Jeremy Corbyn MP
working for you in Islington North

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.

Jeremy Corbyn

On Tuesday at lunchtime a self-confident Danny Alexander proclaimed, to loud Tory cheers, that the “deal” with the public-sector unions would save the country billions and billions” – he said that twice – that the deal was fair and all the public-sector pensioners would be well off in their (later) retirement.

For good measure, he and his Tory supporters cast aspersions on the public-sector workers for being “better off” than their private-sector counterparts.

Alexander also claimed that all the unions except the pesky PCS (Public and Commercial Services Union) had signed up to the agreement.

Cue Lib Dem and Tory – plus a few Labour – MPs castigating PCS.

A few hours later it was all unravelling as the unions quickly distanced themselves from the supposed “agreement.”

A lot of PCS members must have been deeply angered by the letter from William Hague, the head of the Civil Service (not to be confused with the Foreign Secretary – yes, there are two of them) stating that unless the union representatives specifically accepted the Civil Service deal they would be no longer be deemed to be part of the negotiations.

Communities Minister Eric Pickles – a Christmas figure in the Scrooge mould – then cast the whole scheme into doubt when he issued a letter imposing a cap or freeze on employer contributions for local government staff, that hadn’t been agreed. Alexander then furiously backtracked, but the damage was done.

However, all of this wrangling cannot disguise the fundamental injustice – the government wants all public-sector workers to work for longer, pay more to get less and to “understand” that Alexander and Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude have made them all better off.

An average civil servant will have to pay £63 per month more to work for longer to get less. Similar figures apply to all the other schemes.

The coalition must not be allowed to get away with the argument that the economic crisis was somehow caused by greedy pensioners, greedy public-sector workers, or those legitimately claiming incapacity or housing benefits or receiving income support or jobseekers’ allowance.

The last parliamentary day of the year was an object lesson in the coalition’s studied hypocrisy and the way its media friends present the reality of divided Britain.

The crisis of 2008, which has not yet abated, was created by greedy bankers and lenders, the US property collapse and excessive credit.

Britain took a particularly hard hit because successive governments from Thatcher onwards have developed an economy based on financial services, rather than making or growing things.

The financial services sector has led a charmed life in comparison to the rest of the economy.

The solution was to “nationalise” the banks and pour “liquidity” (ie money) into the economy for the government to borrow back.

But the public ownership of the banks hardly resulted in joyful demonstrations in the streets or signs saying “managed by the people” outside.

The shares are held by a holding company whose duty is to sell them as soon as possible to the private sector, hence the sale of Northern Rock’s best bits to Virgin Money.

This economic orthodoxy is designed to protect the market system, creating huge discrepancies between the rich and poor. Then the high priests of economics somehow contrive to blame it all on the profligate public sector and benefits system.

On Monday the Defence Secretary told me that just over £5 bn has been committed to building new submarines, and on weapons manufacturing capability in preparation for a parliamentary decision in 2016 on whether to replace the Trident nuclear missile system.

Just think on that for a second. £5 billion – many believe it is really much more – on a system that has not been approved.

I could write the 2016 Defence Secretary’s speech… “We have invested so much already it would be an irresponsible waste of resources and endanger our national interests not to go ahead with this huge engineering achievement.”

We have become a steadily more militarised and securitised society ever since 2001.

Hodge left in the dark.

The powerful public accounts committee issued its report on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs this week.

Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge (below) explained on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme her frustration at not being told by the tax commissioners how much was actually owed by the various big companies the HMRC was negotiating with.

She was told it was a matter of “commercial confidentiality.” However estimates of unpaid corporate tax are frequently put at around £25 billion.

The committee heard that the negotiations between HMRC and the big companies’ high-flying corporate suits are really tough – so tough that they have lunch and dinner together and reach an “agreement.” This is all so sensitive that none of us mere mortals are allowed to know what’s going on.

Contrast this with the taxman’s pursuit of small, often struggling, businesses which cannot reach such deals; or with workers who may have two jobs and when tax is not efficiently collected are given no grace periods. Or those who have been overpaid tax credits and are then made to repay them, often very quickly under great hardship.

Where are our priorities?

On government figures, £9 bn has been spent on bringing about death and mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan and £5 bn has been spent on Trident.

Youth unemployment figures are the highest in 17 years, homelessness is rising fast and pension poverty is increasing.

Next year will be a turning point. We will see the austerity measures of southern Europe creeping northwards as unemployment rises and cuts deepen.

The real problem is inequality – and the need for a wholly different strategy of peace abroad and social justice at home.

