Support the Firefighters |
|||
| Support the Firefighters |
THE GLOVES are off in the FBU's battle with the government for decent pay. Sir George Bain's interim report for the fire service has 'offered' 4% now and 7% next year. The FBU leadership has immediately rejected this as 'derisory and insulting', saying it will be greeted with 'absolute fury' at fire stations across the country. More ... Also:
|
||
| Build The Anti-War Movement |
MANY as one million people took to the streets of Florence, Italy, on 9 November to show their opposition to war on Iraq. |
||
| The World Steps Closer To War Against Iraq |
BUSH HAS interpreted the mid-term election results in the US as a support for war. In fact only 37% of the population voted and opposition to war is increasing. |
||
|
Huge Turnout Shows Growing Radicalisation: SATURDAY 9 November, saw the biggest protest so far against the threatened war against Iraq. Up to a million marched and sang through the streets of Florence, Italy, in protest at Bush and Berlusconi's policies. By Robert Bechert More ... A Day Of Singing And Red Flags!: THE 28 September anti-war demo in London was the biggest I'd been on... until last Saturday. European Social Forum: A Socialist World Is Necessary: FORTY-THOUSAND PEOPLE from all over Europe flooded into Florence, Italy, for the European Social Forum, nearly double the number the organisers had been expecting. CWI poses a socialist alternative: CWI MEMBERS from Italy, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Kazakhstan and England and Wales took part in the Forum. Europe-wide protests: ANTI-GLOBALISATION protesters will be demonstrating in Prague at the NATO summit on 20 November and the EU meeting in Copenhagen in December. A trade unionist's perspective: AS AN active trade unionist I found the European Social Forum (ESF) quite impressive - thousands of people commited to opposing global capitalism, most of them young, discussing and debating issues.
|
|||
| Bush (And Cash) Beat Off Bankrupt Democrats |
US mid-term elections: BUSH HAS won a stunning political victory. Never in living memory has a sitting president strengthened his party's position in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in mid-term elections. This is in spite of the deepening economic recession. By Lynn Walsh More ... Big bucks buy votes: MILLIONS OF big-business dollars were used by both major parties to campaign for votes. Both represent big business |
||
| Asylum Laws: Blunkett's Vicious New Restrictions |
HOME SECRETARY David Blunkett has added vicious new proposals to the government's Asylum Bill, causing a rare rebellion by New Labour backbenchers. By Naomi Byron |
||
| This is a selection of features carried in The Socialist - subscribe here | |||
|
Home | The Socialist 15 November 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop Support the Firefighters
THE GLOVES are off in the FBU's battle with the government for decent pay. Bill MullinsSir George Bain's interim report for the fire service has 'offered' 4% now and 7% next year. The FBU leadership has immediately rejected this as 'derisory and insulting', saying it will be greeted with 'absolute fury' at fire stations across the country. Bain's report calls for the firefighters to adopt new ways of working. But as firefighter Steve Godward pointed out: "George Bain knows absolutely nothing about the fire service. He has said we work four hours on and four hours off. Tell that to firefighters who on the first shift on nights work from midnight to 9am the following morning". The FBU general secretary Andy Gilchrist expressed the firefighters' anger when he said: "It is my view this is a report from those who seek a strike." Nick Raynsford, fire service minister, has made it plain that nothing will be given to the firefighters above 4% without 'substantial changes in working practices'. Blair from the beginning has tried to set worker against worker. He said the government would not finance any pay rise and that the firefighters' claim would take money out of the pockets of other public-sector workers. Then he tried to panic the public by whipping up the dangers of a strike. The RMT on London Underground have said the tube network would not be safe to work or travel on without adequate fire cover and they will walk out on the same days as the FBU. The bosses' response was to deny this and say it was safe to run trains. They are obviously afraid of the massive knock-on effects of the firefighters' dispute. RMT leader Bob Crow told an FBU meeting on 11 November: "We've adopted a fire station in every region and branch. The RMT office is open to the FBU. The firefighters stood firm with the rail workers. They were there at Paddington, Kings Cross, Hatfield and Southall." A victory for the firefighters will be a victory for all public-sector workers. Every other trade unionist, particularly in the public sector, should be preparing support and solidarity to make sure the firefighters win.
