Why the left should campaign to remain in the European Union

Socialists, Social Democrats and Social Liberals should campaign to remain in the European Union. But before anyone makes the presumption that I am some sort of liberal europhile - well, I'm not. Just like the late and great Tony Benn I am sceptical of the EU's respect for democracy, its obsession with neo-liberal economics and its unwillingness to accept an alternative political consensus. But unlike Mr Benn, I think we should remain in the EU and fight for change. I also happen to think that the EU has its benefits for Britons - from paid holiday and parental leave to food safety and health regulations, there are many European initiatives that those of us on the left really should champion.  

The reality of leaving the European Union is that we would be left with a Conservative government ideologically hell-bent on getting rid of EU initiatives such as parental leave just to conserve their beloved free market. The eurosceptic Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg described the EU as "a single market that shackles us with regulation". This is indicative of the future of Britain under the Tories if we leave the EU; they would significantly reduce and or get rid of crucial rights such as paid holiday or European food safety regulations just to ensure nothing intervenes in the market. 

The Tories would want a free market with limited regulation, where big business will be able to dictate the rights of workers and consumers. The European Union prevents this from happening and we must ensure that it continues.  

We also have to accept that some of the large threats we face today, whether it be climate change or wealth and income inequality, are on a global scale. In order to address these threats we must work and co-operate with our European partners. Take income inequality - according to a report published by Oxfam, the richest 62 people in the world own as much as the poorest half in the world. That is astonishing. 62 people have the same amount of wealth as roughly 3.4 billion people around the globe. 

Surely if we are to redistribute wealth and take people out of poverty globally then we must work with our European counterparts in the EU and lead the fight against these grotesque levels of inequality. It is worth highlighting that the EU has tried to tackle the concentration of wealth among a select few through its proposal of a Financial Transactions Tax - a tax on the extremely profitable financial sector. It is no surprise that the market obsessed Tory government chose to opt out of this initiative. In the spirit of internationalism let's be a leading member of one of the world's biggest international institutions and change it so that social and environmental justice are at the heart of it.   

Whilst the EU has got its benefits, we must also recognise that in its current state the European Union is deeply undemocratic and European leaders seem to have a constant obsession with neo-Liberal economics. No more is this evident than with Europe's handling of Greece. The Greeks voted and voted AGAIN against austerity, and yet the EU along with other members of the Troika forced austerity on the Greek people.  

The treatment of Greece was disgraceful on the part of the Troika. It was also an example of how leading figures in the EU were desperate to shut down any alternative to the current neo-Liberal consensus. Despite all this, instead of leaving we must fight for the democratisation of the EU and we can have hope that this is possible. When looking across Europe today, there are growing numbers of people disillusioned with the status quo, demanding an alternative. Whether it be Syriza's victory in Greece or the rise of Podemos in Spain and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, people are crying out for change. By working with our progressive counterparts across Europe we can radically change and democratise the European Union.  

The left must fight hard for Britain to remain in the European Union so that the Tories are not free to slash social rights and regulations. Europe offers protection for workers where this Tory government would not. However Europe needs radical social and democratic change, and we can make this happen. Another Europe is possible - but only if we stop leaving the case for Europe to the establishment and instead construct an EU-wide progressive movement for the democratic Europe that we can champion.

How Corbyn's Labour can change perceptions and convince the British public

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour party

"Corbyn is a great leap backwards for Labour" headlined one Daily Mail article immediately after Corbyn's election as Labour leader. On the same day, the Daily Telegraph published an article headlined "The day the Labour party died". The night before Corbyn's election, the ardent Blairite Alastair Campbell argued that a Jeremy Corbyn leadership is "unelectable" and will cause "chaos " for the Labour party. This has made me think - the non-Labour supporting neo-liberal wing of this country were gleaming with joy at Corbyn's election. They think it marked the end for the Labour party and left-wing politics as a whole, but I beg to differ. The Tories are supposedly delighted at his election as leader, however they run the risk of underestimating him, much like many of us did (even those of us on the left), when he chose to stand for the leadership of the Labour party. He has blown expectations once already and I think this is how he can do it again in 2020.

First of all, there is no denying it, the biggest concern amongst the public about the prospect of a Labour government is the party's economic credibility. If Labour are to have any shot at kicking the Bullingdon boys out of number 10 then they need to take on the myths of 'Labour loves borrowing' and 'Labour's overspending left us in a disastrous situation'. Both flawed and hypocritical statements and yet they have been effective in undermining the Labour party's economic credibility. Let's start with the financial crash of 2008 - the Tories base the cause of the crash on 'Labour's overspending' however the facts suggest otherwise. As the economist Jonathan Swift eloquently puts it "It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector's drive for short term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of sub-prime mortgages were issued by private lending...The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations." To put it simply, the free-market allowed the banks to do as they please which consequently caused the global financial crash. What is crucial here is that free-market economics, or rather Tory economics, had caused the financial crisis which then led to taxpayers bailing out the banks. The deficit also rose as a consequence of bailing the banks out, not because of Labour's supposed 'reckless spending on welfare'.

