Source: Stop the War Coalition

Endless tributes to the dead by the military, politicians and the royal family without any honesty or self-criticism is nauseating.

When Harry Patch died in 2009, aged 111, he was the longest surviving British soldier from WW1.

As we remember the end of that war 100 years ago, we should surely have in the forefront of our minds those people who strove so hard, and ultimately unsuccessfully, to change a society which had produced, and largely justified, the most bloody and brutal war in human history.

But instead, we are treated to the spectacle of every establishment voice in Britain lining up to remember the sacrifice of those who died while continuing to justify that war and the current wars which have brought so much human misery in the last two decades. The whole atmosphere around Remembrance Sunday has become one where any deviation from uncritical and uninformed thinking on the topic, any refusal to wear a red poppy or (horror) to wear a white one symbolising peace, is regarded as beyond the pale.

The respected Guardian journalist Simon Jenkins was berated as ‘disrespectful’ by Piers Morgan for questioning why this event is still being marked 100 years on, when there is no one alive who fought in that war. By sleight of hand, this argument is extended to anyone who challenges the priorities of the still continuing wars in which Britain is involved, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Yemen. This is seen as not ‘supporting’ the troops – as if in 1918 or now the best way to support troops is to send them to pointless slaughter.

The argument about supporting the troops has allowed weeks and weeks of pro war sentiment to be propagated in schools, universities, workplaces, railway stations, parliament, local government, coffee shops, pubs, and everywhere in the media, especially in the broadcast media.

It is de rigeur to wear a poppy on every television programme – and those who don’t are slated from every side. When I went on Sky News back in October, the producer said to me ‘grab a poppy’ as I headed to the studio. I declined. It is an insult to democracy and to our intelligence to insist that people unquestionably wear these symbols.

Instead, broadcasters would be doing their duty by staging proper and serious debates about the war, about its causes and consequences, and about the wars going on today. Zero chance.

I find it frankly nauseating that we must listen to endless tributes to the dead without any honesty or self-criticism about how and why they died. The sacrifice of the First World War was the responsibility of the military and politicians who refused to admit that they were wrong, and that their tactics were leading to senseless deaths. The eventual victory over Germany was not – as we now hear – the product of great military genius, but of the exhaustion and war weariness which affected all sides. Britain’s naval blockade of Germany made a major contribution to this by creating widespread shortages of food.

When we hear the military, the politicians, the royal family, all using the genuine feelings of remembrance and grief that people have to justify more of these policies, we should remember the bitter opposition to that war which grew as it went on and more people were sacrificed, and exploded at its end as people demanded an end to war, poverty, hunger and disease.

They didn’t get that, but instead two decades of hardship followed by another even more terrible war.

Fast forward 100 years. Britain remains one of the world’s biggest military spenders, is engaged in military intervention in a number of countries, has had troops in Afghanistan for 17 years – far longer than the First and Second World Wars put together – and has far too many politicians who boast of their desire to start a nuclear war. The war in Yemen, led by Saudi Arabia but materially aided and supplied by British arms and personnel, is leading to further horror, including famine induced by military blockade.

The war to end all wars turned out to be anything but – and the same people are justifying this carnage all over again.

Source: Counterfire

There has to be a concerted fightback and everyone needs to step up and argue against this witch-hunt.

There can be no doubt about what this represents – the serious attempt to remove a twice-elected Labour leader who has left wing politics, who supports a range of causes and movements including those for the Palestinians, who is committed to redistribution of wealth and power, who wants more money spent on decent public services, and whose election as prime minister would inspire working people around the world.

Such a vista is so horrifying to those who control our society that there is now an alliance of right wing Labour MPs, the print and broadcast media, the Tories and indeed Benjamin Netanyahu – all united on finding ways in which every day they can spread lies, innuendo, misunderstandings and misquotes which paint Corbyn as the devil incarnate, so filled with hatred that he represents an ‘existential threat’ to British Jews, according to some Jewish papers.