Home | The Socialist 15 November 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
Build The Anti-War MovementMANY as one million people took to the streets of Florence, Italy, on 9 November to show their opposition to war on Iraq (see below). This was the biggest show of strength of the anti-war movement so far. The demo followed on from the 200,000 strong protest in Washington and the 400,000 who marched in London on 28 September. Bush feels strengthened by his victories in the US elections and securing a unanimous resolution in the UN Security Council. But the size and scope of the anti-war movement clearly shows that opposition to war against Iraq is growing. As the resolution was being passed the US build-up of troops in the Gulf was accelerating - with the final aim of having a force of up to 250,000 in readiness for an invasion. 15,000 British troops could be despatched to the region. Bush and Blair are both preparing for war. The UN resolution means that the US could decide at any time that Saddam Hussein is not complying and begin an attack without further UN agreement. A war against Iraq will be a war for oil and the power and dominance of US imperialism. Oil companies have already been plotting how to carve up the oilfields in a post-Saddam Iraq. The carrot of oil profits was dangled in front of UN Security Council countries to get their agreement for the resolution on Iraq. A war will mean thousands of innocent people being slaughtered for profits and prestige. The US has the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world and is prepared to use them in a pre-emptive strike to defend its economic interests in the Middle East and beyond. Blair has hitched his cart to the US war machine. He says there is no money to pay firefighters, council workers, nurses, teachers, college lecturers and all those fighting against low pay. But he can find millions to wage war against the Iraqi people. He seems determined to wage war on two fronts - for oil in Iraq and a war against public-sector and low-paid workers at home. But he is facing enormous resistance to both. We need to build the anti-war movement as well as building the struggle for decent pay. And we need to build a socialist alternative to war and the inequality and exploitation that Bush and Blair's profit system creates.
Home | The Socialist 15 November 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
The World Steps Closer To War Against IraqBUSH HAS interpreted the mid-term election results in the US as a support for war. In fact only 37% of the population voted and opposition to war is increasing. Nonetheless the next phase of the US administration's drive towards war on Iraq has begun. After almost two months of wrangling, the UN Security Council has unanimously agreed a resolution on Iraq. Those on the Security Council who oppose war are claiming that the resolution is their victory. The Syrian foreign minister said that the resolution "has pushed the phantom of war into the background for several weeks or months. Our goal is to spare Iraq and the region from a military strike". This is an attempt to hide reality from the Arab masses. This is a war for the prestige and profit of US imperialism. The UN Security Council resolution is little more than an inadequate disguise for the brute interests of US imperialism. Bribery and threatsPowell and company used a combination of bribery and threats to get other countries on board. Russia and France were undoubtedly promised a cut of the oil bonanza that the US expects if they take Iraq. Smaller countries like Syria were reminded of what happened to Yemen when they voted against the last Gulf War (they were then on the UN Security Council). The US declared Yemen's vote as the most expensive 'no' in history, and promptly cut off its aid. In order to get UN backing, the US administration has made some concessions. This reflects the recognition by the most serious elements of the US ruling class that, vast as their military might is, it is more politically expedient to be seen to be acting multilaterally. But as Rice, Powell and their British echoes, Blair and Hoon, have made clear, in essence this resolution gives the US what they want. The resolution leaves room for the US to go to war unilaterally if they consider Iraq to have failed to comply with the inspectors, and the US government has made it absolutely clear that they intend to do so. As the resolution was passed the US military build up in the region was continuing apace. It is estimated that there are already up to 50,000 US service personnel in the region. By January there could be enough for a full-scale invasion, with sufficient troops for a smaller scale operation within a month. And Bush and his advisors expected that Saddam Hussein will fail to comply. No wonder - the resolution is designed to be impossible to comply with. Rice has talked about 'zero tolerance', meaning that the smallest 