London Progressive Journal

HK: 2008 began with our Prime Minister's omen: the year was going to be a 'demanding' one, economically speaking, and already we're beginning to feel it, the woozy share indexes, the credit crunches. Do you feel that with the pessimism and unease it entails, an economic downturn will threaten otherwise growing concerns for ethically-minded and 'green' living?

GM: I think it could do the opposite. I have come to see economic growth as a political sedative, which snuffs out protest and permits governments to avoid confronting the rich. There was a lot more environmental protest during the last recession in the early 1990s. Aside from its effects on people's attitudes, economic growth is the primary engine of environmental destruction. It's notable that the upsurge in green awareness has not been matched by any reduction in consumption. Quite the opposite: manufacturers have now found new markets, selling us a range of eco-junk on top of the other stuff we buy.

Costa Rica is planning on becoming the first 'carbon neutral' nation through a combination of laws, incentives, clean energy, biofuels and 'voluntary tax' on industry. Considering these measures, how convincing do you find their plan? Is there anything their country can teach Britain regarding such policy, or do the logistical differences between the two nullify any lessons that might be learnt?

I haven't studied Costa Rica's plans, but I've learnt to be wary of claims of "carbon neutrality" (as opposed to decarbonisation). The questions I would ask the Costa Rican government would include these: are you using carbon offsets to help reach your targets? If so, does this mean that the countries in which you buy them will be less able to make domestic reductions of their own? What does your voluntary tax entail? What is to stop companies which don't pay it from outcompeting those which do? Have you conducted a full life-cycle analysis of the biofuels which will be used there?

Tropical countries have certain advantages over temperate ones in cutting emissions: a greater potential for solar power, and better matching of peak power output with peak demand; less need for heating, and the faster growth of trees and other crops.

The government has recently announced a new generation of nuclear power plants. You have written extensively on your doubts about the efficacy of nuclear power either in filling the energy deficit or cutting overall omissions. However, many writers and scientists from John Gray to James Lovelock warn that the time for nuclear niceties may be fading fast. Do you feel that a situation could ever abound where nuclear power might become an appealing option?

I am prepared to believe that, in theory, the problem of long-term disposal of nuclear wastes can be solved. I am also persuaded that building new nuclear power stations would take no longer than building the huge arrays of renewables and the new grid connections required to decarbonise our electricity supplies. But for me there is a major sticking point. Every state which has sought to develop a nuclear weapons programme over the past 30 years – Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and Iran – has done so by diverting materials from civil nuclear programmes. The more nuclear material the world contains, the more weapons it is likely to develop, and the more widespread they will become. If, like me, you support the idea of multilateral nuclear disarmament, it is hard to support the expansion of nuclear power.

The Scottish novelist and socialist Alasdair Gray wrote that "it is plain that the vaster the social unit, the less possible is true democracy." You are an advocate of a sort of globalized suffrage and a world parliament. How do you respond to criticisms that a democracy would only become more unwieldy and less effective the greater the number of people it was representing?

Of course this is true, but Alasdair and others like him allow the best to become the enemy of the good. Democracy at the global level will be less effective than democracy at the local level. But what is the alternative? At present we have plenty of global governance, but it takes place entirely untroubled by popular consent. The UN Security Council, IMF and World Bank are old-fashioned oligarchies with dictatorial powers. Do we leave them like this, or do we seek to make them respond to the demands and needs of the world's people? It is essential that their powers are moderated by and in some cases replaced with much more democratic bodies.

You have suggested that one way for the developing world to force itself out of the developed world's grip is to threaten a collective defaulting on debt and thus risk an international financial crisis. Knowing the markets would be opposed to such a crisis, the developing world could then make demands for a more equitable economic system. Are there indications that this idea would be effective, espcially in the current climate, and that such an idea is taking root, in terms of activism and policy?

It has certainly attracted some interest among developing world governments, but what they can say in public is limited. It requires a sense of solidarity among such governments of the kind that was present in the days of the G77, but is now lacking. The global financial system is much more vulnerable to a challenge than it was a couple of years ago. But the courage to mount it appears to be lacking.