The latest attack is about a meeting where Corbyn was obviously making a joking remark about a group of Zionists at a meeting not understanding ‘English irony’. The remark refers to specific people and is in the context of saying that the Palestinian ambassador understands this English irony better. Yes, that really is it, yet it has caused MPs Luciana Berger and Mike Gapes to question their membership of Labour.

It has also brought the most astonishing intervention from Tory Home Secretary Sajid Javid – yes he of the party of Boris Johnson and the burka insults, and of the hostile environment to immigrants which brought us the Windrush scandal. He demonstrates his total ignorance on the matter when he suggests that making this remark about Zionists makes Corbyn antisemitic against all Jews. He says that any similar remark about other groups such as Asians would be deemed unacceptable.

But he is the one who is here making the racist assumption. Not all Jews are Zionists – and indeed not all Zionists are Jews. Zionism is a political movement with a history, established in the late 19th century as antisemitism grew in Europe and aimed at securing a homeland for Jews. It was long a minority view among European Jews, until the events of the Holocaust understandably led to it gaining more support and to the establishment of the state of Israel. Today, extreme Zionists are emigrating to Israel and settling on Palestinian land in settlements deemed illegal under international law, but encouraged by Netanyahu and his friend Donald Trump.

The comparison Javid makes is wrong – a comparable reference would be to an Islamic political organisation or to Islamic extremism, a term used very frequently. When people refer to Zionists they refer not to all Jews but to a political movement – and are quite right to make the distinction. This is a fabricated row which takes a casual remark from a speech and turns it into an attack on all Jews. While it seems that the left can distinguish between Jews and Zionists, it seems that the right wing media can’t.

These arguments about antisemitism are being used to try to damage Corbyn and to rehabilitate Israel’s reputation at the exact time when it is threatening war with Iran, attacking Palestinians, trying to claim Jerusalem as its capital and increasing the illegal settlements, all egged on by Trump

The argument has become intertwined with Middle East politics and divisions within Labour. Reports of a barbecue hosted by Peter Mandelson where 20 MPs including deputy leader Tom Watson discussed this issue, Brexit and a new party are all too believable. A de facto split looks more and more likely to me, with antisemitism being heralded as the ostensible reason, although this has long been about major political differences. I for one am totally fed up with those MPs and journalists who claim they all thought Corbyn was a really good guy until all this. No, they didn’t, they always opposed him, but this gives them a rationale.

I helped organise and spoke at a London meeting last week where 400 people packed into the hall and another 100 were turned away. The speakers all made clear their opposition to antisemitism and all racism, but also to the oppression of Palestinians which is a fact of life in Israel. The audience was very militant, very annoyed at the slurs and very committed to organising against them. This anger is a reflection of feelings inside and outside Labour across the country. It may be true, as some Labour members argue, that most people see through it, but it is corrosive nonetheless. And its aim is not just to demoralise the left, but to defeat it, and to defeat the broader Palestine solidarity movement which is so strong in Britain.

One question we should all ask is why, when there have been weeks of these lies and slanders towards Jeremy, has there been so little from Labour MPs defending him? Or Momentum? There has to be a concerted fightback and everyone needs to step up and argue against this witch-hunt. It isn’t going to go away, with the IHRA definition of antisemitism likely to be adopted by the NEC. That, in turn, will lead to further attacks on the left. Central to fighting back has to be a determination to have serious debates – in the Labour Party, in the movements, in the media – on what Israel has done and what it is doing.

The constant slurs, lies and innuendo are the enemy of such debate. They have to stop. And we have nothing to fear from such debates. Perhaps those attacking Jeremy Corbyn do?

Defend free speech on Israel and Palestine in the Labour Party

Are you a Labour Party member? Use this lobby tool to contact every Labour NEC member to ask that they defend free speech on Israel and Palestine. It takes less than a minute to complete.

