The battle for our public services has begun. The new ConDem government has pledged to impose devastating cuts on public spending. The plans to reduce the deficit will be accelerated, with the burden falling on public spending rather than increased taxes for the better off.
Already, more than £6 billion of cuts have been announced with more to follow in the next four months as the coalition government builds its confidence. The economic crisis in the Eurozone and its effect on the British banking system is fuelling the increased pace of public service cutbacks.
The programme of the new government amounts to one of the most severe attacks in British history on public services, jobs and the living standards of working people and the poor. To minimise resistance and to strengthen itself, the government plans to rewrite the rules to force further coalition government in the event of failure rather than calling a new general election (the 55% rule). Cameron aims to reduce the number of MPs in a move that is widely believed will cost Labour up to 40 seats. The coalition has also pledged to 'pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics'.
The last measure, from parties funded largely by super-rich individuals, aims to attack the right of trade unions to fund political parties - a direct attack on the Labour Party and the rights of working people in general to organise to secure political representation.
The outcome of the General Election is a weak, unstable government seeking to limit democracy to strengthen itself while embarking on protracted confrontation with all those who wish to defend jobs, wages, pensions and public services. This will be accompanied by a rise in racism - which the mainstream parties will either pander to or directly promote. This has already been signalled by the new measures attacking 'economic migrants'.
The General Election
The General Election saw a 5% swing from Labour to the Tories; not enough for Cameron to form a majority government, but enough to force Labour from office. The hung parliament was a victory for none of the three major parties.
David Cameron, Etonian public schoolboy, is Prime Minister with the lowest share of the vote of any Tory party in history. He is only able to move into No.10 with the support of the Liberal Democrats, led by the 'Orange Book' group of right wing neo-liberals. Cameron describes the new alliance as socially liberal and economically conservative. Although the Liberal Democrats lost seats, their share of the vote increased since 2005 as many became desperate for an alternative to Labour and the Tories.
Many of these voters face the reality that they voted Lib Dem but got the Tories. The Liberal Democrats have already ditched key commitments such as the scrapping of Trident and the demand for a genuinely new voting system based on proportion representation (the alternative vote system we may be offered in a referendum is likely to entrench the dominance of the old order rather than challenge it.) Vince Cable, Lib Dem Business Secretary, will be instrumental in the plans to privatise the Royal Mail.
Millions of voters had already deserted Labour out of disgust at Blair's alliance with Bush over the Iraq war. Under Gordon Brown, Labour lost a further section of its base as his economic and social policies unravelled.
But Labour's vote did not collapse in this election. The justified fear of Tory plans brought large numbers of people to the polls to vote Labour, in what was perceived as the only practical way of stopping a Tory government. It was not necessarily a positive Labour vote but an anti-Tory vote mobilized by fear. Many that had deserted Labour in protest since 1997 came out to vote, so there was a higher turnout than 2005.
The 5% swing to the Tories was not uniform. In the urban centres, particularly where Labour was historically strong, the swings were much less - and in some cases reversed.
In 40 constituencies in London the average swing was to the Tories just 1.6%, and there were 13 constituencies which saw a swing to Labour of an average of 3.1%. These were in the north-east and east of the city with large black and Asian communities and high concentrations of poverty. In total, there were 27 seats in England where there was a swing to Labour. All of these were in poor urban areas; 13 in London, 4 in Birmingham, 2 in Liverpool and so on. In Scotland, 27 seats saw swings from the Tories to Labour - as many as in the whole of England and again concentrated in urban areas.
The General Election was, in the end, dominated by the stark choice between a Labour and a Tory government. The TV debates increased the sense that only votes for the three major parties mattered. With very few exceptions indeed, smaller parties and independents were squeezed out of the debate and overwhelmed by the surge of support for the main parties. Independents that had fought off Labour and the Tories in previous elections such as Dr Richard Taylor (Wyre Forest) or Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent) were swamped on this occasion, both losing their seats.
The election of Caroline Lucas as Green Party MP in Brighton Pavilion was a rare and welcome exception. It was built on a platform of 17 local Green Party councillors and ward based campaigning over many years with a positive national profile for Caroline herself. But this was not a nationwide turn to the Greens as elsewhere the Green Party suffered a similar squeeze to other small parties.