Much is being said about the recent US primaries, especially regarding race and gender. Many believe this marks a turning point in American progressive politics. However, others feel that behind the rhetoric there is a general economic and geopolitical conservatism amongst nearly all candidates. Are there any candidates that you feel might still have a positive influence on the global issues of the future?

No. Real political debate in the United States has been replaced with narrow and sometimes solipsistic arguments about race, culture and sexual politics. The big questions about the big issues - such as inequality, public spending, corporate power and foreign and defence policy - are out of bounds. The candidates are gagged by the need to raise vast amounts of campaign finance from corporations and a corporate media which immolates them if they step over the line. I find it very hard to see why Americans get so excited about their elections: the choice always seems to be a dismal one. Even if the candidates stand for something at the beginning, by the time the primaries are over it has been knocked out of them.

Natural law theories claim certain behaviours are proper as they are part of human nature, and they often form the philosophical basis of conservative politics, telling us for example that free-market capitalism reflects humankind's 'natural' acquisitiveness. The left's response to this often comes from a post-modern perspective, denying human nature in the first place. But as someone with a background in zoology, how do you approach these biological justifications of political ideologies? Does science have a place in politics?

I am a biological determinist: I believe that much of our behaviour is governed by our evolutionary history. Libertarian conservatives contend that modern humans are destined to behave well if left to their own devices; I believe that they are likely to behave badly. If you belong to a small group of intelligent hominids, all of whom are well-known to each other, you will be rewarded for cooperation and generosity within the group and punished for selfish behaviour. (Though this does not stop your group from attacking or exploiting another). The libertarians extrapolate from this evolutionary experience to argue that we will help each other if left alone by governments.

But the modern economy is about as far removed as possible from the economy of the hominid troupe. If - as multinational capital does - you can switch communities at will, travel freely, buy in one country and sell in another, hire strangers then fire them, you will gain more from acting only in your own interest. Those with agency in the global economy can no longer be scrutinised and held to account by a small community. We need governments to fill the regulatory role vacated when our tiny clans dissolved. Without that regulation, we are rewarded for selfish behaviour and punished for altruism.

In September 2000, at the UN Millennium Summit in New York, 189 countries agreed to work together towards the fulfilment of eight ‘Millennium Development Goals’ (MDGs). These goals, whose aim is to reduce inequalities that exist between the developing and the developed worlds, include halving extreme poverty, providing all children with a primary education, reducing child mortality, promoting gender equality and combating HIV/AIDS. They can be broken down into 18 individual measurable targets.

The year 2007 marked the mid-point of the 15-year period that world leaders had given themselves to meet these targets. 2007 was also the year that marked the breaking of the Guinness World Record for the largest number of people to stand up against poverty within 24 hours. On the 16/17th October, 43.7 million people in 127 countries gathered in numerous locations around the globe to mark the event and to remind the world’s leaders of their obligations.

However, with just over half the allocated time for the realisation of the goals having elapsed, progress towards attaining the goals has been described as a mixed picture. Although some targets are on track for being met by 2015 in certain parts of the world, progress towards other targets has been painfully slow in other parts of the globe.

The eighth and final Millennium Development goal states that developed and developing countries should form a global partnership for development which would ensure progress towards the fulfilment of the previous seven goals. Developing countries cannot achieve these goals without the assistance of the developed world. According to one source, for the MDGs to be achieved on schedule, official development assistance would need to be doubled to around $100 billion (USD) a year.

Although the figure of $100 billion is staggering, it needs to be viewed in context. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SPIRI’s) 2006 Year Book on Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, world military expenditure totalled $1.118 trillion (USD) in 2005. In turn this works out to be 2.5% of world GDP, or roughly $173 (USD) for every person on the planet. SPIRI’s book also states that world military expenditure increased by 34% in the period 1996-2005. In contrast, the UN, together with its affiliated agencies, spends a meagre $20 billion (USD) each year on all its programmes, the equivalent of $3 for every individual on the planet. It must be acknowledged that the UN has faced financial difficulties for nearly twenty years, causing it to cut back on a number of its programs. This in turn can be traced to a number of member states not paying the entirety of their membership dues as well as cutting back on their donations to the UN’s voluntary funds.

