in any form, I have to concede that Iran does have a legal right to develop civil nuclear power.

Indeed this right is set out in the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran is signatory to, and in the operations of the IAEA.

The last nuclear NPT review conference concluded with a very strong statement in favour of a nuclear weapons-free Middle East which was supported by all nations present, including Iran and the US.

But to achieve this currently seems nigh on impossible because Israel, which possesses 200 nuclear warheads and has a delivery system capable of attacking a wide range of targets, is not a signatory of the NPT.

Indeed Israel has only obliquely acknowledged its possession of such weapons.

The situation becomes ever more desperate and ever more dangerous.

Foreign Secretary William Hague made a statement in Parliament on Tuesday in response to a Tory back-bench request from arch-hawk Robert Halfon, claiming that Britain had no problem with the Iranian people, but that we had to be prepared to deal with any eventuality against the Iranian government.

At no time during his statement did he show any understanding of the history of Britain’s relations with Iran or the political structures that exist in Iran today.

No-one can deny that there are huge issues of human rights in Iran over the treatment of trade unionists, religious and linguistic minorities and many of those who protested about how the last presidential elections were conducted.

It should however, be acknowledged that there is a huge civil society movement in Iran, that elections are due soon and that historically Iran and its culture have been invaded, occupied and vilified by the West on many occasions.

The 1952 secular government of Mohammad Mosaddegh was removed by an Anglo-US coup which brought the Shah and his regime to power and, with it, enormous profits for BP and other oil companies.

The Islamic revolution ended the Shah’s rule and robustly asserted Iranian independence.

It’s a big mistake by Western military analysts to assume that all those who have legitimately criticised the regime and system in Iran actually want military intervention.

The most likely effect of any military action is to unify people against a common adversary.

Throughout the Foreign Secretary’s statement, no mention was made of Israel and, indeed, the most hawkish people in the House of Commons only ever refer to Israel’s “security” and never its aggressive stance towards all of its neighbours.

While the West has not yet declared a military war against Iran, there is no question that the economic sanctions are having a huge effect with a rapid reduction in the value of the currency, the riel, a big price rise in consumer goods and food and increasing state security concerns.

These the security concerns are real. We have seen several months of targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and officials and a number of unexplained explosions outside garrisons and military establishments, which in effect mean that a dirty war has begun.

In response to a question from John McDonnell, Hague emphatically stated that Britain was not involved in this but declined to say who he thought might be.

Since 2001 Britain has now been involved in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It has developed, along with the US, a strange view of the value of human rights around the world.

Saddam Hussein was, quite rightly condemned for abuses of human rights, as were Gadaffi and the Taliban.

But the wars that followed from that narrative have not delivered civil security, human rights or protection for minorities in the countries concerned. All have suffered huge death rates as a result of the post-war chaos and disorder following Western intervention.

In the strange parallel universe of Western logic, the denial of certain human rights in Saudi Arabia is ignored, as is its occupation of Bahrain in support of its king.

Indeed, David Cameron’s recent lightning visit to Saudi Arabia was, as ever, accompanied by a posse of BAE Systems arms salespeople, the better to arm Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Co-operation Council countries to become Western allies in any war against Iran or, for that matter, military intervention in Syria.

The drum beats of war are being aggressively pounded out in Europe with constant denials that Iran might be prepared to meet or negotiate.

Across the Atlantic, the US Republican presidential candidates vie with each other at each primary as to who will be the first to bomb Iran and start another war.

Yet all over western Europe and the US there are increasing levels of unemployment, cuts in public expenditure and a whole generation of young people have had their hopes for the future crushed.

Political leaders all imagine that waving the flag of patriotism and war will somehow or another magic away the misery of austerity.

They are wrong. The generation that opposed the Afghan and Iraq wars in their millions is not going to stand for yet another conflict to waste resources, destroy lives and make the world and even more dangerous place.

Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.
This Saturday Stop the War Coalition has called a demo outside the US embassy in Grosvenor Square in London from 2-4pm to demonstrate our belief in peace, justice and humanity.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

Donate to the Fighting Fund here

I hope after this week that Ed Miliband and his team of advisers will be thinking quite carefully about the effect on Labour voters and potential supporters of the announcement of a continuation of the cuts agenda and freezing public-sector pay.