The other positive aspect of the election was the weakening of the threat from the far right. The BNP was wiped out in Barking and Dagenham and failed to make the gains expected in Stoke and elsewhere. The combination of the main party squeeze and strong campaigning facilitated this but it should not obscure the reality that the BNP polled 564,000 votes nationally - up from 193,000 in 2005. Likewise, the vote for UKIP increased from 603,000 to 918,000. That is 1.5 million votes for parties based on racist and/or xenophobic appeal.
The Labour vote
When faced with the prospect of a Tory government, many voters were prepared to vote Labour. With Labour now in opposition and a ConDem government attacking living standards, it is very likely that support for Labour in its 'heartlands' will be sustained. This is a fact of electoral politics that Respect must take very seriously.
The Labour Party vote was historically appalling. It polled only 200,000 votes more than the 1983 vote. This was when Labour had suffered the split to for the SDP and Labour's manifesto was compared to that of the Communist Party's and described by Labour's Gerald Kaufman as ' the longest suicide note in history'. (Though it must be said that Kaufman's 22,469 votes in 1983 compares somewhat favourably with the 19,211 (50.1% he received on 6th May 2010). Labour's share of the total potential vote was lower than at any point since the 1930s.
The leadership election illustrates the problem of Labour's lack of a coherent progressive alternative to the ConDems. The three front-runners all claim that part of the problem for Labour was that it was not tough enough on immigration, while their policy differences with Blair and Brown remain marginal.
Even though the leadership election is highly likely to signal more of the New Labour mould, and with it a failure to resist the coalition government, it is also likely to be the beneficiary of attempts to remove the ConDem government - with many concluding that backing Labour will be the most effective anti-Tory vote. This is bound to squeeze the electoral possibilities of progressive parties like Respect.
Local Elections
In the local elections held on the same day as the General Election, Labour won back control of a number of local councils in urban areas. The first indications are that the ConDem government will push the burden of public service cuts onto local councils so posing an important question for Labour councils. Do they act as a shield for working class people and refuse to implement cuts or lead the way in slashing services and jobs? This dilemma has the potential to provoke deep splits in the Labour membership and electoral support.
Respect and the election
The Respect Party is historically unique in British politics. It is a party with localised but significant electoral support that has at its core the principles of anti-imperialism and anti-racism. It was born from the womb of the anti-war movement and resistance to Islamophobia since 11 September 2001. At this election, Respect sought to widen its position to embrace a critique of the public service cuts consensus and the bailing out of the bankers at the expense of society.
We had a genuine opportunity to create a small national platform for radical politics based on the values of peace, justice and equality. The election of even one Respect MP, to sit alongside Caroline Lucas in parliament, would have made a powerful impact on politics generally and helped the left to rally opposition to the public service cuts.
We fought positive and powerful campaigns but failed to win any of our three target seats. Respect lost 7 of its 8 councillors in Tower Hamlets and its only councillor in Newham. However well we performed in the election, and in some cases we performed very well indeed, the failure to win a parliamentary seat was deeply disappointing. There are no prizes for coming second in first-past-the-post elections.
Nonetheless, Respect's achievements are worthy of note.
Birmingham
The vote for Salma Yaqoob in Birmingham Hall Green was unique. Her vote increased from a notional 7,500 in 2005 to 12,240 and her share of the vote went up from a notional 16.2% in 2005 to 25.1%. (The 'notional' figures take account of boundary changes). Salma's campaign succeeded in gaining the support of the outgoing left-wing Labour MP and the endorsement of Caroline Lucas and the Green Party. It achieved a 11.7% swing from Labour to Respect (bigger than the 8.4% Lucas achieved in Brighton).
The swing runs counter to all the national trends and in the circumstances of this election was a remarkable achievement. Salma's re-election as a local councillor was a vote of confidence and ensures Respect has a continued political platform with 3 councillors in Birmingham City Council. Respect polled 10,646 local council votes (21.8%) over four wards, an outstanding achievement.
East London
In other areas the Respect parliamentary vote was squeezed badly. Both Abjol Miah and George Galloway recorded strong votes but were ultimately unable to resist the surge of support for Labour. In the local elections in East London, our core vote held up very well but it was swamped by the general election turnout.