LOBBY NEC HERE…

Source: Morning Star

The real target is not “rooting out” anti-semitism in Labour, but his opponents rooting out Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour leadership.

Source: Counterfire

‘Respectable’ politicians in ‘respectable’ newspapers fuel racist attacks and increase what is already a toxic climate of racism.

It has much wider consequences than this however. Because all past and present evidence shows that racist filth spouted by ‘respectable’ politicians in ‘respectable’ newspapers helps to fuel racist attacks, helps to give credibility and confidence to the far right and fascists, and increases what is an already toxic climate of racism.

The disingenuous claim by Johnson and his supporters that this is just raising a topic of debate, and that Johnson is in fact a liberal because he does not want to ban the burqa, should fool no one. There is no shortage of racists already debating the issue of what Muslim women wear, no shortage of social media posts, no shortage of abuse and sometimes worse directed at Muslim women over their clothing.

The truth is that there is absolutely no point in raising this issue unless you are aiming for a ban. Discussion which just simply abuses Muslims may be satisfying to racists but it has no outcome. Instead, Johnson raised this precisely because he does want a discussion on a ban. It is clear from subsequent responses from other ‘respectable’ figures such as Jacob Rees Mogg and Johnson’s own family – his father, Stanley, and sister, Rachel, have both written newspaper columns defending his stand – that there will be further slippage in this direction. The egregious Christine Hamilton compares burqas to KKK hoods.

What the whole issue does is to raise the level of racism around the question. Why is it suddenly ok to discuss what certain items of clothing make women look like, in a way that it definitely would not be about nuns or Hasidic Jews? Why should the question of what women wear be the subject of discussion by anyone as long as it is their choice? And why is it not an outrage that Tory MP Nadine Dorries is allowed to imply that Muslim women wear such garments to cover up the bruises inflicted by domestic violence?

The argument is not really about the particulars, however, it is about racism. Very few women in any European countries wear the burqa or niqab (apparently 0.01% of Muslim women do in Britain), although far more wear the hijab or headscarf. Muslim women who choose to wear any of these items of clothing may do so for a range of religious or social reasons. It is clear that the majority do choose what they wear, and any coercion either by family or state should be vigorously opposed. But it is no one’s business but theirs how they dress. They should have the right to choose – like any other woman – what and what not to wear without fear of verbal or physical attack.

Islamophobia in the 21^st century targets women heavily, reproducing all sorts of issues to do with fear of sexuality, or of independent women. It is not the job of feminists to go along with this, but to challenge this racism and sexism aimed at one of the most vulnerable groups of women who already face widespread economic and social discrimination.

Behind all this lurks the spectre of Tommy Robinson, the far right and the growth of fascism across Europe. There is an increasing merging of this ‘respectable’ opinion and that of the far right – witness Rod Liddle’s piece for the Spectator which openly calls for more Islamophobia inside the Tory party. What Robinson says today, Johnson says tomorrow. This follows a pattern we are seeing across the developed world, where far right politicians set the agenda over scapegoating Muslims and migrants, and their views are at least adopted by the mainstream parties including those of the social democratic left.

In doing so they make the most hideous racism respectable, and increase the scapegoating rather than stand up to it. Many countries have already banned aspects of Muslim women’s dress and passed other anti-Muslim and anti-migrant laws – including France, Denmark, parts of Germany, and Hungary. There will be increasing pressure here in Britain to move towards a ban – and Johnson has opened the door to Robinson, UKIP and the rest of the racist ragbag.

The alt-right guru and former Trump adviser, Steve Bannon, clearly involved in a major and toxic campaign to promote and encourage the far right across Europe, has in recent days praised both Johnson and Robinson, suggesting that the former would make a great prime minister and that the latter is the voice of blue collar workers in Britain. Both are absurd claims, but there is a deliberate process here where fascists and the far right hitch themselves to mainstream politicians, and use them to further spread their doctrine of hate and division.