To many people, it will probably come as little surprise to learn that a minority of countries are responsible for a majority of the world’s military spending. As it stands, fifteen countries are responsible for around 84% of the money spent. Unsurprisingly, the US leads the pack when it comes to defence spending. According to the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the US was responsible for 43% of the $1.118 trillion that the world spent in 2005. Britain comes fourth in the league table of military spending, after US, China and Russia, having spent $51.1 billion or 5% of the world’s total in 2005. However, it still lagged far behind the US, as did both Russia and China who each accounted for roughly 6% of the total money spent. US military spending for 2007 was estimated to have been around $626.1 billion.

The Friends Committee on National Legislation, the largest peace lobby in Washington, states that in 2006, 28% of the money paid in taxes in the US went towards military spending, with another 13% going to disburse the cost of past wars.

The figure of $100 billion, stated earlier, amounts to just less than 1/11 of what the world spent in 2005 on arming itself.

Thus far, the Iraq warn alone has cost the US $484 billion. As the monetary cost of the Iraq war, according to the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, is expected to total between 1 and 2 trillion dollars before its end, it would appear that some of the leaders of the developed world have forgotten about a very different kind of war that urgently needs to be fought on many fronts against an enemy that kills millions every year while condemning many more to a life of misery, thus sowing the seeds of future problems. This war, which has its battlegrounds in Sub-Saharan Africa as well as in other impoverished parts of the world is the war on poverty, deprivation and ill health.

The question was once asked: ‘What if hospitals and schools had all the money they needed, while armies had to rely on charity for money to buy the weapons they required?’

This is a point worth pondering; so too is the question of whether the leaders of the developed world will fulfil their obligations to the rest of humanity or whether they will shirk from their responsibilities. Indeed, thirty years before the Millennium Summit, in 1970, at a meeting in New York, twenty-two developed countries pledged to donate 0.7% of their GDP towards fighting extreme poverty. Nearly thirty eight years later, with almost a billion people living on less than $1 dollar a day, only five of these countries are fulfilling that pledge: Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands and Denmark. Perhaps this time we can do better. History will be the adjudicator.

The massive protest organised against the FARC guerrillas on 4th February has further concentrated the attention of world media on Colombia's domestic politics. The initiative, which surprisingly came into being thanks to the creation of an anti-FARC group set up on Facebook, later turned into a street march, demonstrating quite clearly a popular rejection of the practices adopted by the FARC. The march, which has allegedly gathered 5 million people in 193 different Colombian and foreign cities, expressed its disgust towards the guerrilla and asked for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. The demonstrations have taken place amid a situation where FARC's reputation has suffered from another blow, following the emergence of new evidence demonstrating their rough treatment of hostages.

Although the FARC were born as a defensive army against peasants' repression, they have now become a violent machinery with motivations that go beyond those of their original struggle. Their continuous abuse of human rights, their resort to narco-trafficking as a means of financing, and the practice of kidnapping, have alienated of a great part of Colombian society. A Gallup Poll has recently revealed that 96% of the population opposes the FARC. Even though this may well be one of the many manipulations carried out by the media, which have unleashed a striking campaign against Chávez and the FARC, it is true that the disrespect of basic humanitarian principles has distanced a huge number of people from their causes, especially in urban areas.

President Uribe has been very astute in taking advantage from the whole campaign through an explicit backing of it, which has involved the granting of a day off for civil servants and school children to take part to the march, as well as the deployment of logistical support. The protest, which was intended to be apolitical, has unavoidably taken an ideological connotation. Many leftist organisations, including the Polo Democratico Alternativo (PDA), faced with Uribe's appropriation of the movement and its recalcitrance to extend their disapproval to all forms of violence, have distanced themselves from the march. Their line of argument has focused on the inherent bias in blaming only the FARC for the violence in Colombia, and the neglect of the big socio-economic problems faced by the majority of Colombia's population, which underlie much of the conflict.