'breach' by the Iraqi regime will result in war. Trip WireIf the Iraqi regime does meet all the conditions, the purpose is to so weaken it that it falls through an uprising or a coup. Within 30 days Iraq has to produce a full list of every single piece of weaponry, or equipment that could be used to produce it. If the list is not long enough to satisfy Bush and Blair they are likely to claim that Saddam must have more weapons hidden away. Even if the weapons inspectors find no hidden weaponry, the US government are already preparing to show how this proves that Saddam is in breach of the agreement by asserting that it is impossible for Blix's team to find weapons that have been hidden. The inspectors will have the right to declare exclusion zones, in which Iraq will have to suspend ground and aerial movements; in other words they will have the right to take control of parts of Iraq! They will also have the right to take any scientist they want out of Iraq to interview them. Powell has said that the Iraqi regime must comply with all of this or 'be destroyed'. In reality the only compliance that the US government will accept is the destruction of the regime. Edging to warThis resolution has taken the world several steps closer to war. Such a war would not bring democracy to the peoples of Iraq. The US and British governments are not concerned about how Saddam treats the Iraqi people. On the contrary, after Saddam dropped chemical weapons on the Iraqi Kurds, George Bush Senior rewarded him by doubling Iraq's agricultural subsidies and selling him anthrax. The aim of US imperialism is not democracy but the installation of a 'US-friendly' regime. However, as one British civil servant said, a war on Iraq is unlikely to be the 'cakewalk' Bush imagines. Even with UN backing, it will "open the gates of hell in the Middle East", as the secretary general of the Arab League put it. Bush still faces obstacles on the path to war, opposition in the US is growing. Up to a million marched against the war in Italy last weekend (see page 3), following on from a demo of 200,000 in Washington and the 400,000 who demonstrated in London. This is a vast movement of opposition to Bush's war for oil, which has the potential to develop into an even bigger movement as the war drums get louder.
Home | The Socialist 15 November 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
Support the firefighters
"The government don't want to pay us"STEVE WOOTON, Bristol, spoke to Phil Jordan, South West FBU regional chair. "Resolutions have been going to conference for years on pay and the employers have been trying to attack our conditions of service. Over the last ten years we've spent most of our time fighting cuts and in the last five or six years defending against attacks on our conditions of service. We've just had enough - we're where we were in 1977 - firefighters claiming free school meals for the kids, free milk. We don't think it's right for the type of job that we do. We've had an overtime ban since the mid 1970s to defend full-time jobs. We've also banned 'full-time retained', which is where a full time firefighter in his or her days off can be a part-time firefighter. So approximately 20,000 full-time jobs have been created, which is what successful trade unionism is all about. We don't see the Bain review as independent. The government don't want to pay us. Nick Raynsford said they would look at the report sympathetically, only for Gordon Brown to say that there is no money available and that they wouldn't pay an inflation-busting increase. Our understanding is that the prison officers went to a similar review which recommended a 20% rise. The government wouldn't pay but imposed the review's changes in terms and conditions. Looking back to 1977 there is one main difference. This time the TUC has supported us from the start. But we may end up fighting on our own. And the FBU is capable of doing that with an 87% vote in favour on an 83% turnout. The FBU is adamant that we retain the right to strike. Fire fighters and control staff have genuine concerns about safety. To be honest we are dreading strike action. But if we don't, the government and employers just try to keep our pay as low as possible. Labour fear that other public sector workers will want the same as us. But these are dedicated workers being blackmailed to staying on low pay. If we get 40% in a pay review they will not pay us but if they get 40% they award it to themselves quicker than you can blink. I think trade unionists must regain their position in the Labour Party. It was the unions that created it as our political voice in parliament. Having said that at some stage it will lose our support. I'm seriously considering my membership, as are other firefighters. The last dispute was also under a Labour government. There will be serious strain on the link with Labour but whatever the union does, it will be debated at our conference next May."