There’s no pick and mix in the fight against racism
Johnson has been called on to apologise by the Tory leadership and has made it absolutely clear he’s not going to. Nothing will happen to him as a result – partly because Theresa May is too weak to enforce her will within the party, but mainly because the Islamophobic views that Johnson espouses are rife within the Tory party. Social media posts and remarks which show deeply held racist views about Muslims make regular appearances, yet receive only a fraction of the media and political attention apportioned to the issue of anti-Semitism within Labour.

Baroness Warsi and others within the Tory party have been agitating for some time about the level of Islamophobia. Their criticisms are pretty much shrugged off, along with the contemptuous dismissal of the Muslim Council of Britain as ‘extremist’ and the claim that having Sajid Javid as Home Secretary means there isn’t an Islamophobia problem.

Compare this with the endless demands for apologies and repeated pillorying of people within Labour for alleged cases of anti-Semitism. The clamour about this is continuing, with papers like the Daily Mail making repeated attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. I dealt with the question at length in last week’s Briefing, but for the sake of clarity to repeat; it has to be possible to distinguish between anti-Semitism, or racism against Jews as Jews, which can never be acceptable, and criticism of Israel which should not be prohibited or curtailed in any way by claiming that it in itself is anti-Semitic.

It is clear that the attacks are increasingly on Corbyn himself and are about the future of his leadership. They range from outright lies to distortion and innuendo, yet none have produced evidence of anti-Semitism on the part of Corbyn. Their short term aim is the demand that the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism along with all its examples should be adopted in full by Labour’s NEC. At least one of those examples would open up those who criticise Israel to charges of anti-Semitism.

Corbyn is being accused of such because he has compared occupation of Gaza with the sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad, or with Nazi occupation of various European countries. To deny the right to make any historical analogy with events connected to Nazism and the Second World War, even when it is not mainly concerned with the Holocaust, is wrong.

What an awful travesty of anti-racism it is when a paper which has a despicable history of supporting fascism, which regularly scapegoats migrants and Muslims, can set itself up as judge and jury of one of the most committed anti-racist politicians of our times.

What an even greater travesty it is when the Tory party, which created the hostile environment for the Windrush generation and which only just over a decade ago had as an election slogan ‘are you thinking what I’m thinking’, dog whistling anti-immigration politics, can join in the attacks on Corbyn, at the very time when its most popular politician is donning the clothes of the far right in his pitch for power?

We should remember one thing. You can’t pick and mix as the Tories are doing. If you pay lip service to opposing racism against Jews, then you have to oppose racism against Muslims or anyone else come to that. The fight against racism is indivisible – which is why the left has always made it central to its politics.

Lindsey German is national convenor of Stop the War Coalition.

Source: Counterfire

There is no need to apologise for things that we are not guilty of and the left in its overwhelming majority is not guilty of antisemitism.

I think for all of us on the left this is a very upsetting question, since we all regard anti-racism as central to our politics, but also because we recognise the enormity of where antisemitism can lead. So our understanding of antisemitism has to be put in the context of the unique crime that was the Holocaust and the very many other forms of repression and discrimination which Jews have suffered for centuries. We also recognise the important role that Jewish people have played in leftwing and socialist movements. In my political lifetime they have played a disproportionately central role in terms of their numbers in the civil rights movement in the US, the anti-apartheid movement, the women’s liberation movement and much more. The idea that antisemitism plays a major role on the left should be anathema to us all.

But it’s partly for this reason that it is impossible not to address it now. The argument is affecting the whole future of left politics in Britain and the criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn are presenting a challenge to his whole leadership. Indeed the row over antisemitism is very much framed as about Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. If that challenge is successful it will mark a major setback for all of those of us who want fundamental left transformation in Britain.

It is also important because any form of racism – including antisemitism – is not just an issue for those directly affected by it. It affects and distorts the whole of society and one of the aims of racism is to weaken any united fightback against rightwing and fascist policies. We know that the strengthening of the far right weakens all of us on the left and we know racism is at the centre of far right politics. That’s another reason why combatting it has to be at the centre of our politics on the left.