This line of criticism finds particular relevance if we consider two recent developments that have received little resonance in the mainstream media. The first one has to do with a report recently made public by Human Rights Watch, which points its attention to the failure of the paramilitary demobilisation process, as a result of Uribe's scarce efforts in making effective his supposed intention to conduct peace talks with the AUC. Accordingly, paramilitary activity is still very active, and those who have been demobilised were not real paramilitaries, excluding a few extraordinary exceptions. Secondly, Jorge Noruega, former presidential campaign manager and close ally of Uribe, has been charged with collaborating with the paramilitaries, thereby casting a further shadow over the real constituencies which lay behind the government, which has already suffered from various similar scandals.

The attempt to polarise society on the FARC issue, accompanied by the very divisive rhetoric of Uribe, has created a tense environment, which seems to obscure the origins of the vicious circle of violence that has plagued Colombia for decades. This has also concealed the strong connivance of the current government with the business sector, some important narco-cartels and the extreme right-wing. Uribe has been able to draw a demarcation line between those with him and those with the FARC, so as to push forward a militarist hard line against the insurgents, to the delight of capital and the US, which have greeted the “democratic security” with a good dose of money and arms. What Uribe has not been able to solve is the continuous assassination of trade unionists, the unstoppable displacements of peasants, the endemic poverty of the rural population.

Neither has he been able to do much about the hostage crisis. His attitude towards the possibility of a humanitarian exchange has been shifty, and has preferred to maintain military rescue as the primary option, which has historically been also the most tragic, as the death of 11 regional deputies during a military assault last June confirms. The mediation of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has been presumably interrupted as a result of US pressure, which perceived a danger in the potential success of his diplomatic efforts. In a recent interview to SEMANA, a Colombian weekly magazine, Yolanda Pulencio, Ingrid Betancourt's mother, has defined as 'an invented pretext' the excuse provided by Uribe to terminate Chávez's mediation. The families of the hostages have also preferred to stay away from the march, in the belief that the march was not the most adequate way of creating favourable conditions for an agreement. The families continue to be very critical of Uribe, especially in relation to the official exclusion of the Venezuelan leader from the mediation.

On the other hand, Chávez has not been able to capitalise on the hostages' release, as he has engaged in an unilateral verbal war with Uribe, which has been detrimental to his own image in Colombia. The excessive rhetoric that he has used against the Colombian President has had the effect of uniting a significant part of the Colombian population against what is often seen as an external interference on domestic issues. Also, the media have intentionally strengthened this negative image by speculating on his links with the FARC, casting a further shadow on his figure. Another element which has had a boomerang effect is the proposal to recognise the FARC as a legitimate belligerent force. Even though the intention was that of getting the FARC to comply with international regulations regarding the treatment of civilian population established in the 1949 Geneva convention, the label would not necessarily mean much, because their practice of kidnapping predates the 2001 decision of the Colombian government to define the FARC as a terrorist group. However, another unconditional humanitarian gesture is forthcoming, according to an announcement released by the FARC in the last few days.

Uribe has instead gained a broad international support in his struggle against FARC during his recent European trip, and continues to enjoy an extended influence at home. Abroad, the only obstacle was represented by Sarkozy's intention to get Chávez back as a mediator, but the French President has not tried to force the question. At home, the Polo Democratico Alternativo, at the moment the only political organisation able to rival Uribe's La U, has divided itself on the issue of the march, some calling an alternative march the same day, some participating in the official march, including Samuel Moreno, Bogotá's mayor. This reflects the fragility of the coalition, which includes elements stretching from the far left to the centre of the political spectrum. The President's party is now seeking a constitutional amendment to permit him to run for a third presidential mandate. The attempt is likely to succeed.

Quite surprisingly, a source of trouble for Uribe could come from the United States. The recent visits of many US state officials and legislators to Colombia concerned the Republican preoccupation with the opposition of the Democrats to the bilateral Free Trade Agreement, already ratified by the Colombian Congress. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not likely to set the vote for this year, as AFL-CIO, the largest US trade union, and many Democratic representatives have spoken out against the history of violence against trade unions in Colombia and the neglect of the government towards this issue. It is also important to consider that Barack Obama has been quite critical of Bush' personal relationship with Uribe, raising concerns about Uribe’s links with the paramilitaries. Even though Obama has so far said quite little on what he would do with regard to Colombia and Latin America in general, it is not unlikely that, were he to become the new President, the terms of Plan Colombia may undergo considerable revision.

