Edinburgh Central Constituency Labour Party has decided to send the “Global Climate Justice” motion which left activists successfully put forward in Momentum’s policy primary to Labour conference (see text below).

Vijay, the the CLP’s Political Education Officer and one of its conference delegates, explained why Edinburgh Central wanted to call for democratic public control in the financial sector:

“Regulation simply isn’t enough – we need to nationalise the banks and financial sector because we cannot allow that much capital and power to remain in private hands. We must repurpose and redistribute the wealth that exists in society, and that our class creates, for our own benefit; and we must make the use of that wealth subject to democracy and accountability – not the whim of unelected bosses, landlords and shareholders. Only through massive investment and a worker-led just transition will we be able to properly tackle the climate crisis. A publicly owned banking system has been the policy of our CLP since 2018 [see here], and I will be delighted to fight for this in compositing at conference this year, as I fought for the Labour Campaign for Free Movement motion in 2019.”

Stephen, another of Edinburgh Central’s conference delegates, said:

“Climate change is a crisis that requires radical solutions, and I will be very happy to be arguing for the party to have the confidence to stand up for those radical solutions.”

—

Global Climate Justice motion

Conference notes:
• We must keep global temperature rises below 1.5°C.
• The communities hit hardest by climate change contributed least to the problem.
• The UK’s continuing fossil fuel subsidies.

Conference believes:
• We should decarbonise by 2030 with mandatory targets for every
industrial sector.
• The costs must be borne by the rich and the corporations, the benefits shared.
• Debt cancellation is essential to climate justice.

Conference resolves to support:
• Cancellation of low-income country debt held by UK institutions; legislation to prevent prosecutions in UK courts of countries stopping debt payments in order to fund their just transitions.
• Halting fossil fuel subsidies and new licenses, placing the money in a Just Transition fund for decarbonisation, creating good new green jobs.
• Sanctions on big polluters.
• A just transition for workers in high-carbon industries with an offer of training and redeployment into equally good jobs;
• Workers organising to decarbonise industries and the global supply chain
• Campaigning and educating for a Socialist Green New Deal
• All future stimulus and bailout eligibility linked to climate action
and just transition plans.
• Bringing the financial system into democratic public control to fund just transition; regulating private banking and finance for its climate impact.
• Delisting companies failing to protect the environment and uphold human rights in their global supply chains.
• Linking internationally with indigenous groups, trade unions and groups resisting ecological assault.
• Legal recognition of climate refugees’ right to asylum.

Labour’s work and pensions spokesperson Jonathan Reynolds has rightly been criticised for failing to commit to any real substantive changes to the benefits system.

Too often, however, the left also has little positive to counterpose to the Tories’ appalling policies.

Below are some ideas which claimant and Department of Worker and Pensions worker activists have developed over the last few years. For some background on how the discussion which produced them began, see here.

Please send us responses (team@momentuminternationalists.org) and use these kind of demands in the labour movement and in campaigning.

***

We want to replace the current mean and punitive benefit system with a welfare system explicitly committed to the following principles:

That the benefit system is not just a safety net but a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the working class. Especially the poorest, disabled people and those carrying out unpaid care work including as parents.

That the benefit system guarantees the universal right to decent housing, access to continuing education, access to free universal child care and a decent standard of living to all.

That the benefit system complements and supports union organisation and workers rights by not forcing people into un-unionised, casualised work, encourages union membership and provides access to the benefit system for those on strike.

To those ends we propose the following measures:

1. Abolition or dramatic shortening of the wait for the first Universal Credit payment; more frequent payments.
2. An end to benefit freezes/suppression; automatic uprating of benefits in line with inflation or earnings or a minimum amount, whichever is higher (like the basic state pension “triple lock”).
3. Reversal of all cuts and reductions in benefits; increases to a level where they can afford a comfortable, not minimum, income. The TUC’s figure for standard rate UC, £260 a week, is a good immediate demand. Abolish the lower rate for young people. Lower the “taper” through which people lose UC when they start to earn.
4. Entitlement conditions that are straightforward, inclusive and available to all, including migrants (scrap ‘No recourse to public funds’).
5. Payment of benefits for all children and dependents.
6. Abolition of all sanctions.
7. The scrapping of Work Capability and similar assessments.
8. Relevant health issues to be addressed using medical professionals with appropriate knowledge of individuals’ conditions and disabilities.
9. Delivery by adequate numbers of paid public servants, via networks accessible to everyone, including provision of face-to face support for all who need it.
10. Reversal of all DWP cuts and privatisation.
11. The right of different members of a household to divide the claiming of benefits.
12. Repeal of the longstanding Tory measure stopping access to benefits for workers on strike.