Bain's 'modernisation' plansPROFESSOR GEORGE Bain, previously Britain's highest-paid academic and director of Canada Life Assurance, thinks firefighters' pay is OK as it is. As he says: "Even allowing for the risks and dangers of the service, firefighters compare well with similar jobs in the public and private sectors... "When holidays, pension arrangements and job security are taken into account, they are even better placed. This conclusion is borne out by the recruitment and retention figures, which show large numbers of applicants for each fire service vacancy." Bain, formerly a university vice-chancellor on £200,000 a year, thinks he's fully qualified to judge that the technically demanding, dangerous job of a firefighter is worth less than a tenth of his magnificent contribution to humanity! Bain's proposal, for an 11% increase in two stages, dependent on firefighters accepting a far-reaching 'modernisation' package has rightly been described as 'insulting and derisory' by the FBU. The massive majority in the strike ballot shows firefighters' determination to defend jobs, their hard-won working conditions and to fight for a living wage. Every other public sector worker will recognise Bain's call for 'reforms' and 'efficiency savings'. And workers in the ambulance service will look with horror at Bain's proposals for joint services and joint control rooms, including training 'fire staff' as paramedics.
Attacking pay and conditionsMIKE FORSTER and Jackie Grunsell spoke to Paul, Howard and other firefighters from Huddersfield fire station. "Personally I didn't vote for strike action" said one, "but the mood is strong, so even if we don't agree with striking, everyone will be out. There will be no breaking of ranks." "At first I thought the 40% claim was a lot until I started to compare us with other workers. Police, nurses and teachers earn more than us - not that we begrudge them it - and MPs gave themselves a huge 40% pay rise. "In fact if all public sector workers' pay was linked to MPs' pay rises there would be no need for disputes. Except, if all MPs struck, no-one would notice." "The employers are talking about modernisation. They want flexible working, part-time staff to replace full-time staff, a cut in our leave and engines based outside city centre areas so stretching the service. "They want to extend the pension qualification service from 30 to 35 years and they plan fewer ranks to lower the pay bill and instead offer incentives to firefighters to take on extra responsibilities, introducing divisions within our ranks. It's a huge attack on our pay and conditions. "Not only that, we have taken on more responsibilities, like visiting people in their homes, fitting smoke detectors, doing school visits, etc. All this has seen a decrease in home fire fatalities, so we now get our budget cut because there are fewer fires! "The FBU has maintained a strong position for us over the last few years, but we've fallen behind in the wages league. Striking is our last resort and we are up against the masters of spin, but the public need and want the best from our service. Everyone will stay out until we get a settlement. "The Defence Ministry can't run a war and maintain emergency services. The army can come and take our fire engines but they won't know how to use them! This strike is down to who's got the most nerve."
A strong strike mandate"SO FAR the talks haven't dealt with the main issue of our claim for a living wage - £30k. So although the other issues that have been discussed, there is no real decision until the £30k pay claim is won. We have shown we are reasonable but we want the talks to get us the full settlement. Many of us are shocked we haven't been out on strike yet but the mandate for strike action is as strong as it was when we voted a month ago. The public support has been really good. We had a National Union of Teachers (NUT) rep here the other day to offer support and we've have had many other people knocking on the door offering support and asking if we need any help." London firefighter
Productivity up 55%"ACCORDING TO the evidence submitted by the employers' side to the Bain Inquiry into the fire service, firefighters' productivity has improved by 55% over the last decade. This compares with a figure of only 19.5% for the economy as a whole (Office for National Statistics). It appears that the union has been right all along in saying that it has taken modernisation on board and that the firefighters' well-researched claim for £30,000 per annum is already underpinned by achieved efficiency improvements as well as by public appreciation of the job they do on behalf of us all." Prof. Jonathan Michie, Birkbeck college, University of London, writing in The Independent
Home | The Socialist 15 November 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
Florence anti-war demoHuge Turnout Shows Growing RadicalisationSATURDAY 9 November, saw the biggest protest so far against the threatened war against Iraq. Up to a million marched and sang through the streets of Florence, Italy, in protest at Bush and Berlusconi's policies. Robert BechertThe many hundred thousands of Italian protesters were joined by tens of thousands of foreign participants in the European Social Forum assembly and by others, like the French CGT union, who came to Italy just for this demonstration. Weeks of increasingly hysterical anti-demonstrator propaganda from Italy's government didn't lessen the turnout. It increased it and kept protesters on guard against any agent provocateurs trying to provoke clashes. This, and the minimal police presence, resulted in a peaceful protest. At least double the size of last year's Genoa march, this was the fourth mass protest in Italy this year. Almost immediately after Berlusconi's May 2001 election victory protests and mass struggles started. Since then they included two successful eight-hour general strikes in October. While smaller than March's three million