Exploitation
From Sylhet to Spitalfields: Bengali Squatters in 1970s East London – review
In From Sylhet to Spitalfields, Shabna Begum examines the Bengali community’s struggle for housing and belonging in the face of systemic racism in 1970s East London. According to Md Naibur Rahman and Ruhun Wasata, Begum’s rich combination of ethnographic work and historical analysis reveals how, through squatting, activism and community organising, Bangladeshi migrants successfully demanded their right to housing.
Someone with a rumbling stomach taking a stroll around Tower Hamlets in London, famous for its Bangladeshi community and cuisine, might be focused on finding a place to eat. Once satiated, attention can be focused on questions of how this diasporic community who were once colonised made it to the land of the coloniser and eventually called it home. In From Sylhet to Spitalfields, Shabna Begum undertakes an academic journey to examine the experiences of the Bangladeshi community as they faced systemic and targeted racism in their struggle to find literal and figurative homes in East London.
The book examines the Bangladeshi Squatter movement in the 1970s [. . .] to ensure the minimum basic rights of finding tenancy agreements in places that could keep them safe from targeted and street racism.
The book examines the Bangladeshi Squatter movement in the 1970s, a united effort against institutionalised racism of the Greater London Council (GLC) and Tower Hamlets Council (TLC) to ensure the minimum basic rights of finding tenancy agreements in places that could keep them safe from targeted and street racism. Begam’s robust ethnographic research both documents the suffering and struggles of the Bangladeshi community in London and records their resilience and resistance in the face of adversity.
The book begins with a historical account of the migration pattern of people from Sylhet, the North Eastern region of Bangladesh, to East London. Dating back to the boat building and sailing traditions of Sylheti people found in Ibn Battuta’s record in 1346 and Robert Lindsay’s observation in 1777, Sylheti men were initially employed as ship workers by the East India Company under British rule. Lindsay, the revenue collector deployed in Sylhet, extracted all trading opportunities for limestone, elephant trading (at least 6000), tea plantation and ship building. This typical practice of colonial-era property acquisition and exploitation of natural resources led him to purchase Balcarres House in Fife, Scotland from his older brother, Earl Alexander. This is a glaring example of how Sylhet and Sylheti seafarers contributed to the growth of the economic and political power of British colonisers in the 18th century.
The book observes this migratory pattern as part of the legacy of imperialism, epitomised in Sivanandan’s phrase, ‘We are here because you were there’.
The exploitation continued with an administrative strategy of annexing Sylhet to Assam, the neighbouring district, whose tea plantations became a cash cow. This layout and arrangement made Sylheti people owners of their land, unlike in other districts, which were governed by a few elite landlords and the majority of tenants. With the growing population, Sylheti people gravitated towards the merchant shipping industry to ease the pressure on the land-based economy. As part of an invitation to new commonwealth citizens in the post-war period Sylheti people started migrating from Bangladesh to East London in the 1960s and 1970s in search of opportunity, finding work in the garment, catering and hospitality sectors. The book observes this migratory pattern as part of the legacy of imperialism, epitomised in Sivanandan’s phrase, “We are here because you were there.”
The book stands out for highlighting the significance of the role of women in the squatter movement. In the mid-1970s, Sylheti men were concerned that, due to the racialist restriction on Commonwealth migration, they wouldn’t be able to bring their wives and children to the UK in the future as family reunification migrants, who would then morph into economic migrants. Their families were eventually allowed to join them, and their temporary, unstructured and compromised accommodation setups were no longer adequate. The lack of suitable accommodation led to Sylhetis wrangling with the GLC and THC powered with residency qualification and fifty-two weeks continuous residency policy for endorsing their discriminatory allocation. Eventually, the only option left was squatting. In these squats, women became the frontline defenders against discriminatory attacks since men were largely away at work outside the home. From protecting the home to protesting on the streets, Sylheti women played a key role in the movement, requiring resilience and defiance.
With no facilities for private bathing, broken windows and doors and interrupted utility supplies, the squatters adjusted to squalid living conditions.