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.

by Jeremy Corbyn

I was up early today to support the public-sector workers strike in defence of their pensions.

To psyche myself up I turned on the BBC news and found a turgid dribble of “concern” for those people who are affected by the strike and very little analysis of the way in which the public-sector pension is being damaged and destroyed by Con-Dem policies.

Suitably irritated by this, I cycled rapidly up to Finsbury Park station to take a crowded Tube down to Westminster.

The picket line outside Parliament was well-supported from security and catering departments of Parliament and I was proud to stand alongside them.

They look after and support us all year round. The government has no right to damage their pension prospects.

The PCS bus came past bang on cue and very helpfully threw us all healthy fruit cereal bars to eat.

Having shown my presence there, I ran to the station and took the Northern Line up to Archway in my constituency.

I joined the picket line outside the office the Public Guardian which has suffered job losses and removal of much of its core activity to a call centre in Birmingham thus abandoning the more direct face-to-face approach.

Our picket line was supported by local residents including a 73-year-old woman who was carrying a shopping bag with a design based on a WWII ration book.

Running from there, I jumped on a 43 bus and had an amiable chat with a constituent facing housing difficulties.

I was then joined by my good friend Mick Gilgunn, secretary of the Islington Trades Council, carrying a beautiful and enormous banner.

Ten minutes later on Holloway Road we were outside City and Islington College with a huge picket of NUT and UCU members showing their support for the strike and their demand for decent pensions.

I thanked the crowd and told them they were part of a campaign for decency and justice in our society.

I then reconnected with my bicycle down to Islington Town Hall and found a very busy Highbury Corner festooned with Unison posters demanding fair pensions for all.

Outside the Town Hall hundreds of local authority workers, NHS workers, pensioners and supporters joined a rally.

We had great speeches from each union representative, a message by War on Want from the public-sector workers in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

In my speech I pointed out that the multinational contract cleaning and service companies that have done so much to destroy workers conditions in Africa and South Asia have the same plans for Britain.

I also pointed out that the bond dealers are making vast profits out of the interest rates paid by the Portuguese, Irish, Greek, Italian and Spanish governments.

We are not all in this together. The government’s strategy is to divide people.

To much amusement I asked the tough “Marmite question” of the audience and to my surprise I found the majority in favour of Marmite.

I got even bigger cheers when I told them that Marmite workers in Burton on Trent had voted to take strike action to defend their final-salary pension scheme.

I left the rally in the very capable hands of Islington Council leader Catherine West who was there to give her solidarity and peddled furiously to St Pancras Hospital to address a crowd of NHS workers in the nearby park, most of whom specialise in mental health needs.

I told them that they were the core of our health service, thanked them for what they do and said that this wasn’t private versus public sector but a day for unity. They then all set off happily down the road to join the big march from Lincoln’s Inn.

Leaving there I then resumed my furious peddling to get myself up to the Whittington hospital at Archway where ITN were filming the picket line and there was a wall of solidarity made of cardboard boxes where we could all write messages.

I signed that I love the NHS and all its workers. They supported the action to save the Whittington hospital two years ago but were on strike to ensure that they and the next generation of workers get a decent pension.

Quickly racing down Highgate Hill to my great friends at the Cafe Metro, the Palestinian-run coffee shop, I sat down with a great coffee to send my messages to the Morning Star – solidarity to all our workers, let us defeat the Con-Dem plans to make the already yawning gap between the rich and the poor and unbridgeable chasm.

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.

Tuesday 15 November 2011

by Jeremy Corbyn

It’s beginning to feel awfully like November 2002 – just substitute “Iraq” for “Iran.”

We’ve seen persistent claims of Iran’s development of weapons of mass destruction, endless media comment on what may or may not happen and military analysis of what a bombing campaign would look like and how it could be achieved.

Just like in 2002, there is already a huge US naval deployment in the gulf, British troops are in the area and Nato, fresh from its “triumph” in Libya, stands ready to offer itself for military action.

Also, again a parallel with Iraq, there are huge and wholly legitimate concerns about human rights in Iran including the treatment of minorities, trade unionists and women.

What is less frequently reported by the media is the growing strength of opposition forces in Iran and some of the successes they have achieved.

The media has also mainly ignored tensions between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government and the Guardian Council on the direction that the country should take.

The issues of nuclear power and nuclear weapons are inextricably linked.

It is impossible to have nuclear weapons and weapons-grade plutonium without a nuclear reactor that can produce enriched uranium, as well as the processing system that can further refine it.