trade union demo in Rome, this protest brought together the themes of fighting against unemployment, neo-liberal attacks, the right-wing Berlusconi government and imperialist war. The protesters were very clear that they opposed Berlusconi, but there were hardly any indications of what should replace his government. The fact that the UN Security Council had earlier accepted Bush's resolution on Iraq had no effect. It was widely seen that Bush's administration had bullied, threatened or bribed other countries to get support. No one expected the UN to stop the Bush/Blair right to attack Iraq, only a mass movement could defeat Bush's colonial plans. The march's size and enthusiasm showed the mass opposition Berlusconi is facing. Most of the march were workers and youth, but many middle class protesters showed the widespread opposition to the right and to Berlusconi's shameless attempts to stop being tried in court for corruption. The delegations present included political parties, especially the Rifondazione Comunista (RC) that had the largest contingent, although most of their young members marched with other groups of youth. Groups of workers came from different workplaces, including Fiat where thousands are threatened with redundancy. The 'unions of the base' (like the different Cobas organisations and Cub-RdB) had some sizeable workplace groups and also attracted many youth to their contingents. However, compared to Genoa last year, there was less organised presence from the workplaces. Cgil's own contingent was relatively small, whether through failure to mobilise or from some workers feeling that demos on their own won't stop Berlusconi. Nevertheless, the huge turnout shows the radicalisation underway in Italy. Now, even more than before, activists will be discussing what steps need to be taken next and what policies need to be fought for.
A Day Of Singing And Red Flags!THE 28 September anti-war demo in London was the biggest I'd been on... until last Saturday. It was also the liveliest demo I'd seen... until last Saturday. Florence was incredibly inspiring and definitely distracted any tourists from the renaissance art the city is traditionally famous for. Sarah Sachs-EldridgePeople marched throughout the day dancing, chanting and singing traditional workers' songs as well as more modern stuff. Old and young, workers and students, from Ireland to Russia and from Sweden to Sicily let it be known that Europe is against the war. A CGIL delegation marched behind a banner calling for general strike; red flags and anti-capitalist slogans showed that the opposition extended to much more than the plans to bomb Iraq. I'd worried that not speaking the language would stop communication with the Italian young people on the demo but the words "Socialismo" and "Communismo" were nearly always greeted with a thumbs-up. Our CWI pamphlet "Lotta per il socialismo" (Struggle for Socialism) sold out in a matter of hours. Demonstrators were angry at the inequality that exists under capitalism, where governments will spend money on a war for oil and profit at the expense of decent health and education systems. And with red the predominant colour there was some understanding that an alternative system to capitalism is the only way to end war and terror. European Social Forum: A Socialist World Is NecessaryFORTY-THOUSAND PEOPLE from all over Europe flooded into Florence, Italy, for the European Social Forum, nearly double the number the organisers had been expecting. Christine ThomasThey were mostly young, taking part in three days of political discussion and debate, culminating in the biggest anti-war demonstration so far. The right-wing Berlusconi government in Italy tried unsuccessfully to stop the Forum from taking place in Florence. In the days running up to the event, the media was used to try and whip up fears of thousands of violent protesters invading and destroying the historic city. In fact both the Forum and the anti-war demonstration - which attracted up to one million protesters (see page 3) - passed off totally peacefully. The sheer numbers attending and participating in the Forum, with Italians far and away the largest group, marked a new stage in the anti-globalisation/anti-capitalist movement. Thousands of young people in Europe have become radicalised through the anti-globalisation and anti-war movement, taking to the streets in their thousands in Genoa, Barcelona, Seville, London, etc. In Florence, they came in their thousands to discuss ideas and how to take the movement forward. Topics under discussion in the main conferences included globalisation and liberalism, war and peace, rights, citizenship and democracy. There were also hundreds of seminars taking place every day on a myriad of different issues. The discussions and debates were hosted and sponsored by an extremely diverse range of social organisations and groups. Unfortunately, political parties were banned from organising any of the main debates at the Forum, instead they were allocated workshops miles away from the main venue. ConfusionALTHOUGH MOST people felt enthusiastic about the size and international character of the Forum, with so many platform speakers putting forward so many different ideas there was no clear alternative or direction coming out of most of the sessions. Thousands of people attended what was probably the biggest debate on 'movements and political parties'. The main speaker was Bertinotti, leader of Rifondazione Comunista (RC), which has a mass base amongst workers in Italy. However, he said that it would be "disastrous" for the RC to give a political lead or direction to the social movements. In reality, the opposite is the case; the movement needs a clear political direction and alternative if it is to go forward to achieve its aims. The theme of the Forum was 'Another Europe is possible'. Unfortunately, by the end it was no clearer than at the start what kind of Europe or world would be possible.