However, the issue to do with the row over Labour antisemitism is about much more than how you combat a certain form of racism. It is in part about whether criticism of Israel as a political state can spill over into antisemitism and whether support for the Palestinian cause can be seen as anti-Jewish. And it is now a question of who leads Labour. There is no doubt that many of those now spearheading the campaign – from Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard to rightwing Labour MPs like Margaret Hodge and Ian Austin – have a political aim of replacing Corbyn as leader with someone much less radical on other issues as well as Palestine.

We should not forget either that the Israeli embassy was implicated in interfering in British politics last year when one of its diplomats was recorded as saying that he wanted to ‘bring down’ a pro-Palestine Tory MP, Alan Duncan. While he was sent back to Israel in disgrace, the matter went no further – disgracefully given that this was blatant interference in the British political system. Are we seriously supposed to imagine that this was a maverick operation, or that there is no other attempt to influence British politics, especially when both Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel organisations have strong links with the embassy? The present ambassador is Mark Regev, the man who was press spokesman in 2009 when he defended the killing of Palestinians through Operation Cast Lead, and who has defended the recent killings of Gazan Palestinians by Israeli forces.

The present argument on antisemitism resurfaced over the definition of antisemitism agreed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) – a definition widely accepted at its core, but where there are greater political differences over the political clauses and examples that accompany it. The decision by Labour’s NEC, in my view completely correctly, was to accept some of those examples but not others, especially those which imply that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. This caused a major backlash in the PLP, a body often overtly hostile to Corbyn.

The accusation now is – in the appalling words of Margaret Hodge – that Jeremy Corbyn is “a fucking racist and an antisemite” and that Labour is riddled with antisemitism which Corbyn tolerates or even supports.

Both accusations are slanderous, but are repeated and encouraged throughout the media and the political establishment. There are a number of cases of antisemitism which have been found, but overall a small number in a party the size of Labour. They should be dealt with by due process and appropriate action taken. It seems to me the remarks by Peter Willsman at the NEC or indeed those by Marc Wadsworth who was expelled earlier this year are not antisemitic, whether you agree with them or not. Many Labour activists say that they have experienced little or no antisemitism directly. That doesn’t mean it is not there, but it hardly seems of epidemic proportions if this is the case. It is after all a matter of record that Labour’s previous leader, Ed Miliband, was Jewish, and to the best of my recollection he suffered several major antisemitic attacks. These were however all from the right, who complained about his inability to eat a bacon sandwich, his north London geekiness and his Jewish refugee father’s supposed lack of patriotism.

Jeremy Corbyn defended him in all those cases. That doesn’t surprise me at all, not just because of his own committed anti-racism but also because antisemitism today (and historically) has come from the right. This is still alarmingly the case in Hungary, Poland and Austria – none of whose discriminatory political pronouncements raise a fraction of the ire that Corbyn does among his enemies.

In terms of dealing with this argument, there is a crucial distinction to be made about antisemitism – and that it is not the same as criticism of Israel. Indeed, such criticism is essential if we are to distinguish between the mass of Jewish people and a state whose actions are increasingly discriminatory towards Palestinians.

The new national law further enshrines such discrimination, allowing small towns and villages to exclude Palestinians, for example. It legalises a form of apartheid within the state which has always been there. Every Jew anywhere in the world has the right to live in Israel, yet Palestinians whose families were driven from their land in 1948 have no Right of Return. Millions of Palestinians live as refugees or in occupied territories. The Netanyahu government – egged on by Donald Trump – is increasing illegal settlements and is trying to move the capital to Jerusalem in contravention of international law. When the Palestinians defend themselves they are bombed and shot at, and denounced as terrorists.

It isn’t antisemitic to say this. Nor is it antisemitic to say, as I believe, that there should be one democratic secular state where all religions and nationalities live together – as Jews, Muslims and Christians have done in the Middle East for hundreds of years.