When Guy Nijke went to report to Becket House, the local enforcement office of the Borders and Immigration authority in South London on Monday, he was detained on the spot. He was informed that his claim for asylum based on new evidence had failed and that he was to be deported back to Cameroon on Saturday. There Guy will be in danger of being imprisoned and tortured.

Guy knows what this feels like. Over 9 years ago he was imprisoned and tortured in Cameroon due to his political activities with the opposition party, the Social Democratic Front. During his last detention he sustained a serious head injury. He was transferred to hospital, managed to escape and leave the country. He claimed asylum in the UK on the day he arrived on 26 August 1999.

After that nothing happened for almost five years. Guy was left in limbo by the authorities. He received his initial interview regarding his asylum claim by the Home Office only in March 2004.

I first met Guy in September 2003. Ever since then I have been impressed by the way he has set out to re-build his life in the UK, despite the traumatic events in Cameroon and the pressures of life as an asylum seeker in London.

He learned English and received counselling from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. He worked full-time at Selfridges and devoted his spare time to volunteer work at the Refugee Council and Medsin du Monde. He received a Masters in Human Rights from the University of London and was even called up for Jury Service.

“Guy is very committed to human rights and has a strong desire to make a difference to other people’s lives.” says Jenny Hamilton, Professor of Law at the University of Strathclyde. Professor Hamilton met Guy eight years ago and has remained in close contact with him ever since. Christine Watts, Communications Director at Selfridges, confirmed on Wednesday that Guy was “a good employee” since he started working there in February 2004.

After his initial claim for asylum and his appeal were rejected in 2004, Guy managed to submit a new claim for asylum with new supporting material in May 2005.

He heard nothing about his claim until three days ago. On his lunch break from his job at the food hall in Selfridges he was detained when reporting to the local enforcement office of the Borders and Immigration authority as he did on a regular basis. He was not permitted to finish his shift at work or to go back home and collect some personal items. He is currently being held at Southwark police station.

I managed to see him in detention yesterday. Guy says “My life has been blown apart. For nine years I have been waiting in this limbo and now it has come to this.” He was still in his work clothes from Monday when I saw him.

Guy's friends and colleagues have reacted with outrage upon hearing of his detention. They have started a strong and dedicated campaign to stop his deportation.

Jeremy Corbyn, MP for Islington North where Guy lives, has submitted an enquiry to the Home Office on Guy's case. An online petition has been set up calling on the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, to allow Guy Nijke to remain in the UK. The petition (see link below) has so far gathered more than 460 signatures. Kirrily Pells, a friend of Guy's, says: “Guy is a great friend and an integral member of the community. It is ridiculous that this country is deporting the type of people we need. We will do everything we can to keep him here with us.”

If you want to help with the campaign to stop the deportation of Guy Nijike sign the online petition: [http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stopdeportationofguy/index.html]

At a time when the gap between the super-rich and the rest is increasing, the government’s decision to scrap its new tax plans for high-earning foreign workers is a further indication that when it comes to a choice between the wealthy few and everyone else, the wealthy come first.

Labour’s promise to close the loopholes that allow non-domiciles to pay lower rates of tax, like so many other promises, has failed to materialise. Once again Labour has bowed to the super-rich. Instead of doing the right thing and creating a more progressive tax system, they have abandoned plans to tax non-domiciles following pressure from big business and the media.

At the moment people can live in Britain, without being official residents, and therefore pay less tax. They are making use of our infrastructure and public services, without paying for them in the same way that the rest of us do. This has resulted in the richest 50 billionaires in the UK paying an average of 1.5% tax.