Through the heart-wrenching lived experiences of its interviewees, the book evidences the poor conditions of the squats: dilapidated, leftover houses where no one else would agree to live. With no facilities for private bathing, broken windows and doors and interrupted utility supplies, the squatters adjusted to squalid living conditions. Beyond the this, squatters experienced smashed doors and windows, targeted racist harassment and elected politicians’ committing to expel the Bengali people from the area. In one rare instance where a Bengali family was allocated a council tenancy, the targeted violence they were subject to from the local community meant prevented them from moving in.
The formation of the Bengali Housing Action Group (BHAG) in the spring of 1976 paved a new way to coordinate the efforts and demands of squatters that were conveyed to the councils. The book highlights how this organisation not only established a game-changing platform but also emerged as a united force to resist violence. The formalised voice and force of the organisation proved crucial in gaining support, respect and acceptance from different groups.
The book presents a thorough account of BHAG activities which led to broader amnesty for squatters, enabling them to register and receive GLC tenancy in June 1978. From desperate attempts of squatting to 3000-strong demonstrations of Bangladeshis to finally being able to meet with GLC Councillors, the BHAG representation gave momentum and organisational force to the movements. In 1977, it was agreed by the GLC that their request to be housed in the E1 area would be honoured. BHAG activists made it clear that white or mixed-race people were also welcome as long as the majority of Bangladeshi people are housed in the same area.
The friendship, love and sacrifice of non-Bangladeshi BHAG activists like Terry Fitzpatrick, Mala Sen and Farrukh Dhondy demonstrated the power of multiculturalism and solidarity that London enables.
The Squatter movement and formulation of BHAG fomented lifelong friendships and connections that went beyond shared trauma and suffering. The friendship, love and sacrifice of non-Bangladeshi BHAG activists like Terry Fitzpatrick, Mala Sen and Farrukh Dhondy demonstrated the power of multiculturalism and solidarity that London enables. While some tried to protect Bangladeshis through their vigilante patrolling in Ford Zafire every night for a year, others voiced their frustrations, sufferings and demands on behalf of the Bangladeshi women. In addition, the support from the Socialist Worker Party, the Anti-Nazi League, and Race Today brought more attention and visibility. This movement worked as a foundation stone for many subsequent achievements in the housing cooperation, direct representations in councils and recognition of Bangladeshi culture. From forming housing cooperatives such as Shahjalal and Mitali Housing Co-Op to having representation with a Labour Councillor in 1985, the community established their presence in East London and beyond. British Bangladeshis’ continued political awareness and engagement led to the election of their first Member of Parliament (MP) in 2010, followed by three others in 2010, 2015 and 2019, respectively. The overall emergence of Bangladeshi community in almost every sector has often been credited to their commitment to education, which resonated through many interviewees’ responses – “because we put a graduate in every family”.
The book takes the reader on both an academic and an emotional journey, balancing robust historical research with human stories of resilience in the face of adversity.
Begum’s book does a commendable job of weaving the impacts of political events in Bangladesh with the nature of protests in East London. Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971, the famine of 1974, and the assassination of the Founding Fathers of the Nation sedimented the resilience, resistance and courage, demonstrated by Bangladeshis who stood for their rights in Spitalfields, East London. Although many Sylheti people moved to Britain with the full intention of returning to Bangladesh, the struggles and achievements in East London gave them a sense of double belonging. The book effectively employs an oral ethnographic approach, making it a significant historical record of the Bangladeshi community in East London. The book takes the reader on both an academic and an emotional journey, balancing robust historical research with human stories of resilience in the face of adversity. From historians and geographers to anthropologists, sociologists to gender studies specialists, this book will appeal to many as a means to better understand the experiences of immigrants in Britain.
Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Olivier Guiberteau on Shutterstock.