In Tower Hamlets, Respect polled 16,236 votes (15%) across 17 wards with 50 candidates, coming second with increased votes in 5 wards. In Newham, Respect polled 3,448 (12.1%) in 4 wards, coming second in two and third in two. These are historically high votes for a radical party.
We can be very proud of the campaigns we fought, and of the work of our candidates and campaign teams. Respect reached a very large new audience, engaged it with some success but ultimately, its loyalty remained with Labour and, to a lesser extent, the Liberal Democrats. There is no escaping the consequences of these results. We are unable to create the national platform that we had hoped for. And we have lost all but one of our councillors in East London.
A challeging situation
We now face a very challenging situation. The areas where we competed seriously with Labour proved to be those areas that stayed most loyal to it, especially when faced with a Tory government. The biggest swings to Labour were from exactly the kind of areas where Respect was standing.
Respect retains a strong base of support in Birmingham and East London with some effective though small electoral footholds in other cities such as Bradford, Rochdale and Manchester. But, in planning for the future, Respect will have to take full account of the fact that in most areas of the country, opposition to the ConDem government is likely to be expressed firstly by voting Labour.
The problem we face is how we develop a strategy around the positive contribution Respect can make to the struggle against the ConDem government, in terms of developing opposition to the public service cuts, alongside maintaining and ultimately expanding Respect's electoral support in areas where we retain a significant base.
The future
Respect was formed because there was a need to oppose war, oppose racism and to stand up for public services and social justice. It has never been an exclusively electoral party. Respect is an electoral party and also a campaigning force between elections. It has a proud record from the Gaza solidarity movement, including initiating the remarkable Viva Palestina convoys, the Yes4mayor campaign in Tower Hamlets, in Manchester campaigns such as Free Public Transport or 'School places for all' and initiatives for new community facilities and funding for the local swimming pool.
Peace, justice and equality remain as necessary today as they were when Respect was formed in 2004. We will continue to speak for these principles and find every possible way to connect with those who will feel the brunt of the attacks that are coming. They will hit every community and Respect will stand with every mobilisation of resistance. If the Labour councils or individuals councillors refuse to implement the Condem cuts, Respect will applaud and stand alongside them with the local community. But if those councillorchose not to defend those who voted them into office then Respect will campaign alongside everyone affected and help, to the best of our abilities, to mobilise tthe opposition.
The Respect 2010 Manifesto declared itself for 'Jobs, Homes and Peace' and carried a clear argument for investment rather than cuts. These ideas will be developed further to aid campaigning and help activists within and without the party. Respect intends to work with as many people as possible - from the Greens, Labour and other progressive parties as are willing to help, in giving an alternative vision of what can be done. We have a contribution to make both ideologically and practically.
There is no inevitability that ConDem cuts will lead to immediate large-scale public protest or strikes. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on those who oppose the cuts consensus to argue and explain the economic, social and environmental reasons why the neo-liberal orthodoxy is wrong - and outline our alternative. This must include the powerful arguments for the alternatives strategies needed for dealing with climate change - an issue that was woefully neglected by the major parties in the recent election.
As the cuts deepen they will produce a scramble for the little that is left on offer - and racism is likely to flourish. Respect will continue campaigning against racism and to undermine the myths about immigration which are used to divide the poorest communities where the cuts will bite.
Over the coming weeks and months Respect will be seeking to bring around us new networks of supporters. In some areas, the election campaigns have started this process. In others, Respect will need to articulate its argument against the cuts and demonstrate its campaigning ability to build such networks. It will take time and hard work, and is unlikely to be rewarded with high votes for some time.
Electoral Challenges ahead
Aware of the electoral challenges ahead, Respect will need to pick its targets carefully. In Birmingham, the priority will be to defend the council seat in Sparkbrook next May. In east London Respect locally will be assessing its tactics in relation to the autumn Mayoral election and across the city will be preparing for the Greater London Assembly elections in 2012 - held under a form of proportional voting. Elsewhere, Respect will need to adopt a much more localised electoral strategy of building support in individual wards.