Alistair Darling announced that the government would introduce a system whereby non-domiciled workers would pay a £30,000 fee, upon having lived in Britain for seven years. Labour said that it was essential that earnings were revealed so that it could be decided if people were paying the correct amount of tax. It seemed that for once the government was moving towards a fairer tax system. But, following a few over-exaggerated claims that there would be a mass exodus of businessmen, once again it is the rich who will be paying less tax.

In a cowardly turnaround the plans have now been scrapped. Non-domiciles will pay no tax on their foreign earnings, will not have to disclose income from offshore accounts and there will be no £30,000 fee.

Do people seriously think that someone worth over 1 billion pounds will decide to relocate due to a £30,000 charge and taxation on their foreign earnings? “It’s time to leave this despicable country, dear. I can no longer afford that trip to Mars we were planning.” The fact is these new tax measures would have had little impact on the numbers of foreign businessmen living in the UK, while raising money for the treasury and going some way to slowing down the increasing wealth divide. This extra revenue could have been used to pay the police force what they deserve. Perhaps the government could have used it to fund rural schools which face closure or increase the money spent on flood defences. Even more radically they could have lowered the tax burden on the poorest workers.

Furthermore, it would have sent out a serious message that politicians have a social conscience and are ideologically strong. It would have shown that there is a party that wants to help the millions of people struggling to cope with rising inflation through fairer taxation and it would have made it clear that the rich and powerful cannot sway government policy.

Unfortunately we are seeing a shift to a political system similar to that of the United States, where studies have shown that the views of the rich receive about 50% more weight than those of the poor. People are turning away from politics, not because they don’t care but because they can’t see anyone fighting for them. The difference in voter turnout between the highest social class and the lowest is greater now than at any point since the abolition of property requirements, reaching 17% in the last General Election.

Since Gordon Brown moved into Number 10 he has presided over mistake after mistake. Yet, if Labour would begin to speak up for the less well-off, he could still win the next election. Taxing the super-rich would have been a good start, but once again he has made the wrong choice. The government may feel comfortable knowing that the criticisms of the rich few have been silenced. The majority of voters, however, will feel alienated by this latest policy u-turn, leaving the rich to get richer and the rest of us falling further behind.

In a speech on 'liberty' at the University of Westminster, Gordon Brown outlined his vision for 'Britishness'. Brown is, of course, a Scot. Listing the achievements of so-called 'British liberty' from Magna Carta to the Reform Act of 1832, he announced a debate on what it means to be British. Brown's vision, however, amounts to nothing more than reactionary politics dressed in liberal-radical language.

Appealing to interests of the nation is one of the few ways that the bourgeoisie can rally mass support for its own interests. It was with the appeal to the good of the "commonwealth" (i.e. the nation) that Cromwell rallied the masses against the absolutist monarchy and it was with similar slogans that the masses rallied to the French bourgeoisie in 1789. Another example is of course the U.S. War of Independence from (British) King George III. These progressive, revolutionary movements mobilised under the banner of nationalism.

However, by the 20th century, the bourgeoisie had played out its progressive role, and appeals to 'the nation' in much of the developed world have become synonymous with reactionary politics and imperialist ambitions. It became an appeal for unity between classes against other nations or against the independent working class. It was the tool that was used to rally masses of ordinary people into the slaughterhouse of World War I and used against the revolutionaries in Spain in the 1930s. Nationalism in this context has become reactionary.

What can we then expect of Brown's version of 'Britishness'? A consultation process is to begin about rights and obligations of British citizens. Gordon Brown, in typical New Labour fashion has already decided its outcome: increased detention without right of appeal for 'terror suspects' (so much for Magna Carta - which forbade imprisonment without a fair trial!), continued attacks on workers and public services, more restrictions on immigration and more racism along the lines of 'British jobs for British workers'.

More specifically, the Prime Minister ties an expansion of the voluntary sector into all of this. The recent decision by the Stirling Citizen Advice Bureau, to start handing out food vouchers to those that can't get benefits because of cuts in the civil service, illustrates with painful clarity what this means. It is clear that Brown sees in the future of Britain a return to the 19th century 'Victorian values'. Back to a time when workers had to beg for the charity of the so called 'community organizations' (i.e. the churches and the rich), rather than have automatic access to support from the state. It is a most terrible irony that he invokes 'liberty' - the slogan of the French Revolution - for this reactionary project.