Labourlist have a useful article detailing the various motions being put forward to Labour conference by different factions within the party.

As of yet we do not know which of these motions will definitely make it to conference floor. There appears to have been a significant push for the motion on proportional representation through a number of local labour parties. Unfortunately Momentum has done a poor job at getting their motions, passed through its own policy primary, through many local parties. Read more here.

By Mohan Sen

The Labour Party’s work and pensions spokesperson Jonathan Reynolds has attacked the government’s 1 September £20pw cut to Universal Credit (UC), and called the UC system “fatally flawed” — but said vanishingly little about would what Labour would do differently.

Reynolds refused to pledge that Labour would reverse the cut, let alone indicate a higher level of Universal Credit. His defence of not being able to set a figure so far from an election is an absurd evasion.

Reynold’s “proposals” seem to focus almost exclusively on reducing the “taper” through which those in work have their benefit reduced as their income increases. However he also refused to indicate how much the taper should be changed.

Much left-wing criticism has focused on the fact that Labour is no longer calling to “scrap” Universal Credit. A better focus might be on its lack of substantial policies for transforming the benefit system, and what policies we want to see.

In addition to the absence of anything like a clear stance on the level of UC, Labour is saying nothing about “conditionality”, the mechanism through which claimants are denied benefits and more generally harassed and brow-beaten to make them more likely to stop claiming.

As a result of the absurd threat to expel Bakers’ Union President Ian Hodson from the party, the union is holding a recall conference, with the implication that it could disaffiliate.

More broadly, since Keir Starmer’s election, there has been increasingly vocal left-wing advocacy for trade unions to disaffiliate or at least weaken their links, cut funding or similar. Understandable as that may be given the leadership’s behaviour, and well-intentioned in many cases, it is not an effective left-wing position. It is a distraction from the struggle.

Far from having exhausted the possibilities, affiliated unions could do vastly more to use their positions to promote democracy and left-wing policies within the party and win Labour support for workers’ struggles. That does not just apply to “moderate” unions, but to left-wing ones as well.

For example, Unison, one of Labour’s two biggest affiliates, is generally seen as part of the party’s right. It has a long and continuing history of failing or refusing to fight within Labour for democratically agreed Unison policies and for members’ interests.

But the other one of the big two, Unite, which saw debate about its relationship to Labour during its recent general secretary election, is generally regarded as part of the left. Unite has failed to fight for left-wing policies and party democracy too.

Famously, in 2018 its leadership and party conference delegates voted against open selections for parliamentary candidates — in defiance of the position taken by Unite’s policy conference. Similarly, Unite has never fought in Labour or more broadly for repeal of the anti-trade union laws, despite a clear policy conference stance. The same applies to many other issues.

In the Unite election, it was widely accepted that the “left-wing” position was to advocate loosening (at least) the union’s link to the party. The dominant debate was pitched around to what extent to do that. Assessments of how seriously Unite has actually fought in and around Labour, and whether there’s more it could do in this regard, rarely featured. The ambiguous rhetoric around “no blank cheques” served to obscure the reality and the issues.

To take another important example relevant to both Unite and Unison, neither has used its position in or links to the party, or their political voices more broadly, to vigorously prosecute the fight for a substantial NHS pay rise.

Left-wing unions walking or stepping away from Labour would only serve to further weaken and disorganise the left and working-class representation in the party; further depoliticise the trade union movement; and hinder meaningful debate about why unions have mostly not fought for their policies.

If more affiliated unions got serious about fighting politically for their policies and for their members’ interests, both directly through Labour structures and through wider political campaigning which put pressure and made demands on Labour, the whole situation in the party and in politics would shift significantly.

There is no lack of mechanisms by which this could be done. Such campaigning would certainly run into barriers in the party: but the fact is that we are nowhere near those barriers yet. A serious union fight in and pressure on Labour, not stepping away, is the left-wing policy.

From the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy

Dear Friend,

On 23 August Pamela Fitzpatrick’s received a letter from the Labour Party threatening her with ‘auto-exclusion’. Below is the response that Pamela posted on Facebook. Please support her and ask others to.

—

I received a letter by email this morning from the Labour Party compliance unit. Not sadly to tell me the outcome of the complaint I made 3 years ago of sustained and serious harassment. No. The letter was to inform me that the party has reason to believe I am a supporter of Socialist Appeal. It threatens that I am to be ‘auto excluded’ from the party unless within 7 days I provide evidence that I am not such a supporter.

The evidence provided in support of the accusation is a screenshot of me in my home on zoom when I was interviewed by Socialist Appeal in May 2020. At the time I had applied for the position of General Secretary of the Labour Party. I explained at the interview with Socialist Appeal that I would want to see the party have a fair complaints and disciplinary process which adhered to the rules we as trade unionists demand of employers and the justice system.

