Some Socialist Party meetings/talks/discussions are online via Discord or Zoom, and some are in-person. Please contact spgb.discord@worldsocialism.org for instructions on how to join Discord. 

CENTRAL BRANCH MEETING

Anyone wishing to join the meeting contact spgb.cbs@worldsocialism.org to get an invite.

Friday 2 September 19.30 BST (GMT +1) Discord

Sunday 2 October 11.00 GMT Discord

REGULAR DISCUSSION GROUP + BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO ZOOM MEETINGS

SOCIALIST PARTY IN-PERSON MEETINGS

MANCHESTER

Saturday 10 September, 11.30am-6pm

STALL AT WIGAN DIGGERS FESTIVAL

The Wiend, Wigan

Glasgow Discussion Meeting

Second Saturday of each month at The Atholl Arms Pub, 134 Renfrew St, G2 3AU. Let’s get together for a beer and a blether. 2pm onwards. 2 minutes’ walk from Buchanan Street Bus Station. For further information call Paul Edwards on 07484 717893.

Yorkshire Discussion Group

If you live in the Yorkshire area and are interested in the Socialist Party case you are very welcome to attend our forums which currently alternate on a monthly basis either on Zoom or physical meetings in Leeds. For further information contact: fredi.edwards@hotmail.co.uk

Cardiff Street Stall

Every Saturday 1 – 3pm

Capitol Shopping Centre

Queen Street (Newport Road end)

Weather permitting

 US life expectancy has fallen to the lowest level seen since 1996, continuing a steep decline largely driven by the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the provisional data, life expectancy fell by 2.7 years between 2019 and 2021.

 The outgoing UN human rights commissioner, Michelle Bachelet, has said that China had committed “serious human rights violations” against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province which may amount to crimes against humanity. Investigators said they uncovered “credible evidence” of torture. The abuses described included beatings with electric batons while being strapped in a “tiger chair” (to which inmates are strapped by their hands and feet), extended solitary confinement, as well as what appeared to be a form of waterboarding, “being subjected to interrogation with water being poured in their faces”.

“Several women interviewed by OHCHR raised allegations of forced birth control, in particular forced IUD [intrauterine device] placements and possible forced sterilisations with respect to Uyghur and ethnic Kazakh women. Some women spoke of the risk of harsh punishments including “internment” or “imprisonment” for violations of the family planning policy,” the report said.

“Among these, OHCHR interviewed some women who said they were forced to have abortions or forced to have IUDs inserted, after having reached the permitted number of children under the family planning policy. These first-hand accounts, although limited in number, are considered credible.” 

The report noted that the average rate of sterilisation per 100,000 inhabitants in China as a whole was just over 32. In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region it was 243. 

The report by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) concluded: 

“The extent of arbitrary and discriminatory detention of members of Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim groups, pursuant to law and policy, in context of restrictions and deprivation more generally of fundamental rights enjoyed individually and collectively, may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”

The report accused China of using vague national security laws to clamp down on the rights of minorities and establishing “systems of arbitrary detention”.

“Serious human rights violations have been committed in [the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region] in the context of the government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-‘extremism’ strategies,” the report said. “These patterns of restrictions are characterized by a discriminatory component, as the underlying acts often directly or indirectly affect Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities.”

Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, said the report’s findings showed “why the Chinese government fought tooth and nail to prevent the publication” of the report.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/22273382/22-08-31-final-assesment_unhr.pdf

 According to the study by the Trades Union Congress,  eight percent of the UK’s 3.9 million minority ethnic workers. (120,000) left their job as a result of the racism they experienced.

“Many told us they experienced racist bullying, harassment – and worse,” said the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady. “And alarmingly, the vast majority did not report this to their employer …”

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which represents human resources professionals, said the survey was a “stark reminder that far too many black and minority ethnic workers still face discrimination in the workplace on a regular basis”.

More than 120,000 workers quit jobs because of racism, UK study suggests | Race | The Guardian

 With real wages falling and bills rising sharply, people across the country are looking for ways to reduce spending and supplement their incomes, and the TUC said it was hearing about staff in both the public and private sectors who had concluded they could not afford to save for retirement. 

Growing numbers of workers are cutting their workplace pension contributions or opting out of schemes entirely because they cannot afford payments.

Its warnings follow data released in August indicating that the number of people choosing to opt-out of their company pension scheme increased by almost a third between March and July this year. The figures were issued by Penfold, a digital pensions platform used by private savers, the self-employed, company directors and businesses.

About 10% of people quit their workplace scheme, and the TUC said Penfold’s findings – which would translate into a two to three percentage-point increase in opt-out rates, lifting them to about 12%-13% – appeared broadly consistent with what it was hearing.

 Someone who opts out is essentially giving up the pension contributions from their employer, which effectively amounts to “a voluntary pay cut”, said Tom Selby, head of retirement policy at investment firm AJ Bell. “Furthermore, you will miss out on the upfront boost provided by pension tax relief,” he added.

Renny Biggins, head of retirement atTisa (the Investing and Saving Alliance), a membership organisation for UK financial firms, said possible solutions it was proposing included increasing the amount that employers had to pay in under the UK’s auto-enrolment workplace pension regime from 3% of earnings to 6%, in order to allow staff to cut their contributions and release some money to supplement their disposable income. Alternatively, employers could opt to continue paying pension contributions while allowing their workers to take a temporary contribution holiday.

“We recognise there are immediate needs for people to provide for their families, but we are nonetheless concerned that if people decide to reduce or opt out of their pension now, there will be consequences in the future,” said Biggins.