Protest planned in Tottenham as location of Starmer’s latest ‘pledge’ leaks
Starmer’s ‘equality’ promise is a farce after years of unpunished racism in the Labour right – and Starmer’s support for Israel’s genocide
Keir Starmer and local MP David Lammy will appear in Tottenham between 1pm and 3pm on Monday for what is expected to be Starmer’s announcement of his latest ‘pledge’ – this one promising equal pay protection for ethnic minority groups.
Starmer’s record shows that any ‘promise’ will be worth nothing and jettisoned as soon as convenient – but his decision to stage his blether in one of London’s most diverse boroughs, while he continues to support Israel’s genocide in Gaza and has not even mentioned the International Court of Justice’s binding orders on Israel to stop the slaughter, has prompted outrage and a planned protest:
Starmer’s regime has constantly ignored racism, misogyny and abuse from the right-wing faction that has destroyed the party as a meaningful opposition, often protecting alleged perpetrators – even paedophiles – and covering up even the most serious allegations, while doing nothing to act against perpetrators exposed by the Forde Report. His latest disposable pledge is clearly a feeble attempt to con diverse groups that he cares a jot about their best interests – and his decision to hold it at the centre named after Labour’s first Black MP, who would no doubt have regarded him with contempt, adds insult to injury.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Garston residents launch fight against ‘time-bomb’ that threatens whole of South Liverpool
Chemical processing plant will process greater volume in Liverpool than caused one of biggest non-nuclear explosions history
A 5-mile radius from Veolia’s Garston waste chemical processing works – the 1974 Flixborough disaster, which had a 3-mile radius had a far lower volume
Residents have begun their fight against a plan to process at least 56,000 tonnes a year of toxic and highly hazardous chemical waste next to homes in south Liverpool.
Garston and Grassendale residents have engaged lawyers in their bid to stop a dangerous facility that threatens whole of South Liverpool. Liverpool City Council’s Planning Committee has granted permission for a controversial hazardous waste facility to process the same chemicals that caused the 1974 Flixborough disaster, which caused one of the biggest non-nuclear explosions in history.
The plans, by waste giant Veolia UK, would result in a massive expansion of the volume of highly toxic and explosive waste being processed at the facility in King St, Garston, only metres from established residential communities and 200m from a primary school.
The chemicals processed are the same – but in far larger quantities – as those involved in the infamous 1974 explosion in rural Flixborough, which killed 28 people and damaged buildings three miles away, and would have killed far more had the disaster not happened on a weekend night. A key recommendation of the inquiry into the Flixborough disaster was not to build such facilities near residential areas.
A previously approved scheme of 28,000 tonnes along with the recent plans for a further 28,000 tonnes will total 56,000 tonnes a year when both plants are operational to process solvent recovery – with a large amount of this chemical waste imported from abroad. Campaigners believe these plans contravene the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires ministerial oversight for volumes of 30,000 tonnes or more. Ultimately the site would process as much as 96,000 tonnes a year, according to campaigners.
Spokesperson for the Garston United community group, Gary Woollam said:
We are deeply concerned about the impact of this massive intensification of a hazardous waste processing activity in the heart of our community. Amongst the materials being processed on this site is Cyclohexanone, the chemical responsible for the tragic 1974 Flixborough disaster.
Cyclohexanone is only one of the cocktail of hazardous and highly flammable chemicals that are processed by Veolia in Garston along with Isopropanol, Ethanol and Methanol. Concerns about the potential risks and health impacts of
the proposed facility have now spread to other nearby communities, with residents in the Grassendale & Cressington area opposing the plans and pledging to support a legal challenge.
Local activist and campaigner Sylvia McCleod said:
Residents across the area are angry at the way that the applicant and the city council have failed to engage with and consult the community. It looks like they were trying to get this through under the radar with minimum objections and minimum scrutiny. It is absolutely outrageous that Veolia’s first application was approved under delegated powers without it even being considered by Councillors.
Residents from local communities have come together to form the L19 Action Group, and have already secured funds to instruct a leading UK environmental and planning law firm, Richard Buxton Solicitors. They believe that evidence that the Council failed to adequately consult on the application, or subject it to the required level of environmental scrutiny, form the basis of a successful legal challenge.