John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, really has to establish to the public that Labour's spending nor the deficit caused the financial crisis. It was the free market - TORY ECONOMICS which plunged this country and the entire western world into economic calamity. It is also worth highlighting that our 'economically responsible' Prime Minister wanted less regulation of the banks when he was in opposition which suggests that the country would have been in an even worse position if the Tories were in government. Through highlighting the flaws in the Tories' economic arguments and by offering a radical economic alternative based on investment, Corbyn's Labour party can rebuild its economic credibility and start convincing large swathes of the public that they are ready for government.

Another obstacle between Labour and Downing Street is Scotland. In the last election Labour were absolutely annihilated by the SNP and their Machiavellian (and I don't mean that in a bad way) leader Nicola Sturgeon, gaining just one MP compared to the SNP's fifty-nine. Whilst clearly nationalism has contributed to the rise of the SNP and the demise of unionist Labour, a lot of it was down to the way the respective parties campaigned. The Scottish Referendum of 2014 revealed the vast difference in campaigning strategy between the two parties; the SNP were clever, they offered a positive and fresh alternative to remaining a part of the UK which galvanised and inspired vast swathes of the Scottish people. Poll after poll suggested the 'in' campaign would win comfortably but the 'pro-independence' side, despite losing, pushed the result a lot closer than was actually predicted. Labour's strategy was a PR failure; they joined the 'better together' campaign which meant they were campaigning alongside the Tories against independence. They had participated in project fear - patronising Scots by telling them that all hell will break loose if you leave the UK. It was just daft in the extreme. On top of that they worked with that lot in blue - Scotland's "toxic" enemy. This led to some Scots describing Labour as the "red Tories".  I am in no way advocating Scottish independence, but it does not take a fool to know that negative campaigning, and working with a party that is not popular among the Scottish people is no way to inspire and convince large swathes of the public. It was no surprise to see why Labour lost Scotland in the manner that they did.

Luckily, in Jeremy Corbyn, Labour have a leader who does not believe in negative campaigning or personal attacks. If Corbyn can adopt his 'anti-establishment' and positive campaigning used to elect him as leader of the opposition to winning votes back in Scotland, combined with offering a radical alternative to the Tories, those on the north of Hadrian's wall can be won back. During the General Election of 2015, Nicola Sturgeon galvanised, united and inspired the majority of Scots which consequently left Labour in the wilderness. If Jeremy Corbyn is to be prime minister in 2020 then he must win back the traditional Labour heartland of Scotland, and it must be done on a campaign of hope and energy, not fear and negativity as his SNP counterpart did so successfully.

A tag that is consistently thrown by the Tories/Blairites at Jeremy Corbyn, and generally those on the left of the political spectrum, is that they are too "anti-business" or too "anti-aspiration". Much like the tag of "Labour loves borrowing", this needs to be taken head on and the way to do that is to expose the hypocrisy of the Tories. Where Labour can expose the government is on home ownership; the Tories believe they are "the party of home ownership" but the facts prove otherwise. Under the last Tory led coalition, Britain has seen the biggest fall in home ownership for twenty nine years. According to the English Housing Survey this is because "high prices lock out the young and those on low and middle incomes". Labour need to establish that the Tories are quite simply not 'the party of home ownership' - it is nothing but lip service from David Cameron. The Guardian columnist Owen Jones argues that Labour and the left in general need to surprise the British public with a fresh strategy to attract low and middle-income Britons to home ownership. In terms of forming policy, Jones goes on to argue that Labour could scrap the regressive stamp duty and council tax and replace it with a "land value tax...[a tax] which would prove fairer to both low-income and middle-income Britons." Labour needs to lead the way on home ownership and transform it in a way so that everyone has a chance to get on the housing ladder, not just those on the highest incomes. This is something the Tories have failed to do. 

Offering a real alternative to how more people can get on the housing ladder would deal a massive blow to the Conservative party as home ownership is seen as one of their flagship ideals. Not only would it put the Tories' record on home ownership to shame but it would also surprise the British public - a socialist party putting forward the case for more council housing, but also for more home ownership. It would change mindsets (both of the public and of the Blairites within the party). It would contradict this 'anti-aspiration' tag that is often put on those on the left. After all, it is crucial to remember just what socialism stands for - it is about meeting the needs of the majority of society, not just those on the highest incomes but equally not just those on the lowest either. It is estimated that nearly eight out of every ten Britons aspire to home ownership and if socialism is about meeting the needs and hopes of the many, then surely the Labour party should chase this opportunity to become the real 'party of home ownership' and meet the hopes that roughly 80% of Britons aspire to.