Jack Jones, pensions policy officer at the TUC, said: “Our longer-term policy target is for increased employer contributions.”

More people leaving workplace pension schemes, TUC warns | Pensions industry | The Guardian

 Despite being a technology still in development stages, carbon capture and storage has been put forward as a key element in the plans to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Carbon capture and storage schemes, a key plank of many governments’ net zero plans, “is not a climate solution”, the author of a major new report on the technology has said.

Researchers for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found underperforming carbon capture projects considerably outnumbered successful ones by large margins.

Of the 13 projects examined for the study – accounting for about 55% of the world’s current operational capacity – seven underperformed, two failed and one was mothballed, the report found.

“Many international bodies and national government are relying on carbon capture in the fossil fuel sector to get to net zero, and it simply won’t work,” Bruce Robertson, the author of the IEEFA report, said. “Although there is some indication it might have a role to play in hard-to-abate sectors such as cement, fertilisers and steel, overall results indicate a financial, technical and emissions-reduction framework that continues to overstate and underperform,” Robertson said. 

However, he added: “As a solution to tackling catastrophic rising emissions in its current framework, CCS is not a climate solution.”

Meanwhile, despite the huge profits of fossil fuel companies, global public subsidies for fossil fuels almost doubled to $700bn in 2021.

The subsidies soared as governments sought to shield citizens from surging energy prices as the global economy rebounded from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Most of the subsidies were used to reduce the price paid by consumers. This largely benefits wealthier households, as they use the most energy, rather than targeting those on low incomes. The subsidies are expected to rise even further in 2022 as Russia’s war in Ukraine has driven energy prices even higher.

“Fossil fuel subsidies are a roadblock to a more sustainable future, but the difficulty that governments face in removing them is underscored at times of high and volatile fuel prices,” said Fatih Birol, the director of the International Energy Agency, which produced the analysis with the OECD. “A surge in investment in clean energy technologies and infrastructure is the only lasting solution to today’s global energy crisis and the best way to reduce the exposure of consumers to high fuel costs.” 

“Significant increases in fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, while not necessarily reaching low-income households,” said Mathias Cormann, the OECD secretary general.

“A period of soaring fossil fuel energy prices, when oil and gas companies are posting record-breaking profits, should be the ideal time for governments to eliminate fossil fuel production subsidies – so to see rising government support for fossil fuels now is infuriating,” said Gyorgy Dallos, at Greenpeace International. “Governments need to stick to their green pledges. On the consumer side, they urgently need to replace untargeted support measures with targeted income support to people experiencing fuel poverty.”

The analysis covers 51 key countries and represents 85% of the world’s total energy supply. Subsidies that kept fossil fuel prices artificially low more than tripled to $531bn in 2021, compared with 2020. Subsidies for oil and gas production reached a record level of $64bn. The $697bn total covers explicit subsidies, including price reductions, government funding and tax breaks. Estimates including implicit subsidies, ie the cost of the climate and air pollution damage caused by fossil fuels, are far higher. These amounted to $5.9tn in 2020, according to the International Monetary Fund, or $11m a minute.

Carbon capture is not a solution to net zero emissions plans, report says | Carbon capture and storage (CCS) | The Guardian

Global fossil fuel subsidies almost doubled in 2021, analysis finds | Fossil fuels | The Guardian

 Eating lots of highly processed food such as ready meals is linked to an increased risk of heart disease, bowel cancer and premature death, according to two large studies.

The research offers more reasons to limit intake of ultra-processed foods and instead consume more unprocessed or minimally processed foods to reduce the risk of death, disease and ill health. The findings were published in the BMJ.

Ultra-processed foods include packaged baked goods and snacks, fizzy drinks, sugary cereals, and ready-to-eat or heat products, often containing high levels of added sugar, fat, and/or salt, but lacking in vitamins and fibre.

The first study suggests high consumption of ultra-processed foods in men and some subgroups of ultra-processed foods in men and women is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. The second study found a link to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and death.

The findings reinforce the importance of reformulating dietary guidelines worldwide, by paying more attention to the degree of processing of foods along with nutrient-based recommendations.

In the first study, researchers examined the association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of colorectal cancer in US adults. Their findings were based on 46,341 men and 159,907 women from three large studies of US health professionals whose dietary intake was assessed every four years using detailed food frequency questionnaires.

Foods were grouped by degree of processing and rates of colorectal cancer were measured over a period of three decades, taking account of medical and lifestyle factors.

Results show that compared with those in the lowest fifth of ultra-processed food consumption, men in the highest fifth of consumption had a 29% higher risk of developing colorectal cancer. The link remained significant even after further adjustment for body mass index or dietary quality.

The second study was based on 22,895 Italian adults. Both the quantity and quality of food and beverages consumed were assessed and deaths were measured over a 14-year period, taking account of underlying medical conditions.

Results showed that those with the least healthy diets compared with those with the healthiest diets had a 19% higher risk of death from any cause and a 32% higher risk of death from heart disease.

Risks were similar when the two highest and lowest categories of ultra-processed food intake were compared (19% and 27% higher for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, respectively).

A significant proportion of the excess mortality risk associated with a poor diet was explained by a higher degree of food processing. Ultra-processed food intake remained associated with mortality even after the poor nutritional quality of the diet was accounted for.

The findings back up other research linking highly processed food with poor health.

New research gives more reasons to eat less-processed food | Food | The Guardian