Skwawkbox editor Steve Walker, who lives locally, said:
The most astonishing thing about the council’s planning meeting, which seemed
to reach a foregone conclusion of approving the scheme, is that there was no
discussion at all about the explosive risk. Flixborough’s blast radius was
three miles and they said not to build such plants near people. With the far larger
quantities they want to process in Garston, at least the whole south of the city
will be in danger, as well as the risk of the wind carrying leaked toxins for miles
further.”
A large explosion last November at a similar chemical recycling plant in Shepherd, Texas, led to police imposing a five-mile ‘shelter in place’ order because of the ‘acute toxicity’ of substances it released into the air.
Campaigners have already covered the first tranche of legal costs and have launched a crowdfund to help cover further expenditure.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Sick and Tired
Attachment to the ideal of resilience only maintains a world which demands it.
A very happy Christmas to Skwawkbox readers. #CeasefireNow
Skwawkbox wishes its readers a wonderful Christmas and festive season and a peaceful new year. May there be justice in the UK, in Gaza – and a ceasefire and lasting peace – an end to oppression and exploitation, and accountability for those responsible for them.
Thank you for your readership and support.
Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned The Work Ethic Against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back – review
In Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned The Work Ethic Against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back, Elizabeth Anderson argues that neoliberalism has perverted the Protestant work ethic to exploit workers and enrich the one per cent. Magdalene D’Silva finds the book a compelling call to renew a progressive, socially democratic work ethic that promotes dignity for workers.
Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned The Work Ethic Against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back. Elizabeth Anderson. Cambridge University Press. 2023.
Find this book: 
Elizabeth Anderson’s excellent 2023 book Hijacked was published the same month Australian multi-millionaire Tim Gurner said:
“Unemployment has to jump … we need to see pain … Employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them … We’ve gotta kill that attitude…”
America’s Senator Bernie Sanders rebuked Gurner’s diatribe as “disgusting. It’s hard to believe that you have that kind of mentality among the ruling class in the year 2023.”
Ironically, Gurner’s comments favouring employees’ objectification and employer coercive control show just what Hijacked says is: [T]he ascendance of the conservative work ethic… (which) tells workers … they owe their employers relentless toil and unquestioning obedience under whatever harsh conditions their employer chooses …”(xii).
Indeed, “neoliberalism is the descendant of this harsh version of the work ethic … [i]t entrenches the commodification of labor … people have no alternative but to submit to the arbitrary government of employers to survive.” (xii).
Anderson defines neoliberalism as an ideology favouring market orderings over state regulation […] to maximise the wealth and power of capital relative to labour
Anderson defines neoliberalism as an ideology favouring market orderings over state regulation (xii) to maximise the wealth and power of capital relative to labour (272) where the so-called “de-regulation” of labour and other markets doesn’t liberate ordinary people from the state; it transfers state regulatory authority to the most powerful, dominant firms in each market (xii).
Hijacked follows Anderson’s prior writing on neoliberalism’s replacement of democratically elected public government by the state, with unelected private government by employers. Like other work ethic critiques, Hijacked explains how Puritan theologians behind the work ethic dismissed feelings with contempt for emotional styles of faith worship (3).
Hijacked explains how Puritan theologians behind the work ethic dismissed feelings with contempt for emotional styles of faith worship
The original work ethic proselytised utilitarianism (19) but with inherent contradictions between progressive and conservative ideals (14). Early conservative work ethic advocates included Joseph Priestley, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus and Edmund Burke (Chapters 2 and 3) who aligned with the new capitalist, manager entrepreneur classes and “lazy landlords, speculators and predatory capitalists” (65) who claimed they exemplified the work ethic (127).
The work ethic split into conservative and progressive versions which Anderson distinguishes by class-based power relations, rather than competitive markets
The work ethic split into conservative and progressive versions which Anderson distinguishes by class-based power relations, rather than competitive markets, as conservatives “favour government by and for property owners, assign different duties to employers and employees, rich and poor” (while expecting) “workers to submit to despotic employer authority” (and) “regard poverty as a sign of bad character … poor workers as morally inferior” (xv).