For the Welsh and Scottish workers who are being tempted by nationalist promises of Norwegian or Irish utopias, this is hardly a tempting solution to their problems. In fact, by imposing his notion of 'Britishness,' Gordon Brown is most likely to further antagonize these workers - in Stirling and elsewhere. The persistent failure of the Labour Party to present any real solutions to the problems of the working class is likely to lead to more votes for the SNP, Plaid Cymru and BNP, and possibly even the breakup of Britain. After all, capitalism tends not only to unite along national lines but also to create splits in the working class, often with disastrous consequences.

Gordon Brown's idea of 'Britishness' is not inclusive, but divisive, not only on national lines but also inciting hatred against immigrants and in particular Muslims. For all their talk about 'community', Brown and Blair have persistently identified immigrants with economic problems and crime. They have associated Muslims with extremism in both the veil controversy and in the so called 'war on terror'. Of course, neither immigrants, nor Scots, nor Welsh, nor English are to blame for the present crisis of capitalism, but only the system itself.

For Marxists, the response to all these attempts to divide and attack the working class is clear. Marx and Engels called for the workers of all countries to unite in the Communist Manifesto. This is just as true today. We stand for the unity of the working class across all sectarian and national boundaries. We oppose New Labour's nationalism and call for a socialist government of Britain to get rid of capitalism in the interest of all workers.

This article first appeared on Socialist Appeal.

Democracy is weak in today’s political climate as the two major parties, squabbling for electoral credibility, merge closer to becoming two faces representing the same conservative ideology and agenda. To encourage vibrant political debate, the left in Britain is in dire of need of strong, solid representation.

Respect is one of the more prominent, albeit still fledgling, leftist political parties in Britain today. Lindsey German, who is most notable for her founding role in the Stop The War campaign, is Respect’s candidate for this years’ important and highly-anticipated London mayoral election.

Ms German correctly points out that “democracy can be served by encouraging the existence of organisations which represent the opposite views of the mainstream parties, and who usually receive little publicity or media coverage”. However, the encouragement and promotion of parties critical of mainstream politics is hardly in the selfish interests of Labour and the Tories. It is these selfish interests that make the presence of left wing minority groups to scrutinise parliamentary policies absolutely crucial.

Over a decade of Blairism, and the constant reminder that Labour is no just ‘Labour’ but ‘New Labour’, has left a devastatingly deep hole in the political left. The defeat of the miners’ strike in the 1980s, and the Labour’s progressive abandonment of its working class constituency, caused many former members and supporters of the left to become either knowingly disillusioned with politics or unconscious in their apathy to the vast array of serious class and social inequalities in today’s British society.

This means that ideological and political boundaries are not longer being pushed in Britain. Strong voices from both sides of politics are needed to maintain the social balance that democracy promises. The conservatives have their agenda supported and promoted by both major political parties. At present, the left has no strong voice. This has caused a lack of political debate and discourse, which is necessary for a true democracy to flourish.

Can the left survive this difficult period? The answer must be yes. The challenge for the left is to once again awaken and engage the consciousness of the public. Confidence in potential electoral success is the easiest platform on which to invoke wide-spread support from the public. For instance, if Respect can win 5% of the vote across London in the upcoming mayoral election, it would get a seat, and with that seat, political credibility.

To do this, the a party like Respect must be vocal, consistent and vigilant in putting forward policies that people can believe in. It must not appear opportunistic or militant in its approach to policy making or political agenda, otherwise it risks further voter alienation.

Further, left minority groups such as Respect must struggle against infighting and facionalism. According to Ms German “the problem with such disagreements is that they are often unintelligible to those not directly involved, and they reinforce the view that the left is always divided”.

It will not be an easy task for the left to meet, particularly with trade union support firmly behind New Labour. Ms German says: “The trade union leaders criticise New Labour but remain committed to it. It is extremely hard for small parties to intervene in the electoral arena, since most elections are stacked very much against them”.