In 20 of the 43 wards contested at the election, Respect polled more than 10%, while in 30 Respect polled more than 5%. In Rochdale's Milkstone and Deeplish ward, Respect achieved 20.9%. In Manchester, Respect polled 1,830 votes (4.8%) in working class wards. Considering that Respect is contesting ground with a party that has been campaigning for more than a century, these results give grounds for hope. It will require long term campaigning over many years by every branch and group of supporters across the country to strengthen Respect into a party capable of becoming a genuinely national force. This is simply the reality of electoral politics - sudden breakthroughs such as George Galloway's epic victory in 2005 are not the normal occurrence but are the exception. Most electoral success is developed with patient work over many years.
There were two examples of the changing character of political organisation in the election. The first was Labour's use of technology, especially the Internet and phone banks, to mobilize support. The other was Hope Not Hate's anti-fascist mobilisation using viral Internet campaigning methods. Respect will be seeking to adapt these methods to our own circumstances - to both strengthen own media message and reach a wider audience.
The communities from which Respect draws its support are among those most likely to be hit hardest by the ConDem government. The Liberal Democrats have been exposed as little more than bag carriers for the Tories, so its base of support in poorer urban areas is likely to come under pressure. People may vote Labour expecting it to defend them. But our experience is that New Labour will let them down badly.
While Respect is drawing many lessons from the election, its goal remains the same: wherever we have the opportunity to do so, we will seek to represent and defend our communities, and speak up for peace, justice and equality. The world is sick and needs to change in order to heal. Respect is determined to present the case for change and to work with those that seek the same.
This article is the product of debate and discussion over the last three weeks in Respect branches, which was further developed from a discussion document presented at the National Council meeting on 22 May 2010.
Bradford celebrates a multicultural city
Tuesday 7th September 2010
United Against Fascism/ We are Bradford hold a Rally in the centre of Bradford to counter a racist organisation the EDL marching through their town.
The EDL claims to be opposed to radical Islam, but anyone who looks into the EDL will find football hooligans, Islamophobics, Nazis, and BNP supporters. The police this time round seem to be fairly peaceful with the UAF and EDL had many arrested as they broke police lines.
We need a Mayor who will stand up for Tower Hamlets
Abjol Miah
Wednesday 25th August 2010
In the next few weeks, all the major parties of Tower Hamlets will select and announce their candidate for the Borough's first directly elected mayor.
For those of us in Respect, it's a proud moment. We obviously didn't perform as well as we'd have liked in the May elections, but we were overjoyed that the referendum to change the way the council worked and introduce an accountable mayor won the backing of more than 60% of voters. We had played a central and active role in the campaign to secure a 'yes vote'. Whilst the three other parties made excuses for why they could not support the proposal, we showed we had our ear to the ground and understood the widespread desire amongst Tower Hamlets residents for a change at the very top. A new way of doing things.
That is one of the principles on which Respect will ask for your vote in October. Labour's selection process has been a humilating farce, revealing the disunity and incompetence at the heart of that party. How can Labour's candidate be trusted to get the best out the mayoralty for local families? Every move they make will in fact have to be done with the approval of Labour Head Office - and the sad truth is that by Autumn that will most likely mean warmonger David Miliband.
This brings us to what Respect believes the Mayor of Tower Hamlets should do. The Tory and Lib Dem government have now made it clear that they consider places such as Tower Hamlets prime targets in their attempts to devastate living conditions for millions of people. The cuts in public spending that they are introducing will be felt very sharply here. Local government jobs are under serious threat and the housing budget has evaporated. Not only is London the guinea-pig for destroying NHS funding, it has emerged this week that we are also on the frontline of David Cameron's Big Society plans. Be in no doubt that the Big Society is in fact the Big Con: taking huge chunks out of the welfare state and demanding that already overworked charities and voluntary organisations pick up the pieces.
This climate calls for clear and determined political leadership in our Borough. The Town Hall should become a centre of opposition to the government's cuts, and the newly elected Mayor should do everything in her or his power to defend local residents from the Coalition government's damaging policies. At the same time, where priorities can be shifted to improve the situation this should be done. A pro-active strategy that sought to attract trade with India, China and Bangladesh would generate wealth and opportunities that could shield us from the worst of the 'Age of Austerity' and generate investment that would help us grow, not cut, our way into recovery. Scrapping Labour vanity projects like Council free-sheet East End Lives would mean more money where it was really needed - frontline public services. The Mayor would be a high-profile focus point, demanding better housing and services for Tower Hamlets residents and exposing the damage of David Cameron and Nick Clegg's policies.