Progressives like Adam Smith (130-135) supported “democracy and worker self-government. They oppose class-based duties … and reject stigmatization of poverty” (xvi). Anderson traces this “progressive” work ethic to classical liberals like John Locke (Chapter 2), Adam Smith (132-135), John Stuart Mill (Chapter 6) and progressive, socialist thinkers like Karl Marx (Chapter 7) who stressed how paid work should not alienate workers “from their essence or species-being…” (209) but express their individuality, as “[t]he distinctively human essence is to freely shape oneself…” (209).
Marx applied Mill’s emphasis on the importance of individuality, which Anderson links to the Puritan idea that our vocation must match our individual talents and interests (206) whatever our economic class.
Furthermore, Locke “condemned the idle predatory rich as well as able-bodied beggars” (65). Marx applied Mill’s emphasis on the importance of individuality, which Anderson links to the Puritan idea that our vocation must match our individual talents and interests (206) whatever our economic class.
Yet our worthiness now had to be proved (to God) by ‘work’ that entailed: disciplining drudgery (9), slavery (10, 259), racism (97-99), exploitative maltreatment of poor people (106) and industrious productivity (52) which became conspicuously competitive, luxury consumption (170).
Conservatives (Chapters 3, 4) secularised these ideas so the “upper-class targets of the Puritan critique hijacked the work ethic … into an instrument of class warfare against workers. Now only workers were held to its demands … the busy schemers who … extract value from others cast themselves as heroes of the work ethic, the poor as the only scoundrels” (65).
Anderson doesn’t idolise Locke, Smith, J. S. Mill and other early progressive work ethic advocates like Ricardo (Chapter 5) by highlighting harsh contradictions in their views. For example, within Locke’s pro-worker agenda were draconian measures for poor children (61) such that Anderson says Locke’s harsh policies for those he called the idle poor, contain “the seeds of the ultimate hijacking of the work ethic by capital owners” (25).
[Anderson’s] scrutiny of both left and right-wing support of the neoliberal conservative work ethic complements other critiques of the left-wing origins of neoliberal markets.
Anderson criticises the perversion and reversal of the work ethic’s originally progressive, classical liberal aspirations “and successor traditions on the left” (xviii). Her scrutiny of both left and right-wing support of the neoliberal conservative work ethic complements other critiques of the left-wing origins of neoliberal markets. Anderson also says the conservative work ethic arose in a period of rapidly rising productivity and stagnant wages, “when market discipline was reserved for workers, not the rich” (108).
Yet it was the progressive work ethic that culminated in social democracy throughout Western Europe by promoting the “freedom, dignity and welfare of each” (242). Marx was so influenced by the progressive work ethic espoused by classical liberals, his most developed work on economic theory apparently quotes Adam Smith copiously and admiringly (226). Anderson thus contends that criticism of social democracy as a radical break from classical liberalism – is a myth, as ideas like social insurance “developed within the classical liberal tradition” (227).
However, “Cold War ideology represented social democracy as … a slippery slope to totalitarianism … the title of Friederich Hayek’s … Road to Serfdom, says it all” (226).
Social democracy declined worldwide in the 1970s and 1980s when neoliberalism arose and the conservative work ethic returned with the elections of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher
Social democracy declined worldwide in the 1970s and 1980s when neoliberalism arose and the conservative work ethic returned with the elections of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (Chapter 9). Social democratic centre-left parties like the US Democrats and the UK’s Labour Party (293) didn’t counter neoliberalism’s conservative work ethic, as “the demographics of these parties shifted… from the working class to the professional managerial class” (257), seduced by meritocracy ideology in a competitive race for (their own) superior status (257). Anderson’s observation complements Elizabeth Humphry’s research on how Australia’s Labor Party and labour union movement introduced vanguard neoliberalism to Australia against workers, in the 1980s.