CWI poses a socialist alternativeCWI MEMBERS from Italy, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Kazakhstan and England and Wales took part in the Forum. In our material, speeches and discussions we emphasised the need to link social movements with the trade unions and struggles in workplaces. Workers' leader and CWI member Ionor Kurmanov was a platform speaker at a seminar on workers' rights, where he raised the need for new workers' parties. We explained how war, terror, attacks on workers' rights, racism, environmental destruction and all the others problems discussed at the Forum are rooted in the capitalist system which is based on exploitation, inequality and the pursuit of profit. A political alternative is therefore necessary to fight for a fundamental change in the system and the way society is organised and structured.
Europe-wide protestsANTI-GLOBALISATION protesters will be demonstrating in Prague at the NATO summit on 20 November and the EU meeting in Copenhagen in December. The next big focus for the anti-globalisation movement in Europe is expected to be a protest at the G8 meeting in Evian, France in June 2003. At the final rally of the Forum, speakers also raised the idea of a European wide strike within 24 hours of an attack taking place against Iraq.
A trade unionist's perspectiveAS AN active trade unionist I found the European Social Forum (ESF) quite impressive - thousands of people commited to opposing global capitalism, most of them young, discussing and debating issues. Although some of the political messages were a bit confused, at least there was the opportunity to talk about globalisation and its harmful effects, uncommon given the domination of public debate by the capitalist media. I was pleased to see that a number of trade unions, like UNISON, were supporting the event. The ESF should encourage trade unionists to campaign for closer links between the anti-capitalist movement and the unions, to draw in the organised working class. As for the future of the ESF, I would like to see less platform speakers, perhaps just two at each discussion, putting different points of view, and allowing for more contributions from ordinary participants. This will help focus minds, and develop strategies for the anti-capitalist movement, so that people leave it with a clear idea of what to do in their own countries, organisations and trade unions. Roger Bannister, UNISON National Executive Council (Personal Capacity)
Home | The Socialist 15 November 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
US mid-term electionsBush (And Cash) Beat Off Bankrupt DemocratsBUSH HAS won a stunning political victory. Never in living memory has a sitting president strengthened his party's position in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in mid-term elections. This is in spite of the deepening economic recession. Lynn WalshThe Republicans, dominated by their right wing, now control the presidency, the Senate and the House. Even with only narrow control of the Senate (51 to 49) Bush is likely to stack the Federal judiciary with right-wing judges. Bush's election tactics paid off. Touring 12 cities and 15 states in the last few weeks in support of key Republican candidates, Bush made a personal appeal - as 'commander-in-chief of the war against terrorism' - for a loyalty vote. The war fever distracted just enough attention away from the economic downturn and the wave of corporate business crimes. And there were two other vital ingredients: piles of corporate cash [see Big Bucks Buy Votes] and the utter political bankruptcy of the rival big-business party, the Democrats, passively supported by the trade union leaders. Afraid of accusations of 'disloyalty', they let Bush get away with it. The Republicans' mid-term victory appears to put fresh wind in Bush's sails when it comes to a possible military strike against Iraq. Yet opinion polls showed declining support for the president's Iraq policy during the campaign. Bush noticeably toned down his war-mongering rhetoric. Winning a few more seats in Congress will not shield Bush from a growing reaction against the mounting costs of military adventures or prolonged entanglement in Iraq. On the home front, Bush will no doubt treat the mid-term results as a mandate to aggressively pursue his pro-big business agenda. But in reality there was no Republican 'landslide', no 'swing to the right'. True, the Republicans captured Senate seats in some traditional Democratic strongholds such as Minnesota, Missouri, and Georgia, and generally tightened their political hold on the South. Overall, however, the Republican gains were very marginal. The voting section of the electorate is still split almost 50-50 down the middle. Deep alienation from the whole