Praise from the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the economics correspondents of the BBC and Sky might make party leadership feel “responsible” and effective, but the reality is somewhat different.

Ask anyone what their concerns are in life. They will tell you they are worried about rising food prices, increasing private-sector rents, jobs for young people and, if they’re employed in the public sector, the security of their work.

Many will also say they’re worried about the cuts in their pension scheme entitlement, both in the public and the private sector, and will tell you that they feel uncertain about their own future and that of their own local community and local services.

Less than a year ago half a million people marched through London for an alternative and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) banners quite rightly said there is a different way of dealing with things.

Platform speaker after platform speaker at that magnificent rally in Hyde Park blamed the unregulated banking sector for the crisis and drew attention to the obscene levels of bonus and profits made by individual bank executives at the expense of the rest of us.

In 2008, at the height of the banking crisis, the government took into public ownership several of the major banks in Britain and attempted to stave off a recession by increasing benefits and an investment programme including house-building. It was absolutely the right thing to do. The problem was, it should have gone further.

The banks should not have been taken into the possession of a holding company to protect their privileged position, but taken into proper public ownership and made to function as facilitators and servants of the economy not its masters.

The Con-Dem coalition embraced 1980s’ Tory monetarism. That is, controlling the entire economy by means of money supply and finance, rather than examining the real economy – manufacturing, agriculture, the health service, construction, transport infrastructure and all of the things that really matter.

While so farm Britain’s economic status has not been downgraded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the credit rating agencies, we don’t have to look very far to see the consequences of where this debt repayment strategy leads us to.

Unemployment across Greece, Italy, Portugal and Ireland is rising very fast. In Spain it stands at 21% overall but a staggering 40% for young people.

Borrowing decisions on the levels of payment made by national economies for borrowing are made by credit rating agencies. They can decide whether, in their estimation, a government is likely to be able to repay its debts or not and on that basis the voracious bond market then ups the interest rate for loans to that government. Last week a number of European countries including France and Austria were downgraded and Greece has been downgraded to the level of “junk.”

All this underlines the ludicrous situation we’re in, where an insufficiently regulated banking system encourages rising levels of consumer debt, created the crisis of 2008 and now presumes to solve the problem by imposing a very strict repayment regime and enormous cuts in public expenditure to meet those needs.

The issue has to be: what is the function of the labour movement and indeed of the Labour Party.

Len McCluskey’s excellent article in the Guardian pointed out that the function of the labour movement is to stand for something different, to stand for the principles of socialism wherein services are provided for everyone.  The duty of the political parties of the working class is to ensure education, health, jobs and housing for everyone.

Those who believe that the way forward for Labour is to repeat the new Labour mantra of retreating away from everything we believe, in order to gain media support, should think very carefully.

Where social democratic parties fail to deliver for the people that they represent, two things can happen: One is a move to the far-right, as has happened in France on several occasions in the past decade; or the other is simply a disillusionment with parties of the left and further victories for the right as has just happened in Spain.

McCluskey’s article has sparked renewed interest in radical alternatives among the leadership of other unions. How on earth can we legitimately oppose the vicious Con-Dem cuts if at the same time the Labour Party supports a freeze on public sector workers’ pay.

In May there will be local elections including for the mayor of London. I’ve never known the Labour Party more active at a local level than it is at the present time.

Our movement was founded for collective solutions to poverty, injustice and exploitation – a tradition that has sustained it for the past century whatever the opinions of the right-wing press.

We should remember from where we came and where we are trying to go.

Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

Donate to the Fighting Fund here

by Jeremy Corbyn

Phase three in the “war on terror” now looks closer than ever. An attack on Iran.

On Wednesday an Iranian nuclear scientist became the latest of his colleagues to be assassinated. The method used was, again, a magnetic mine attached to the victim’s vehicle by a motorcyclist who sped off unharmed. These sophisticated weapons explode into the car killing the occupants but not necessarily endangering anyone nearby – or the person placing the bomb.

Iran has accused Israel of planting the devices. The US has specifically denied any involvement.

Tehran remains a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There have been disputes about its adherence to a voluntary additional protocol, but Iran claims that it has abided by all of the statutory conditions required by the main treaty.

