Puerto Rican Statehood is not a foregone conclusion

Bad Bunny’s album DeBí TiRaR MáS FoToS (I Should Have Taken More Photos) has struck a chord with a lot a of people across the Americas, in particular Puerto Rico. His fourth number 1 album, breaking 1 billion streams in 13 days, is not just a love letter to Puerto Rico but it also sends a strong political message to people impacted by neo-colonialism. In the song Lo Que Le Pasó a Hawai’i (What Happened to Hawaii), Benito says:

Quieren quitarme el río y también la playa
Quieren el barrio mío y que abuelita se vaya
No, no suelte’ la bandera ni olvide’ el lelolai
Que no quiero que hagan contigo lo que le pasó a Hawái

They want to take away the river and also the beach
They want my neighborhood and they want grandma to leave
No, don't let go of the flag or forget the lelolai
I don't want them to do to you what happened to Hawaii

Here, Benito notes the displacement, over-tourism, and gentrification of Hawaii that occurred under US rule and warns that the same is currently happening to Puerto Rico too. He’s right to raise these concerns. The implementation of Act 20 and Act 22, both tax incentives for the super-rich to encourage them to settle in Puerto Rico, has accelerated gentrification on the island. Not only are the super-rich building luxury apartments which cuts off the legal right of many Puerto Ricans to access beaches whilst negatively impacting the beautiful eco-system on the island, but the rising cost of living is also forcing people to leave Puerto Rico to seek opportunities elsewhere.

This neo-colonialism doesn’t exist in a vacuum but is, rather, part of a wider project of US Imperialism. Not only are the United States ethnically cleansing Puerto Rico for the super rich but, historically, the United States sterilised Boricua women on an industrial scale, massacred civilians taking part in a peaceful protest, failed to give proper emergency relief after Hurricane Maria, and dropped 5 million of pounds of bombs on the island of Vieques every year for 60 years.

Despite this, the call for Statehood (Puerto Rico becoming the 51st State of the United States of America) seems to be winning the argument. Puerto Rico 51st, a pro-statehood organisation, argue that admission to the USA will end legal inequalities (e.g. eligibility for the food stamp program for disaster victims, Medicaid, and other federal programs), strengthen the economy, gain representation in Congress and the Senate, and Puerto Ricans would be able to vote in US Presidential elections (currently, American citizens can vote from space but not Puerto Rico). There is strong support for Statehood with the option winning the most support in 4 referendums (2012, 2017, 2020 and 2024) alongside the pro-Statehood Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) winning the last 3 Gubernational elections, including the election in 2024 (winning 41.22% of the vote).

This evidence surely points towards one conclusion: that Puerto Rico will become the 51st state.. unless Canada, Greenland or Washington D.C get there first. However, Puerto Rican Statehood might not be a foregone conclusion.

Alberto Medina argues that, instead, that Puerto Rico should be an independent nation. Medina argues that political subordination to the United States has had disastrous consequences for Puerto Rico and that independence would allow Puerto Ricans to decide their own future. Medina also argues that increased support for independence will put immense pressure on the United States to settle the issue of Puerto Rico’s status instead of allowing the status quo to remain.

Jaquira Díaz, in The Atlantic, argues: ‘With independence, the citizens of Puerto Rico would have a government created by and for the benefit of the Puerto Rican people rather than for the benefit of outside interests. The newly recognized nation would be able to align itself and its political and diplomatic systems as it wishes.. independence might allow Puerto Rico to reassess and adjust economic agreements to better suit its people—rejecting the dominance of corporations and crypto bros in favor of co-ops and green reforms’.

Whilst some pro-independence activists demand full independence, an option which was presented to the people of Puerto Rico in a non-binding referendum in 2024 was the option of independence with free association, where Puerto Rico would be independent (including potentially joining the United Nations as a recognised nation-state) but the United States would have authority over Puerto Rico’s defence and national security.