And of course, as last month's visit to Tower Hamlets by the English Defence League makes clear, we need a Mayor that will take an uncompromising stand against anti-Muslim racism, and all discrimination and bigotry. In the tough years ahead of us, there will be some who want to scapegoat Muslims and others and blame those communities for society's problems. A Respect Mayor will not concede a single inch to racism. Instead, we will all stand united in defence of our Borough and fight together to win a better deal for everyone.
Over the next few months we will be putting forward Respect's policies for a fairer, better Tower Hamlets.
This is not deportation. It is murder
Monday 23rd August 2010
Mohammed Amin Khawaja is about to be forcibly deported on 24 August from the detention centre in Dungavel, Lanarkshire through Edinburgh Airport. Why should we care?
Mohammed Amin Khawaja is 18 years old and was seized by UK Border Agency officials immediately after his birthday. He spent over a year trying to reach Britain from his home in Ishkamish in the Takhar province in North Eastern Afghanistan. He was trained from the age of 11 by the Taliban for whom his father and uncle were commanders. His father and sister were killed by NATO forces and he was betrayed by his uncle, who seeks his inheritance. At 15, Khawaja was arrested by Afghan police and NATO forces and tortured, suffering loss of vision, hearing, seizures, psychiatric distress and loss of mobility. He was to be sent to Bagram air base, the notorious prison complex near Kabul. Khawaja escaped and discovered that the Taliban had placed a price on his head while in a refugee camp in Pakistan.
He came to Britain after harrowing hardship and has prospered. He spent weeks in the Turkish mountains eating grass to survive. Upon reaching Manchester, he studied at Manchester College for two years, winning the Principals Merit classification for his studies. He has lived with a Christian woman who he calls 'mum' and has recently been harboured at the Farghana Institute in Whalley Range, Manchester, where he has learned much of the peaceful nature of Islam.
It is evident that Khawaja is at serious risk from both sides in the Afghan war and should be granted asylum. The Afghanistan war is a product of US and British adventures and we have a responsibility to help its victims.
He is an example of how those brought up in violent conflict can turn away from violent doctrines. It is a scandal that politically motivated deportations and cuts in funding for immigrants to make their case in court are increasing under the Con Dem government.
Khawaja's life and case are the very meaning of the term 'political asylum'.
What can you do?
1. Contact Immigration Minister, Damian Green, MP
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA Tel: 020 7219 3518 Fax: 020 7219 0904 greend@parliament.uk
If you live in GORTON CONSTITUENCY, contact GERALD KAUFMAN at his office on 0161 652 6326 to leave a message. House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA Tel: 020 7219 5145 Fax: 020 7219 6825 kaufmang@parliament.uk
Could an ordinary member win the election for General Secretary of the Country's biggest union?
Unite, Britain's largest and most influential Trade Union, gears up for the election of its General Secretary. This election comes at a time when the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition is about to announce its plans for massive cuts to be set out in their Autumn Budget in October. All eyes will be on where any possible fightback may emanate. Given the size and make up of Unite, which represents over 1.5 million members in all sectors of the economy, this makes the election for the union's General Secretary the most significant union election for decades.
Jerry Hicks, with over a quarter of the nominating period to go, has already secured more than the required nominations to be able to declare that he will be a candidate in the coming election, gaining support from every region and sector of the union.
He argues that there is no need for any cuts to public services, pay and pensions but that the collection of the £100bn worth of tax evasion by the very wealthy and big business should pay for the crisis that is not of 'our' making.
He is in the unique position of being an ordinary member of the Union whereas the other three candidates are all appointed senior officials - Assistant General Secretaries.
The contrasts don't end there. He (Jerry Hicks) believes in elections of all union officials where none of the others do. He, if elected, would only take an average member's wage where the others all would claim the six-figure salary.
He is the one candidate who argues that fundamental change is needed in the union's relationship with New Labour which he describes as being - too close, too cosy, paying too much for far too little. He argues for a restriction of support to only those MPs or councillors who vote for and actively campaign for Unite's policies, of which a priority would be the repeal of all anti-trade union laws.
This means the election will be especially significant, as it will run concurrently with the election for the leader of the Labour Party. Indeed on that basis it would be very questionable if any of the Labour leadership contenders other than Diane Abbott would be supported by Unite under Hicks.