Western and UN-imposed sanctions against Iran are likely to backfire against Western economies, and interests with any oil embargo are likely to be followed by a threatened Iranian naval blockade of the Straits of Hormuz. This in turn would choke off a large proportion of European oil supplies and force the price up to as high as $140 per barrel.

The role of Britain and the US in stoking up the flames of resentment against Iran is particularly scandalous. Any war with Iran would have more awful consequences than that in Afghanistan or Iraq.

None of this is to deny that serious human rights abuses are being perpetrated by the Iranian government against trade unionists, ethnic and religious minorities, and/or people who protested against the outcome of the last elections.

In the Commons on Wednesday I drew attention to the continuing imprisonment of Tehran bus workers’ leader Reza Shahabi and an EDM which I tabled in December supporting “the rights of independent trade unionists in Iran to represent their members without the threat of imprisonment.”

However it must be noted that none of the long-standing critics of the government within the country want outside intervention or a war. Any conflict is more likely to unite than divide people in Iran.

Political change comes from within a country, and not at the barrel of a Nato gun.

The basis of the Western objections to Iran is its alleged development of nuclear weapons and nuclear reprocessing.

At last year’s NPT Review Conference a clear resolution was adopted calling for a nuclear-free Middle East, which would mean that Israel would have to publicly admit to ownership and possession of nuclear weapons, and be prepared to engage in negotiations for disarmament along with the continued non-possession of nuclear weapons of every other country in the region.

I have tabled a parliamentary motion which reads: “That this House welcomes the government’s support for the establishment of a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the Middle East since the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference; welcomes progress in appointing a host country and facilitator in Finland and Jaakko Laajava; notes that with growing tension the establishment of the zone is vital to the long-term peace and security of the region; believes it vital that no state in the region develops, produces, acquires or permits the stationing on their territories, or territories under their control, of nuclear weapons; and urges the government to do all it can to ensure that a conference involving all states in the region takes place in 2012.”

Barack Obama signalled a historic shift in US defence strategy during his recent Asia-Pacific tour. His speech last week on the future role of the US armed forces provided further evidence of this change.  The path he has mapped out echoes the country’s 19th-century strategy of domination over the Caribbean and Pacific regions rather than the European theatre, where its involvement was rooted in World War I, II and the Cold War period through Nato.

The US already has an enormous number of bases in Asia, constructed during the Vietnam War, or more recently during George W Bush’s “war on terror” period after 2001.  It has now openly stated that China is its new adversary because of Beijing’s rising economic and political influence.

Washington has recently worked with astonishing speed to achieve a rapprochement with the generals in Myanmar.  In Australia, the Labor government has agreed to the construction of a big US base in the northern city of Darwin.

At a press conference this week, Pentagon officials were asked what they thought of Chinese expressions of concern at US military expansion across the region. They laughingly described it as “advice that we note.”

The Chinese economy is growing fast and in the foreseeable future it could overtake the US. Its holdings of dollars and other foreign currencies are enormous, as are its investment power in the US and other economies. It appears that the US military has now decided that this growing competition has to be countered by a huge deployment in Asia.

The Stop the War Coalition has called a demonstration at the US Embassy on (Saturday) January 28 calling for no war against either Iran or Syria.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

Donate to the Fighting Fund here

by Jeremy Corbyn

On Tuesday Parliament will be back again with a Budget due in two months, the Euro falling in value and the austerity measures of the last eighteen months biting harder.

The Economist Intelligence Unit has reported a frightening list of unemployment rates across Europe. Predictably, those countries with the most savage austerity measures have the highest rate of unemployment.

At the top of this depressing poll is Spain with 21.2%, followed by Greece at 20.7% and Ireland at 14.5%.

In Spain this figure is accompanied by the frightening statistic of youth unemployment at 43%. In the cases of Greece and Spain the figures are masked by substantial emigration.

Ireland has seen a huge exodus of young people in the last few months – something not seen since the late ’70s and early ’80s.

Since 2008 a common feature of the crisis has been that governments who carry out the European Central Bank (ECB) orthodoxy of cuts and retrenchment lose office. The once all-powerful Pasok socialist movement in Greece effectively threw in the towel and handed over to an ECB appointee.