In that referendum, 58.6% voted for Statehood and 41.4% voted for an independence option (29.57% for independence with free association and 11.82% for full independence). In 2012, 61.1% supported Statehood whilst 33.34% supported free association and 5.49% supported full independence. This shows that, not only is support for Statehood with the USA decreasing (from 61.1% to 58.6%), but that also support for full independence has more than doubled (from 5.49% to 11.82%).

Not only this, but there has been a significant increase in support for pro-independence parties in legislative elections. In 2024, Alianza de País (a political alliance between Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño and Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana, both pro-independence) under Juan Dalmau’s candidacy won 30.81% of the national vote, leapfrogging the pro-commonwealth Partido Popular Democrático (PPD) for the first time ever. In 2016, PIP won 2.31% of the vote and MVC did not even exist.

With 41.4% of Puerto Ricans voting for an independence option, alongside the pro-independence political alliance becoming the main opposition party against the pro-Statehood PNP, it would be wrong to conclude that Statehood for Puerto Rico is inevitable.

With emboldened electoral support, now is the time for supporters of Puerto Rican independence to mobilise in their communities, organise against the impact of neo-colonialism, and win the argument for Puerto Rican sovereignty.

Partycraft and the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn

My PhD thesis, Partycraft and the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, has been published.

The Partycraft model is a framework to measure the effectiveness of opposition leaders.

This thesis utilises Partycraft and analyses Corbyn as a case study: etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/35712/

Why Jeremy Corbyn should set up a new political party (and run for London Mayor)

Jeremy Corbyn speaking at a Refugees Welcome rally earlier this month (photo via Jeremy Corbyn’s Twitter – 18th March 2023)

March 28th 2023 will go down as a pivotal day in the history of the labour movement.

Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) have endorsed a motion, submitted by Keir Starmer himself, to block Jeremy Corbyn from being a Labour candidate at the next general election. In response, Corbyn published a defiant statement stating that he will continue to serve his constituents, a hint that he will stand again at the next general election independently from the Labour Party.

At the moment, it looks like Corbyn will stand in the constituency as an independent and there are a lot of strengths to this. The current Electoral Commission rules state that a Parliamentary candidate can spend ~£30,000 in a constituency for an general election campaign, not only will he raise this within an extremely short period of time (Corbyn’s supporters raised £455,000 for a legal fund alone) but he will also have full autonomy over his campaign. However, the labour movement goes beyond Islington North, and there are socialists and trade unionists across the country who want to see an alternative to the Conservatives and a Starmer-led Labour Party.

Corbyn’s own Peace and Justice Project has as many supporters than the Green Party has members and the Enough is Enough campaign, which epitomises the values promoted by Corbyn, has more supporters than the Labour Party has members. Corbyn himself still has a positive approval rating from ~5 million Labour voters. Not all supporters of the respective groups may join this new party, including these Labour voters, but it is not impossible to rule out a new Corbyn-led party of the left becoming the political party with the largest membership and achieving 5-10% in national opinion polling.

The goal of this political party wouldn’t be to achieve dominant Parliamentary representation but to shift the public narrative and force the Labour Party to win the votes of socialists and trade unionists by shifting their platform. UKIP have only ever had 3 MPs (Bob Spink, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless) but they achieved practically everything they wanted by shifting the public discourse on Brexit and moving the Conservative Party’s stance on holding an EU referendum (UKIP won 3.88 million votes/12.8% of the vote in the 2015 election, they took votes not just from the Conservatives but also Labour too).

A Corbyn-led party of the left could bring together socialists and trade unionists who organise outside of the Labour Party – having a dominant voice on the left of British electoral politics could create an umbrella group to unite the left. Parties such as the Northern Independence Party, Breakthrough, Left Unity, and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition have been unable to build this space, but Corbyn might due to his large personal following which no party on the left has been able to emulate. Not only this but out of 98 Trade Union Congress recognised unions, only 11 are aligned with Labour (a proposed merger between the GMB/TSSA could reduce this to 10). Unions such as the RMT, BFAWU and others may wish to align themselves with a party that unequivocally stands with trade unionists over a Starmer-led Labour Party.