It is foolish is to suggest that just by simply implementing the ideas laid out it in this article would ensure a Labour government in 2020 - I just think these are just some key ways as to how Corbyn and co. can really kick in to gear and change public mindsets, however it is equally foolish say that Jeremy Corbyn does not stand a chance of getting Labour into government in four and a half years' time. There is a huge opportunity for the Labour party and the left in general to expose the Tories - whether it's their lies on the economy or their claims on home ownership and 'aspiration'. There is so much this government have failed on and lied about. But also Labour need to learn why they lost and how their opponents defeated them - they need a campaign that is based on hope not fear, unity not division, policy not personality. The opportunity is there, the only question is will Corbyn and his team make the most of it?

How modern day bigotry can be defeated

Adolf H-sorry, I mean Donald Trump

Yes, that's right. Donald Trump has caused controversy this week. Again. This time it's probably one of the worst and most impractical proposals that Mr Trump has come forward with  - he wants a ban on all Muslims entering the United States until, in his own words, we "figure out what the hell is going on!" We all know that this is quite frankly stupid and near on impossible but it raises important questions: why are so many people supportive of this man? Why are so many people, not only in the US but all across Europe, supportive of  the Islamophobic or anti-immigrant rhetoric? And how can we halt the progress of the likes of Trump and convince large swathes of people to think differently?

Bigotry thrives on fear and the irrational thinking of those disillusioned with modern day society, much like religious extremism in a way.  After horrifying terrorist attacks take place, like the one in Paris over a month ago, people start to question the motives of terrorists and ask themselves whether a faith of 1.6 billion people worldwide (Islam) is compatible with 'western values'. This is where people like Trump come in and gain support. They grab on to this questioning and underlying fear of a minority, escalate it to a much larger scale, distort facts so that they can fuel their agenda - in this case, an agenda against Muslims. Take the attacks that took place earlier this month in California, Trump tried blaming these attacks on the US government being too tolerant and "too politically correct with Muslims". This is a clear example of Trump distorting the facts in order to legitimise his Islamophobic ban. Consistent statistics show that gun crime in the US is hugely down to the large lack of gun control - it is estimated that over 25,000 people have died this year alone from gun related crimes in the USA. Crucially this highlights that one way we can convince people that the likes of Trump are wrong is through education. The US is home to 2.75 million Muslims, the vast majority of whom who want to live a normal life or as actor Ben Affleck eloquently put it - "[the vast majority of Muslims] just want to go to school, eat some sandwiches and pray five times a day". The extremists within Islam, just like any other religious faith, are a very small minority and it is vital to educate people and get that message across. If we show people the facts and establish that Trump is wrong, people will abandon his bigoted cause.

The rise of Donald Trump in the United States, UKIP and Britain First in the UK, and Marine Le Pen in France (leader of the French far-right party, Front National) is not really something that can be addressed directly. What we have to address is the cause of their rise. They are rather a symptom of mass disillusionment with mainstream politics. All across Europe and the USA, poverty and inequality is soaring. In Britain alone, we have seen the biggest fall in living standards since the Victorian era. This, combined with false promises and decreasing voter turnouts at general elections, has led to arguably the biggest mistrust of mainstream politicians and political parties. The vast majority of people do not see mainstream politicians as the answer to their problems, what do they see is a small number of powerful people who live in their own elitist bubbles without a care for ordinary people. As a result, people then lose hope and start to blame the reasons for their problems on each other. An example is of the huge rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK, as established by the rise of UKIP who got almost 4 million votes at the last election. The arguments against immigration typically consist of "immigrants are stealing our jobs...they're adding strain to our public services...we need to put our own people first" and all that malarkey. The reason why those disillusioned resort to these arguments and start dividing communities is because there is no element of hope for them. They are not inspired by politics and so their fears of immigration or Muslims, in Trump's case, are tapped into and exploited by bigots. What we then get are divided communities with increased social instability. In order to halt the rise of bigotry, hope needs to be offered where we can unite in our common interest to fight for change as opposed to resorting to division. 

There is no real voice for those suffering from poverty or inequality. People need a reason again to vote, they need to have hope that a better world is possible, people need to be inspired again. Hope of a better future combined with education is how we can defeat bigotry. This is the failure of mainstream politicians and it is down to those of us who so desperately want to put an end to bigotry to be part of something, galvanise those around us, and offer hope.