It would also help if we had a bit more of a historical perspective, and recognised that the Jewish movement has always been politically divided – from the whole question of Zionism and a Jewish state to issues such as whether to physically oppose the fascists at Cable Street. This is also true of the socialist and left movement more widely. I am opposed to those who make comparisons between Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and the Nazis’ persecution of Jews. They are at the very least insensitive to Jewish people, who nearly all lost family in the Holocaust. They are also usually historically inappropriate. At the same time, that should not mean that we forget our history.

The socialist movement had a long tradition of opposing fascism. This is why when Hitler came to power many of his first victims were the socialists and communists who were such staunch opponents of fascism in the years before 1933. The aim was to destroy the organised working class movement precisely to make it easier to then persecute and later exterminate so many Jews – as well as Roma, lesbians and gays, the disabled and other sections of society.

This history should be the subject of debate and discussion – not weaponised as a means of attacking a leader with a record second to none on fighting racism.

There’s only one way to stop a witch-hunt – stand up to it

The witch-hunt around this question has been astonishing, with Jeremy Corbyn being accused of being an “existential threat” to Jewish people in Britain, and increasingly vociferous demands for apologies, retractions and the like. This witch-hunt is increasingly aimed at the Labour leadership and its aim will be to reverse advances for the left in Labour. The media is grotesquely magnifying the witch-hunt with every right wing paper that routinely denounces ‘political correctness gone mad’ or delights in scapegoating Muslims and refugees now denouncing ‘shameful’ racism from Labour.

This is a politically motivated witch-hunt aiming to undermine the Corbyn leadership, and can only be fought politically. Ian Austin is so far to the right of Labour that he heckled Jeremy when he apologised for the Iraq war. Last week he denounced Stop the War as Saddam supporters – another lie. There will be no satisfying him and his allies. The Jewish Museum was pressurised to stop Jeremy Corbyn making a speech on this subject in its premises. He is constantly being accused of guilt by association, most recently when he shared a platform with a Holocaust survivor (a point rarely remarked on) who compared Israel and the Nazis.

This has all led to a culture of finger pointing, apology demands and denunciation. The problem is you cannot defeat a witch-hunt by agreeing with it. There will always be something dragged up from past as a new crime to denounce, there will always be people who say stupid or ill-advised things that can be picked up on. There is no need to apologise for things that we are not guilty of – and the left in its overwhelming majority is not guilty of antisemitism. In fact, it has a proven track record of fighting antisemitism.

So the only way to deal with this is to reaffirm our politics on Palestine in a serious and intelligent way, to offer to debate and discuss how we resolve these questions, but not to give any ground on the political principles. We should also not start denouncing our own side, as this ends up being counterproductive. There are too many on the left who approach this by blaming others on the Labour left rather than seeing it as a major onslaught from forces on the right. We shouldn’t concede that there is a major problem on the left with this – because there really isn’t and to keep saying so only weakens the real fight against antisemitism. And that weakens us all.

Lindsey German is the national convenor of Stop the War Coalition.

¡No pasaran! Confronting the Rise of the Far-Right

2 March 2019  ¡NO PASARAN! Conference in London to organise against Europe-wide rise of the far-right. Bringing together activists, MPs, campaigners from across Europe.

Details and registration…

We have to organise at every level on the left to stop the situation getting worse and to assert an alternative to the politics of scapegoating and racism.

Source: Counterfire

This development has been both predictable and predicted. The Democratic Football Lads Alliance has managed at least for now to bring together the rag tag and bobtail of tiny fascist and extreme right-wingers into a more coherent and larger right-wing force, given momentum by Robinson’s imprisonment for contempt of court and, on a wider level, by the alt-right internationally. The Dutch Islamophobe Geert Wilders addressed the demo and it was sent a message by Donald Trump’s former right-hand man, Steve Bannon.