A Corbyn candidacy against Labour means that any Labour activist that campaigns for him will lose their party membership and they could struggle to find an alternative, but if Corbyn were to run under the banner of a new political party of the left, he would mobilise support for a mass movement which would be more effective than a single MP in Parliament who may retire in an election cycle in the far future. It is not uncommon for politicians to create their own parties: Nigel Farage set up the Brexit Party, not to mention that Emmanuel Macron and Jean-Luc Melenchon set up their own political movements which are now well established in France.

The Mail on Sunday published an article stating that Jeremy Corbyn might lose in Islington North if he were to stand against Labour but, in my opinion, he would be the favourite to win in the constituency and there are historic parallels to draw with Dennis Canavan. In 1998: Canavan, despite receiving the endorsement of 97% of local Labour members, was blocked from standing by the party leadership (when Corbyn was reinstated to the Labour Party, 98.65% of Islington North CLP delegates passed a motion to support him). Activists in Canavan’s Scottish Parliamentary constituency campaigned for him and he ended up winning (not only would some Labour activists in Islington North campaign for Corbyn but also people from across the country would travel to support his candidacy, although activists strongly opposed to him may also do the same). Corbyn’s case is unique in the sense that he was a former party leader who still maintains strong core support amongst his own base, but not only would he likely raise the £30,000 spending limit within a short time period (a new party of the left could also spend money on national campaigning too) but he has been the incumbent MP in his constituency since 1983 and has built up a reputation of being a strong constituency MP (even Theresa May admitted he was a good MP for his constituency).

Corbyn, however, should also consider running for Mayor of London. Combining a progressive brand of politics alongside a budget of £19.2 billion could deliver meaningful change to millions of people across the capital.

Whilst polling hasn’t been conducted to include a hypothetical Corbyn candidacy, it is possible that a Corbyn campaign could gather a lot of support in London. The maximum spending limit for London Mayoral candidates is £420,000 and, given that this amount of money (and then some) was raised for a legal fund, there is very little doubt that Corbyn’s supporters could raise this amount of money for this election campaign (especially if this was co-ordinated via a new party of the left). Labour under Corbyn’s leadership achieved their best ever result in London in the 2017 general election (winning 54.5% of the vote) and, despite the poor results nationally for Labour in the 2019 general election, the party achieved their highest share of the vote in London (with the exception of 2017) since 1997. Finally, a Corbyn Mayoral campaign could also draw parallels with Ken Livingston’s London Mayoral campaign in 2000. Livingstone, who has smashed his reputation to pieces in recent years (a bit of an understatement if there ever was one, the Leader of the Opposition’s office under Corbyn’s leadership called for his expulsion from Labour), won on platform which was independent from the Labour Party and he delivered policies such as the Oyster card, a flat £1 bus ticket fare, London Overground, environmental regulations, and more. It is possible that Corbyn could build this ‘alternative power base’ and implement socialist policies.

If Corbyn can run to be the Member of Parliament for Islington North and the office of Prime Minister then it is not impossible to imagine a Corbyn candidacy for the Mayor of London alongside a re-election campaign in his constituency.

Jeremy Corbyn has the opportunity to build a new, energetic movement. A new Corbyn-led party of the left could shift public discourse, put a lot of pressure on Labour to move leftwards (more than just one individual MP ever could) and Corbyn as London Mayor could deliver radical change for the many, not the few.

Starmer’s Record of Lies and Concerning Use of Power: The Starmer Project book review

The Starmer Project takes an in-depth look at Keir Starmer’s career to help readers better understand how he operated as a lawyer, as a shadow minister, as a leadership candidate and as leader of the Labour Party. Oliver Eagleton has all of the receipts and does not hold back when it comes to scrutinising his actions.