Complain to the BBC - Death in the Med
Tuesday 17th August 2010
Last night (16 August) the BBC broadcast a Panorama programme entitled 'Death on the Med'. It claimed to reveal 'what really happened' when Israeli commandos boarded the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010.
The programme was extremely biased, portraying the activists on board as violent terrorists who set out to kill Israeli soldiers.
Please write to the BBC asking the following questions:
Why was Israel's 'right' to board the ship presumed throughout the programme?
Why did the programme completely fail to mention that Israel's siege of Gaza has been declared illegal by the UN? The assumption was made that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza, while the motives of those attempting to break an illegal blockade were questioned.
Why did Jane Corbin not mention the bombs, rockets and white phosphorus dropped on Gaza by Israel during Operation Cast Lead over a three week period in 2008/9, killing 1,400 people? She did, however, mention the 'thousands of rockets' fired from Gaza into Israel, but did not say over what time period.
Why was the Israeli evidence of how and when they killed the activists unquestioned? Activists who were on the top deck of the ship say the first person was killed - shot from a helicopter - before any Israeli had even landed on the deck. However, none of these activists were interviewed.
Activists shot footage of the Israeli attack, but their cameras, laptops and other recording equipment was taken by the Israelis and has not been returned. Why was this point not raised during the programme, or put to the Israeli spokespeople?
Why were the autopsy reports - which reveal that each victim was shot several times at close range, in a way that can't constitute self-defence - not used, or even mentioned?
Why was there no footage of the Israeli assaults on the activists - which led to nine deaths?
Jane Corbin never questions the use of the word 'terrorists' to describe the activists, or their alleged willingness to attack the commandos. Why does she then fail to examine why there were no fatalities or serious injuries among the Israeli commandos, when these 'terrorists' were so willing to attack?
Why were there no interviews with any of the British activists on board the ship, or with any of the journalists who were on board?
Why was it not pointed out that the IDF has admitted doctoring the audio footage used in the programme, that the BBC claims was broadcast from the captain's deck?
You can find more points to make on the PSC website
Write: BBC Panorama, MC4A1, Media Centre, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ
Viva Palestina - Global Lifeline to Gaza
Thursday 12th August 2010
Across the world, several teams are preparing to set off on a 4,000km drive to the besieged region of Gaza to deliver humanitarian aid. From New Zealand to Canada, and from Ireland to South Africa, volunteers are collecting medical aid and fundraising for vehicles.
They will set off from their respective homelands in mid September and travel to London. There, they will meet up with the "Viva Palestina, Global Lifeline For Gaza Convoy". Over 250 people in 100 vehicles will set off and undertake a journey that will see them drive through France and Italy. Teams from across Europe will join en route, swelling the numbers of vehicles and volunteers. By ferry they will cross to Greece and then overland to Turkey.
Once they reach Turkey, they will be joined by a large delegation from IHH, the organisation who organised the recent Flotilla that was attacked by Israel leaving 9 people dead. IHH were partners on the last Viva Palestina convoy, and their involvement once more will be a major boost to this convoy.
From Turkey, the convoy will travel to Syria, where they will be joined by a large Middle East convoy that will include people and vehicles from all over the Middle East. Over 350 vehicles and 700 people should reach the port city of Latakia in Syria in early October. From there, they will sail to Al Arish in Egypt. The sailing route will take them past the scene of the recent Flotilla attacks, and no doubt will prove to be an emotional journey.
Following inspection in Al Arish, they will meet up with another convoy of aid that will have set off from Casablanca in Morocco. Once they have met up, they will make the short drive towards the Rafah border, and hopefully, over 500 vehicles and 1,200 people will cross into Gaza on October 10th.
This will be the largest convoy of aid to reach Gaza in the past 4 years, and the largest anywhere since the 2nd world war. People from all over the world are joining the convoy, including teams from New Zealand, Canada, Pakistan, Jordan, USA, Argentina, and practically every European country.
Viva Palestina is a registered British charity, started by George Galloway following the attacks on Gaza 18 months ago. Viva Palestina have successfully delivered three land convoys of aid to Gaza in the past 18 months. Over 1,000 people in over 500 vehicles loaded with millions of pounds worth of humanitarian aid have entered Gaza, breaking the inhumane siege imposed on the region by Israel and Egypt.