It is a sign of the deep political polarisation in the decade since the great financial crash of 2008. We have seen a growing discontent with mainstream parties and the growth of parties to the far right and far left. In Britain, Labour has maintained its popularity only as a result of the election of its most left leader, and the adoption of an anti-austerity manifesto. In countries such as France, Germany and Italy, traditional left social democratic parties have in contrast seen their support collapse. Discontent with traditional right-wing parties such as the Tories has also been evidenced by the Brexit vote and the lack of support for the party at last year’s election.

We have seen the far right in government in the US which obviously has a huge impact on right-wing forces worldwide plus in a number of European countries such as Hungary, Poland, Italy and Austria. The pressure of the rise of the far right is also leading to the main parties, including those of the left and social democracy, adopting similar policies against Muslims and immigrants. Denmark is the latest country to ban the Muslim women’s dress, a move accompanied by the Social Democratic Party adopting much more stridently anti-Islamic policies.

Britain has escaped the worst of this so far for two main reasons. One is the relative success until last year of the electoral right in the shape of UKIP. Its demise has led many of its leaders to flirt with fascist street politics. This has been a pattern with the British far right before. The second reason is the strength of Jeremy Corbyn who has helped avoid the opportunist response to right-wing politicians we saw from previous Labour leaderships.

However, we have to organise at every level on the left to stop the situation getting worse and to assert an alternative to the politics of scapegoating and racism. There will be much discussion in coming weeks about how we got to this state of affairs and how to counter it.

We firstly need to think about this as a new situation or phase of the struggle against racism and fascism. That means we need to think of how we deal with it strategically. It seems to me that is not helped by just repeating that we need more people on the counter-demonstrations. A moralistic approach works with a small number of people but in the end, does not politically motivate the forces needed. In addition, it is clear that just arithmetically increasing mobilisations is not going to do the trick. What is needed is a mass united front political approach which can bring large numbers of people onto the streets and organise organically among different sections of society in a meaningful way.

This means drilling down from national trade union support to every workplace, where those already committed to anti-racism and fascism engage in a process of agitation and education among their workmates. It means organising different groups from football supporters to tenants’ organisations, from community choirs to pensioners groups, to win the argument against the divisive politics of the right.

It means too that Labour has to mobilise on the streets and in communities and workplaces to counter this threat. Labour is a mass membership organisation, as is Momentum. It cannot confine itself to internal debates and promoting Corbyn as prime minister in waiting. The streets cannot be left to the right to mobilise and intimidate Muslims, ethnic minorities and anyone else they want to scapegoat.

So this is urgent. The left movements have not seen right-wing mobilisations on this scale for many years now. But politics are at an impasse in parliament and nature abhors a vacuum. If we do not organise for our agenda the right will try to enforce theirs.

While the situation is serious, we should not exaggerate how bad it is. The views held by these people are rejected by millions across Britain. Millions more can be won away from the politics of racism and scapegoating if they find the left relevant to their concerns. That means arguments in favour of public ownership, the NHS, trade union rights, against austerity have to be at the centre of our work. The failure of much of the left to accept the argument for a united front against austerity has been a weakness and must now be remedied.

We need to confront fascists on the streets, and well done to everyone who opposed the DFLA on Saturday and on previous demonstrations. But having small mobilisations which have not widened their reach and effect can often demoralise the participants. Let’s instead organise a major demo on a day they are not mobilising, in order to show opposition and also to build critical mass, to begin to harness our forces and turn them towards local mobilisations. That has to go alongside the mobilisations over Grenfell, the NHS and other issues.

The protests against Donald Trump’s visit are a great opportunity to test this thesis. They need to be the largest, most united and most effective that we can muster. If we want to send a message to the DFLA, to Robinson and to UKIP that their politics are not shared by large numbers in this country, then turning out against Trump on 13th July is a very good place to start.

Together Against Trump:
National Demonstration
Friday 13 July London | Assemble 2pm
BBC Portland Place | London W1A 1AA
Details »