[Anderson] argues the focus on efficiency and aggregate growth neglected workers’ conditions and plight as neoliberal work (for welfare) policies degrade people’s autonomy and capabilities
Anderson recognises the success of some neoliberal policies in the US’s economic stagnation in the 1970s, like trucking deregulation, emissions reduction trade schemes and international trade liberalisation (285-287). However, she argues the focus on efficiency and aggregate growth neglected workers’ conditions and plight as neoliberal work (for welfare) policies degrade people’s autonomy and capabilities because “the most important product of our economic system is ourselves” (288).
Hijacked’s last chapter recommends social democracy renewal and updating the progressive work ethic “to ensure … every person … has the resources and opportunities to develop … their talents … engage with others on terms of trust, sympathy and genuine cooperation” (298). Employees could be empowered through worker cooperatives (297).
A gap in Hijacked’s analysis is a lack of clear definition of “work.” Anderson doesn’t distinguish between “employment” in a “job,” and rich elites’ voluntary, symbolic “duties,” like those of Britain’s “working royals” who call their activities “work”.
Another dilemma is whether economic class power struggles can change peacefully, noting Peter Turchin says we’re facing ‘end times’ of war and political disintegration because competing elites won’t relinquish power.
Nevertheless, Hijacked is compelling reading for everyone on the left and the right who needs employment in a paid job to survive, so today’s neoliberal conservative work ethic no longer gaslights us to believe our dignity demands our exploitation.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image Credit: Daniel Foster on Flickr.
89yo councillor ‘bullied’ by right-wing MPs, for opposing NHS closure, suspended by Labour
Barbara Dring has been suspended on the same day her whistleblowing about planned NHS closure – denounced as ‘lies’ by local right-wing MPs – was confirmed correct
Barbara Dring, the 89-year-old Birmingham councillor ‘bullied’ and labelled a liar by right-wing Labour MPs for warning that a vital local health centre was about to be closed, has been suspended by the party – for talking to third parties about local issues.
Cllr Dring and a local health campaigner warned in the summer that Warren Farm health centre faced closure, forcing local people to travel miles for treatment – and was dismissed as a liar by MPs Khalid Mahmood and Paulette Hamilton. The situation prompted campaigner Lorraine Donnally to put in a formal complaint to Labour. Cllr Dring was briefly hospitalised with a suspected stroke that her supporters believe was a reaction to the stress of the situation.
Today, local newspapers confirmed that the centre will be closed and its services moved more than two miles away.
On the same day, the party suspended Cllr Dring, apparently for whistleblowing. At the same time, it has also suspended Des Hughes, the only other Labour councillor in Oscott ward – leaving Labour with no representation in an area with two Tory councillors.
One local told Skwawkbox that Labour has ‘shot itself in the foot’:
They’re idiots. There are two Tory councillors there and under the new boundaries the ward will fall into the Erdington constituency that Paulette Hamilton will be trying to win, without local council representation. They’ve really shot themselves in the foot.
Others were even more plainspoken. Ms Donnally, the health campaigner who complained to Labour about the behaviour of the local MPs, wrote on Facebook to link the suspensions to the health centre closure – and her comments about the party’s ‘disgusting’ conduct were echoed by other locals:
Birmingham City Council’s Labour chief whip Ray Goodwin is reportedly under investigation by the party over his conduct in the position but has not been suspended – yet Labour has suspended two councillors fighting to keep open a crucial important health facility.
Khalid Mahmood’s awful record as Birmingham Perry Barr MP includes wrongfully sacking former staffer Elaina Cohen for blowing the whistle on ‘criminal’ and ‘sadistic’ abuse of vulnerable domestic violence victims by another Mahmood staffer who was also his lover. Sworn testimony by one of the victims to an employment tribunal in the wrongful dismissal case was not challenged by either Mahmood or his legal team.