Even so, Ms German remains optimistic about the future of the left and therefore of democracy in Britain. The campaigns and rallies centered on opposition to the Iraq war have offered Respect and other left wing political parties a focus and strong political base: “I am very optimistic about the future because I came into politics in the great wave of struggle in the late 60s and early 70s and there is still much unfinished business from then if only we can unite around the issues about which we can agree and minimise the difference which divide us”.

"There are some people so famous, so much the focus of media attention and public conversation, that they ceased to be viewed by many as human beings."

So said Tony Blair's former megaphone Alastair Campbell in The Times last week observing the rise and fall of semi-clothed pop megastar Britney Spears. The fall element of the story culminated last week in Spears ending up being led away by the proverbial persons in white coats to be put under the US equivalent of a section.

Since then, a gleeful cacophony of commentators and psychiatrists, who apparently feel able to diagnose the patient from several thousand miles away by looking at her picture in the redtops and tapping their toes to her back catalogue, have queued up to consider whether or not Spears may be suffering from bipolar depression.

Disgusted by this brutal media circus, Campbell storms: "Does there ever come a point where a judgement forms that says let's just leave her alone?" before adding: "Being a hard-nosed journalist or businessman does not require you to suspend basic humanity."

It was, of course, this misguided faith in the underlying humanity of turbocapitalism that lay at the heart of the Blairite debacle.

It's true that being a hard-nosed journalist or businessman doesn't require you to suspend your basic humanity, but, if fraternal love for your fellow people is a big thing for you, it's unlikely that hard-nosing will be your profession of choice.

Turbocapitalism exploits more or less everyone, but it's particularly merciless in its exploitation of young women.

Spears has been much luckier than the millions of young women in the developing world who are forced to turn their bodies into products in a much more unpleasant way than she's had to and the millions more in the West who are encouraged to hate themselves for not being her.

But, ultimately, she's been packaged, sold and remaindered by a system that cares about profits more than people.

Those in search of a slightly - very slightly, as it turns out - more intellectual mental collapse could have read The Independent, where novelist Martin Amis was allegedly trying to convince interviewer Johann Hari that he is not a racist.

So, was it racist to suggest, as he did in 2006, that the Muslim community would have to suffer "discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children?"

It certainly wasn't unusual or interesting. Amis joined a gaggle of former leftish journalists and intellectuals who, at various points of since 2001, have anointed Islam the enemy of all that's good and then labelled anyone from the centre-right leftwards who fails to follow the same path as the extremist's patsies.

The sad thing is that Amis, Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens and co do have part of a good point. The left, particularly in Britain, has struggled to articulate a coherent post-September 11 analysis that could be described as "neither Washington nor mosque."

Left-wing supporters of what was the Respect Coalition - who, in many cases, probably now regret it - were so keen to exploit the gap in the market for religiously defined anti-Americanism that they positively encouraged and traded off the utterly perverse notion that the war in Iraq was a religion-specific war against Islam, as opposed to a cackhanded exercise in assertive geopolitics.

The left has no business accepting "cultural differences" as an excuse for reactionary social positions and practices which are clearly not shared by most British Muslims, including the rejection of rights for women, gays and lesbians and hatred of Jews and the US. In these cases, there is no room for well-meaning confusion about what is "different" and what is wrong.

Unfortunately, Amis isn't focusing on any of that. He's just saying mad stuff.

He's obviously not the only one calling for lots of strip-searching of young men who look like they may be of Arabic descent, but the pick of the Hari interview is lauding of a man who David Icke could've been if only he'd been Canadian, wacky author Mark Steyn.

Steyn's recent book America Alone tells the story of a Europe converted to Islamic law in 2020 by European Muslims whose phenomenal breeding rates have enabled them to become the majority, elect an Islamist government and demand "mass evacuations" of white people.

According to Amis, Steyn is "a great sayer of the unsayable." Amis, it seems, is failing to distinguish between something that's unsayable and something that can be said but which, once said, will be widely regarded as ridiculous.

Apparently, Amis's new world order encompasses not only authoritarian defence of liberalism but also comically irrational defences of rationalism. And so on we go.

This article first appeared in the Morning Star newspaper.