Shutting the door on the poor

After 'British jobs for British workers' we now have 'British homes for British workers'_brought to us yet again by a Labour government. Labour is claiming that it will give more local rights to people waiting on the housing list to get homes. Ministers want to allay fears, they say, that local people are being by passed by 'immigrants with large families [who] vault to the top of the council house list', as it's so quaintly put in the Daily Mail.

This is another example of Labour trying to appease its serious disgruntled voting base by aping the BNP. What won't be on offer, we can be sure, is the emergency housebuilding programme which could deal with the root of the problem.

Here are two statistics which tell us what that problem is: there are 1 million fewer council and housing association houses and flats than there were 30 years ago; and in that same 30 years the government has siphoned a total of £68.6 billion from council house rents and sales.

That has created the greatest housing crisis since the Second World War. The right to buy council houses has led to houses being allocated on the basis of the market - who can pay - rather than who most needs a house, a principle first developed around 100 years ago. So housing built for the poor and needy no longer is allocated on the basis of need.

And given there are a lot of poor and needy around - after all inequality has grown over the same period- it stands to reason that with far fewer resources many more will lose out. At present there are 1.6 million households (around 4 million people) on waiting lists, with only 170,000 homes available a year. Of these, it is estimated only 5 to 7 % go to 'immigrant families' (which doesn't include asylum seekers, who have no right to council housing).

As usual with this government, there is little change on offer. But this isn't about solving the housing crisis, it's about telling Labour supporters on the doorsteps that Labour is doing something to be tough on immigrants, so that it can compete with the BNP.

This racist bidding war is taking place across Europe around the Euro elections. That champion of women's liberation Nicolas Sarkozy is attacking Muslim women's right to wear veils and his counterpart in Italy has opined that Milan looks like Africa (really?). Racist scapegoating is the order of the day. On Friday I was a speaker at the launch of a new campaign to defend Muslims, called Kafa _Enough in Arabic.

Personally I already feel I've had more than enough of this racism. Time to do something about it.

Deeds not words

Anyone expecting Barack Obama's speech 'to the Muslim world' to really alter the terms of debate round US role in the world looks like being disappointed. Obama makes some of the right noises: he greets the audience with 'assalaamu alaykum'; he praises advances in Muslim culture, science and education; and he quotes from the Koran.

But the core of the speech, carefully written and balanced by probably an army of speechwriters and diplomats, reflects the casual rejection of the concerns of millions _ both Muslim and non Muslims _who opposed George Bush and who continue to oppose Obama insofar as he follows Bush's policy.

The issues addressed are laid out in logical order: wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Israel and Palestine; nuclear weapons; democracy; religious freedom; women's rights and economic development and opportunity. It might seem a bit rich to many Egyptians, and those from elsewhere in the region, for Obama to stress 'all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind...confidence in the rule of law..government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people..the freedom to live as you choose'. After all they live in a country where democracy campaigners, lawyers, strikers ..and yes, Muslim activists, are regularly imprisoned, repressed or tortured under the rule of the arch ally of the US, Hosni Mubarak. Which rather helps to put into perspective religious freedom.

In every instance Obama is understanding, thoughtful..but defends the status quo. Western economic development is hailed as the way forward, without any acknowledgement that capitalist economic expansion has left whole parts of the world behind, not least in the oil rich Middle East.

Education for girls and more money for development are promised, but so they have been before, most publicly when, after the invasion of Afghanistan which cost 10,000 Afghan lives, Tony Blair promised that, 'we will not walk away' from the problems of rebuilding the country. Now, tens times as much is spent on the military in Afghanistan as on reconstruction _ and most of that never benefits ordinary Afghans, who live in one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

There is no mention of the history of the US and its allies, in backing Israel in the Middle East, in carving up Asia and the Middle East as part of the western empires.

All the problems between the US and the Muslim world are explained as 'misunderstandings', or as due to the actions of 'violent extremists.' This doesn't explain why 'misunderstandings' have grown so substantially since the US became a major imperial power during the 20th century. The lack of empathy is shared not just by Muslim dominated countries but throughout Latin America, much of Asia and Africa and indeed in much of Europe. And where did the 'violent extremists' come from? Forty years ago, the main US enemy was the Vietnamese. Anyone who organises against the US is dubbed an extremist. 'Islamic extremists' have only developed since the increasingly aggressive foreign policy carried out by the US in the Middle East and south Asia.

The speech may contain fine words, but it promises nothing new that can address the real concerns of those who have heard US promises before, but who have seen very different consequences. Troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and an end to the arming and funding of Israel, would do more to address these concerns than a thousand speeches.