In Spain the PSOE – once the heroes of the fight against fascism – lost office in the election amid a welter of deteriorating jobless figures and was replaced by direct descendants of the Franco-era right.

The new government has now pledged a further €8.6 billion austerity package. One can only dread what that will do to the already stressed and impoverished towns of Spain.

A few common features emerge from the last few years of European austerity. The gap between the rich and the poor widens, youth unemployment is higher than the average and the banks are allowed to behave as though none of this was ever anything to do with them.

In Britain unemployment is rising with 8.6% registered at the start of this year, youth unemployment at well over 20% and huge disparities of inner-city and industrial areas compared to the relatively wealthy commuter towns of south-east England.

Other trends are also emerging – the Citizen’s Advice Bureau is overwhelmed with calls for debt advice as one million people regularly seek payday loans to meet rent or mortgage demands.

Seven million people regularly use credit cards to pay everyday household bills, interest rates by loan sharks on “payday loans” are astronomical and usury and credit cards are at least three times any normal personal loan rate from a bank – if they’re available at all.

Amid this the grim reaper awaits as hundreds of thousands of public-sector jobs are due to go after last year’s Budget, with a rapid knock on effect in the private sector.

The idea that somehow a public-private split is the issue is laughable and dangerous. Defending already meagre public-sector pensions is vital, and in so doing will help strengthen the fightback in the private sector. The Unilever strike showed that.

Before Christmas, Lib-Dem Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander claimed that he was about to agree a new settlement with all the unions except the PCS, which was a crude cue for MPs to join in condemning the excellent Mark Serwotka and his union.

Only a few hours later the whole deal was unravelling as the government, through Eric Pickles, tried to freeze employer contributions to the local government scheme.

Thursday’s news that Unite is rejecting the deal may well be a cue for a general rejection. Why should public-sector workers accept an offer – in reality a threat – to work longer, to pay more to receive less?

The pensions issue will return to Parliament, and Labour should be clearly on the side of those taking action, not cowering from what the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph might say.

Those in work are clearly under threat of job losses and worsening conditions, and those on benefits are feeling the pinch too.

Chancellor Osborne’s first action, way back in June 2010, was to take a scythe to benefits and to pursue through Duncan Smith a perverted series of “reform,” some of which were new Labour ideas, such as the work test for those on Incapacity Benefit.

Atos tests, running at 2,000 per day, cause unbelievable stress and fear to many people. While many deemed fit to work do subsequently win appeals, many do not and eventually can lose all access to benefits.

Duncan Smith is proud of claiming that a benefit of £500 per week for a family is a huge amount of money.

He has either lost touch with reality or never was in touch with it.

Private rented accommodation accounts for about 16% of the entire population, but that figure is rising fast. In urban areas it is often double that.

There is no control on private rents, and as housing benefit is now being capped at well below market rates many are forced to either move out or become homeless.

Liam Byrne’s curious assumption that the Housing Benefit Bill – currently standing at £20bn per year – is too big would only make any sense if accompanied by a policy of private-sector rent controls and all-out opposition to the government’s welfare strategy.

Indeed his and Ed Milliband’s New Year message both seemed to fall into the same trap of dividing the working from the non-working poor.

Many in work on low wages receive benefits either through tax credits or Housing Benefit.

Surely the message is that those affected by the austerity measures – in work, out of work, private or publicly employed – need to be brought together in common endeavour.

Last year’s (March 26^th) demonstration was a massive display of unity.

Left parties have lost office in Europe because of their inability to articulate an alternative to austerity and cuts. The right offers individualism, a huge and growing wealth gap and a mean and divided society.

It’s time for a united alternative of real tax collection among the rich and corporate evaders, a transaction charge, and control of the already mainly publicly owned banks. Investment in public services and infrastructure will also have a rapid knock-on effect of job creation in the private sector.

The whole notion of a welfare state and universal benefits was envisaged at a time of great poverty and stress, and the Left has traditionally defended it as a common endeavour.

Socialism is the sharing of wealth, the contribution of ability for the common good, and unity in defending our achievements against attack.

It’s also our only hope.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.