I am an active councillor out on the doorstep every week trying to persuade residents to vote for Labour. I am Chair of the Labour Group and Chair of the Planning Committee. I am also an active trade unionist, Chair of my union branch and Treasurer of Harrow Trades Council. I am co-Vice Chair of the Labour Representation Committee and just elected to the Labour National Women’s Committee.

I also have a full time job running a busy legal charity in Harrow providing free legal advice to the community. I am a trustee of a local charity working with young people. I have given years of service both to the Labour Party and to the community.

Wearing these various hats I have taken part in many interviews with different groups, charities and religious groups. Sometimes I even have to sit in the same room as Tories. Doing so does not make me a member or supporter of such groups, charities or religions.

Such practices as set out in the Party letter to me would not be tolerated in the workplace, nor in the justice system but we are allowing a small group of people in our party to use these practices on our own members.

Clearly it is completely against the rules of natural justice to introduce a rule and then apply it retrospectively. Clearly it is impossible to prove a negative. Clearly it is at odds with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act to conduct a trial in this way.

Members need to decide whether they support such appalling practices. If they do they surely are the ones who have no place in our party. So which side are you on?

—

Pamela Fitzpatrick was the Labour candidate for Harrow East in the 2019 general election. 

Please sign the petition in support of Pamela Fitzpatrick here.

Yours,


Campaign for Labour Party Democracy

By Mohan Sen

In April members of Labour left organisation Momentum voted in a “policy primary” for motions to promote for this year’s Labour Party conference. Two of the eight motions we decided on called for public ownership and democratic control of the banking and financial sector, to halt high finance’s social and climate vandalism and redirect its vast resources towards tackling climate change and inequality.

One of these motions (“Build back better: attack poverty and inequality”) was motivated on living standards and inequality; the other (“Global climate justice”) on climate change.

The first called for “taking banking and finance into democratic public ownership”; the second for “bringing the banking and financial system into democratic public control to fund a just transition”. (See text here, motions 3 and 6.)

As far as I can see, Momentum has done nothing to promote this crucial policy since then. Now it has put out propaganda which flatly contradicts it.

On 27 August Momentum social media put out a video with economist Grace Blakeley calling repeatedly for “regulation” of the banks to tackle climate change. The Facebook status and tweet promoting the video also call for “regulation”.

The Fire Brigades’ Union’s pamphlet It’s time to take over the banks explains very well why regulation is nowhere near enough to change the role of the financial sector.

And this review of Grace Blakeley’s book Stolen by economist Michael Roberts, who co-wrote the FBU pamphlet, aptly criticises Blakeley’s failure to call for public expropriation of the banks and high finance.

As Roberts has explained, the banks and so on are already heavily regulated. Regulation is ineffective.

By promoting “regulation” of the banks as some kind of solution, Momentum is advocating a very weak policy. In terms of climate change: not only because regulation will be ineffective in changing financial institutions’ behaviour; but also because big fossil fuel companies are not totally dependent on banks etc for their funding; and to have a serious impact we need to actively take hold of the sector’s resources and leverage and use them for positive environmental and social action.

Momentum refers fairly frequently to “socialism”. What does this mean if it is not willing to advocate policies like taking the banks into public ownership, which in fact are a long way short of replacing capitalism with socialism?

At the same time, Momentum – despite its leaders’ rhetoric about “democratising” the organisation – is ignoring policy voted for by its members, in a vote it championed as a great exercise in democratic membership decision-making.

Did Momentum’s National Coordinating Group, or some sub-group of it, decide to put out the weak gruel about “regulation”, in defiance of the policy agreed by members – or was it the Momentum office without regards to the NCG?

We hear a lot from Momentum about “democracy” and “socialist policies”. Momentum leaders who take these things seriously should insist the organisation corrects course and starts calling publicly for public ownership and democratic control of finance. Momentum members who take these things seriously should demand this change.

Let us know if you’ve passed the motion or if you need help: team@momentuminternationalists.org

—

We call on the leaders of the labour movement to campaign for an open door for refugees from Afghanistan.

We will mobilise to support protests for better rights for those refugees.

We condemn the government’s handling of the Afghanistan refugee crisis.

We call for:

1. Immediate asylum for Afghans already waiting for status in the UK.
2. Release Afghan refugees from detention. Close the detention centres.
3. Scrap the Nationality and Borders Bill that criminalises and denies full refugee status to those who make their own journeys to seek asylum in the UK.
4. Full support for international efforts to evacuate and resettle Afghan nationals.

---

See also https://www.jcwi.org.uk/stand-with-afghan-refugees