political system is shown by the low turnout, despite the momentous events of the last year or so: 11 September, the collapse of the stock-exchange bubble, business scandals, and the prospect of war against Iraq. The turnout in this year's primary elections was only 17% of the voting age population, the second lowest primary turnout ever recorded. The reported turnout on Tuesday, 5 November was about 37%, compared with the 35% who voted in the 1998 mid-term elections, the lowest for 56 years. Dismal DemocratsAS AN opposition, the Democrats totally failed - despite all the ammunition to hand. They avoided challenging Bush's determination to link 11 September attacks to 'regime change' in Iraq. They failed to defend democratic rights, drastically curtailed in the name of the 'war against terrorism'. They did not even campaign against Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut over ten years, which will go overwhelmingly to a million super-rich Americans. In spite of deep popular anger at big-business scandals, the Democrats failed to expose the rottenness of the system - not surprising when many Democratic leaders took Enron and other corporate cash. They have not championed a state-financed health-care system, despite the fact that over 41 million people (14.6%) have no health insurance and millions more have completely inadequate health cover. The Democrats have paid the price for the political cowardice and bankruptcy of their leaders. The once-strong Democratic Party machine has crumbled. Voters registered as Democratic supporters have declined by 18 percentage points from the 1960s peak. While the leaders of most labour unions are still stuck like glue to the Democrats, handing them ever-bigger amounts of election cash, a growing bunch of labour leaders are turning to Republican office-holders. In New York State, for instance, several public-sector unions supported the now re-elected Republican governor, George Pataki, on the strength of shortsighted pay deals that will rebound on their members in the future. The Republicans, on the other hand, have strengthened their political machine, especially in the South. With huge infusions of big-business cash, they have created an enormous network of fund-raisers, lobbyists, right-wing think tanks, radio and TV talk-show hosts, and grass-roots activists, who increasingly conduct door-to-door canvassing. While the overall turnout was down, the turnout in some seats targeted by the Republicans (for instance, in New Hampshire and Georgia) rose quite sharply. Corporate agendaEVEN AFTER his illegitimate presidential victory in 2000, courtesy of the Supreme Court, Bush rigorously pushed his right-wing, pro-business agenda. Corporate leaders have already presented a new wish list. They want extended, permanent tax cuts for big business and the super-rich. They are pressing for Federal subsidies for corporate terrorism insurance. Oil companies are pushing to drill in the Alaskan nature reserve, and for the general relaxation of environmental protection. Business wants new curbs on the right of workers and consumers to sue companies for mismanagement, environmental pollution, and health-and-safety violations. There are currently over 51 vacancies on the federal judicial bench: if Bush now fills these with right-wing judges, with life tenure, that will have far-reaching, adverse effects on women's rights, democratic rights, and a whole range of social issues. But there is a big question mark over how far Bush will be able to go. "Business leaders and their opponents in Washington agree that if the Republicans over-reach in their zeal to advance a pro-business agenda, they risk a strong protest," commented the New York Times, (8 November). During the election campaign, the economy and business scandals were overshadowed by war fever. But it is on the economy that Bush will be judged in the 2004 presidential election. All the signs are that US capitalism has moved into a period of prolonged stagnation and crisis, though the short-tern business cycle will continue. With full control of Congress, Bush will have nobody else to blame. The continued slide of the economy, with rising long-term unemployment and growing problems of debt, will provoke big upheavals. New York City, for instance, has a budget deficit of between $5 billion and $6 billion posing the threat of massive cuts. Recent industrial action by transport workers, firefighters, and other City workers is an overture to coming struggles throughout the US. During the campaign, Bush used the Taft-Hartley act to impose a 90-day 'cooling-off' period on the Longshoremen (dockers), who shut down all the West Coast ports. Bush's unusual mid-term success will not protect the Republicans against a growing tide of