In law, Iran clearly has the right to develop nuclear power, however environmentally unsustainable and dangerous that might be.

However, to develop nuclear weapons is clearly illegal within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran remains a signatory to.

The International Atomic Energy Authority has inspected and monitored Iran ever since it started developing a nuclear power facility and the most recent report indicated concerns over the production of quantities of enriched uranium.

This has led to speculation as to whether Iran is about to develop a nuclear weapon or not.

At its five-yearly review conference in 2010 the NPT signatories agreed, without dissent, to promoting a nuclear weapons-free Middle East which would include all countries in the region.

Most countries are already signatories to the NPT and therefore bound by law to refrain from developing nuclear weapons. With one exception – Israel.

The world came to know of Israel’s nuclear weapons through the bravery of whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu and since then, Israel’s ability to manufacture nuclear weapons and a delivery system to target them, have been developed and enhanced.

Thus the attempt at a nuke-free Middle East is a significant development. To ensure no country develops nuclear weapons, Israel must join the discussions to cease the rush toward the possession of nuclear armaments in the region.

This cannot be done within the framework of the NPT as Israel is not a signatory, and as a possessor of nuclear weapons out with the treaties arrangements, it cannot join. Therefore the only option is an international nuclear weapons’ convention, which is what was envisaged at the end of the 2010 review conference.

However, none of this works in isolation. The US has made huge military deployments within the region and successive statements by Nato and US officials about the possibility of war with Iran make the situation ever more dangerous.

Britain has a special role in this. As a 19th century colonial power it constantly sought to undermine Iran and following the discovery of oil it established the Anglo-Persian Oil Company which later became British Petroleum under state ownership from 1909.

Britain made huge amounts of money out of Iran’s oil, but after the Iranian people elected the nationalist government in 1952, Britain conspired with the US to mount a coup which overturned the will of the people and established the Shah in power.

He then ruled with great brutality with the support of an aggressive secret service until the Islamic revolution in 1979.

We would do well to understand that the popular feeling about Britain in Iran is far from sympathetic, owing to our colonial past within the region.

While there are huge political differences within Iran, an external attack is likely not to exacerbate those. Rather it would bring about an enormous sense of national unity against external aggression.

The dangers are huge and increasing. In the current febrile atmosphere of US politics there seems to be a cavalier approach to defence issues among the Republican candidates.

Most support waterboarding as a legitimate form of torture against suspects and in a recent debate most candidates supported military action against Iran, with the exception of Ron Paul who said “it’s not worthwhile to go to war.”

Barack Obama has demonstrated that apart from his opposition to the Iraq war in 2003, before his election to the senate, he has been just as prepared as George W Bush to act illegally in targeted assassinations of perceived opponents and in the continuation of the travesty of international law at Guantanamo Bay.

The danger is that the US presidential debate will degenerate into name-calling between Obama and whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be and the US will be goaded into the diversion of yet another foreign war.

The most likely source of an attack on Iran is not necessarily an overt Nato/US operation but Israel acting as a proxy.

The numerous meetings Liam Fox and Adam Werrity had with the Israeli military and their unabashedly staunchly zionist approach to Israel’s relations with the rest of the region, increased the concerns even more.

Werrity for example, is reported by Craig Murray, former ambassador and now human rights activist, to have told the Israeli government that Britain supported plots against Ahmadinejad, which would therefore directly implicate Britain in the further degeneration of relations with Iran.

There has to be a different way. Surely we have learned the lessons of 10 years of occupation of Afghanistan, with desperate poverty, appalling abuses of human rights especially of women and children, the protected power of the warlords and the damage and destruction to the lives of poor people.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost the British taxpayer £9 billion and left behind a residue of pollution, corruption, violence and danger from unexploded weapons and depleted uranium.

To commit human rights abuses in the name of eliminating someone else’s human rights abuses is hardly a way forward.

In reality, it is popular movements from within that change societies and not external aggression which profits the arms companies and weapons suppliers.

Opposition to the danger of a war with Iran needs to be mobilised and support given to organisations such as the Stop the War Coalition, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which has established a serious campaign throughout the Middle East to bring about a nuclear weapons-free region.

Ever since September 11 2001 the Western public has been fed an unrelenting diet of opinion that only military power solves any problem.

The dead might be in flag-draped coffins or they might be lying by a roadside in Iraq or Afghanistan but they are all lives lost, families bereaved and hopes wrecked.

That is what war leaves behind – and that’s why we should be promoting dialogue and peace with Iran, not reaching once again for the gun to start another conflict.