The right-winger has also been accused by Bangladeshi media of accepting a bribe from a convicted Bangladeshi fugitive seeking help with his asylum case – and by Elaina Cohen of accepting cash from the Kuwait embassy. He has denied any wrongdoing.
At no point has Keir Starmer or his sidekick David Evans taken action against Mahmood, even to suspend him to protect alleged victims while Mahmood was on Starmer’s front bench. The whistleblower’s emails to Starmer and Evan, as well as Mahmood’s own sworn testimony, make clear that Starmer and Evans were fully aware of the allegations and covered them up.
Bullying, smears and cover-ups have been exposed as rife on the part of the Labour right.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Webbe says Hunt’s measures fatten the rich at poor’s expense – and Labour little better
Independent MP slams latest damaging Tory budget measures and assault on poor, sick and disabled
Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has accused the Tory government of using Jeremy Hunt’s autumn statement to fatten business at the expense of the poor, of ‘snatching the assessment of illness out of the hands of doctors’ to punish the long-term sick and of doing the exact opposite of what the UK economy needs – and says that Keir Starmer’s Labour is little better in enthusiastically promoting the discredited austerity narrative.
In a statement issued today, Ms Webbe said:
Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn Statement boasted of giving corporations the biggest tax handout in modern British political history, doling out billions to companies – many of whom are already making obscene profits in a cost of greed emergency of soaring bills and food costs.
And he is doing this on the backs of the poor, sick and disabled, with horrendous measures to whip those who are unfit to work into taking jobs their medical experts have said they cannot do – and to do it they will snatch the assessment of illness out of the hands of doctors and have it decided by the government’s agents instead.
The past decade has seen a steep rise in poverty, with fourteen million people below the poverty line, including well over four million children. In Leicester East, four in every ten children were already living in absolute poverty – now the Chancellor says if people do not submit to his new regime to get them back into work, he will cut them off completely from support after six months. The effect of this on my constituents and the poor and sick across the country will be horrific.
This country, since 2010, has seen an appalling rise in the misery imposed on those who were already struggling to get by. More than four in ten disability benefit claimants have attempted suicide under the government’s brutal regime. Suicide has become the leading cause of death in men under fifty. Poor mental health abounds, yet the government has today shown it remains determined to punish and persecute those who cannot work – and indeed that it is determined to deny the reality of life in this country for so many.
In my constituency of Leicester East, we have seen endemic exploitation and poverty wages in our garment industry. I told the Chancellor in response to his Autumn Statement that the unionised manufacturing base of Leicester East has long been diminished – not replaced by technology, innovation and good modern jobs with decent pay, but by fast fashion, sweatshops and unscrupulous employers paying illegally-low wages. All this has been exploited by brands and retailers who are in a race to the bottom for ever-increasing profits while their supply chains fail to pay the minimum wage.
I asked him what action the government will take to regulate and ensure that brands and retailers are held to account for the sustainable outcomes of their products in their supply chains and wage justice for the people that make their goods, and to tackle those British brands and retailers who threaten to seek cheaper labour overseas so they can avoid paying the new minimum wage that the he had just announced. There was no meaningful response.
The government is using tweaks to the minimum wage – which it misnames the living wage – as cover for its handouts to business, but its increases are still very far below the level at which a person working one job could live on. The government claims work is the way out of poverty, but millions who are working are among the poorest.
Mr Hunt claims the government is going for growth, when in fact they are doing the exact opposite of what our economy needs – and hurting millions to do it. Economists recognise that the best way to boost economic growth is to give more money to the poor, because they have to spend it. But yet again the Conservatives are giving more to the rich and to corporations who will put much of it into offshore bank accounts where it does no good. As it is, despite his claims of growth he has had to acknowledge that the Office for Budget Responsibility is downgrading growth forecasts for the next three years.
And it has to be said that the Labour party is largely in agreement with the government it is supposed to oppose. This country needs politicians with the courage to speak the truth that the punishment of the poor to enrich the wealthy is a political choice and not a necessity or even productive. Sadly such politicians are at the moment in very short supply at the moment.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.