Throughout his political career Starmer has highlighted his record as a lawyer consistently yet his record in the Crown Prosecution Service has arguably not been scrutinised effectively by much of the media. Eagleton has thoroughly researched his record and he doesn’t take a one-sided approach. Although Eagleton mentions progressive victories which Starmer was responsible for, he also revealed uncomfortable truths including Starmer’s refusal to prosecute organisers of a racist and almost deadly anti-GRT (Gypsy, Roma and Traveller) rally in 2003, claiming £160,000 in expenses over a 2 year period for a 4 mile drive from his home to the CPS offices, helping acquit Private Lee Clegg after he shot a Catholic woman in Belfast (following pressure from the right wing media and 67 Conservative MPs), increasing prison sentences for benefit fraud, allowing state-sanctioned torture to go unpunished on numerous occasions and reaffirming the decision made by his predecessor to not bring charges against the Metropolitan Police after two officers killed Jean Charles de Menezes (a Brazilian migrant who was falsely identified as a terror suspect following the 7/7 bombings in 2005).

Party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister may have held positions of power in their position as a Member of Parliament, minister/shadow minister or holding roles on Parliamentary committees etc. It is rarer, however, to see a politician who has previously wielded power beyond Parliament to meaningfully impact wider society and many decisions made by Starmer in this position of power, which were outlined in Eagleton’s book, will unsettle a lot of people. By shining a light on Starmer’s record, readers have the opportunity to see how Starmer has previously used this power and make their own judgement on whether or not he should also be trusted with the power that comes from the office of Prime Minister as well.

Eagleton doesn’t just scrutinise Starmer’s record as a lawyer but also as a politician too. His analysis seems to show that when Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party Starmer was keen to move the Labour to a pro-referendum stance with the intention of dividing the party, risk losing an election, forcing Corbyn to stand down and for him to become ‘king of the ashes’. The goal for Labour to control the public narrative over the issue of Britain’s relationship with the EU (including negotiating a soft Brexit deal in the later half of the 2017-2019 Parliament) were, according to Eagleton, sabotaged by a man who put his own aspiration before everything else. The portrayal of Starmer as a ruthless and motivated person may be quite appealing to those who are sympathetic to his leadership but deeply concerning for those who opposed internal sabotage of his predecessor.

As Eagleton points out, Starmer has a track record of breaking promises. Whilst his leadership campaign was extremely well organised, a key reason why he was able to win the support of the membership was because he promised to deliver his 10 pledges (an anti-austerity, Corbyn-lite platform) and to unite the party. Eagleton notes that Starmer has reneged on his pledge to nationalise key industries and has essentially replaced his 10 pledges with 10 ‘vapid’ principles laid out in his The Road Ahead pamphlet. Eagleton also talks extensively about the negotiations between team Corbyn and team Starmer following the aftermath of the Equality and Human Right Commission (EHRC) report. A statement was agreed between the two teams which Starmer personally approved (this would have led to Corbyn’s readmission to the Parliamentary Labour Party which would be welcomed by Starmer publicly) however he later reneged on this deal. As Eagleton noted: Starmer made the decision, wanted to reverse it and then twice reversed the reversal. The proactive decisions which have divided the party, alongside the abandonment of his 10 pledges, show that Starmer was not honest about his 2020 leadership campaign promises. Voters may rightfully think that if he lies to his own party then what would stop him from lying to them too.

No doubt there will be Starmer supporters who see Eagleton’s book as yet another example of left wing dissatisfaction in public and claim that ‘airing dirty laundry in public’ does nothing except damage the Labour Party however party members, and the wider public, should be able to hold our politicians to account and call out dishonesty wherever it comes from on the political spectrum. If Starmer is going to turn his back on his former boss (despite campaigning to make him Prime Minister on two occasions, serving in his shadow cabinet and praising him consistently during his leadership campaign) and also Labour members who gave their support to him in the 2020 leadership election then the public too might be wary of his record of dishonesty. The Starmer Project is a must-read book for everybody who wants to better under Starmer’s background, his motivations and his record.