opposition, protest movements and workers' struggles. Immediately after the Democrats' defeat, their House leader, Dick Gephardt, stepped down. The favourite for his replacement is Nancy Pelosi, who has a strong base in Democrat-dominated California. She admitted they had utterly failed to distinguish themselves from the Republicans. Like former vice-president Al Gore, she is calling for an end to the cosying up to Bush. Pelosi was criticised by one possible rival, Martin Frost of Texas, who claims the country has shifted to the right and says the Democrats should follow suit. Frost is reportedly "very uneasy about the party moving sharply to the left". In the wake of such a shameful defeat, however, it is likely the Pelosi trend will prevail. In reality, however, the 'left' of the Democratic Party is only marginally more liberal than its right wing. The Democrats are a big-business party, through and through, though they have traditionally relied on the support of the trade unions, for money and a loyalist vote. But their record under Bush, who represents the greediest and most aggressive section of the US capitalists, shows the Democrats offer no alternative for working people. Their support for social reform and workers' rights is at best half-hearted. They have no solutions to the growing crisis of US capitalism. Ultimately, they are tied to their big business masters, who rein them in if they bend too much to pressure from the labour movement or the party's populist wing. New mass partyTHE TIME is long overdue for a party to provide political representation for working people, to mobilise workers, women, minorities, and young people in struggles to defend their interests and change society. The potential exists. While voter registration has generally fallen, the number of voters registering as 'third party' supporters or 'independents' has increased eight-fold since the 1960s. More than a third of young African-Americans, traditionally strong Democrat supporters, now register as 'independent'. The small (currently shrinking) Labor Party, founded in 1996 with the support of a handful of unions, has not got off the ground. Union leaders vetoed electoral campaigning, which is a vital tool for building a new mass party. Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign on a Green Party ticket, despite its serious political shortcoming, showed the potential for a new party on the left. Nader, a radical populist, polled 2.7 million votes, and would have got more had not the race been so close (leading many Nader sympathisers to vote Democrat to keep out Republicans). Currently, some Green candidates are increasing their votes (for example, in Minnesota). A political catalyst is needed to bring together the forces for a new mass party - labour union and community activists, minority and environmental campaigners, anti-war activists and wider layers who are sick of the corrupt monopoly of the big-business duo, the Republicans and Democrats. Events in the next few years will unavoidably bring this urgent task to the forefront of US politics.
Big bucks buy votesMILLIONS OF big-business dollars were used by both major parties to campaign for votes. Both represent big business. The Republicans, however, push more aggressive pro-business policies and heavily outspent the Democrats, by $527.4 million to $343.7 million. Bush was credited with personally raising $141 million for his party. Cash was targeted on key marginal states, particularly through intensive television advertising. More than 95% of House of Representative races and 75% of Senate races were won by the candidate who spent most money, according to the Centre For Responsive Politics. One candidate who won despite being outspent was Bernie Sanders, a reformist social democrat who was returned to the House as an independent for Vermont. At the same time, so-called 'special interest groups' such as the pharmaceutical companies and the National Rifle Association, spent millions on TV campaigns that, while not openly supporting particular candidates, opposed state funding for prescription drugs and gun control. Other corporate interests campaigned for the privatisation of social security, the US state pension scheme. Altogether, over $1 billion was spent on TV advertising during this campaign. In the State of Oregon alone (population 3.3 million), the pharmaceutical industry spent $2 million to defeat a ballot initiative (a referendum) proposing a comprehensive government-run health system similar to Canada's. Corporate interests outspent the health care campaign by fifty to one, defeating it by 79% to 21%, despite the fact that 13% of the state's population have no health insurance and many more have very inadequate cover. This year the Republicans and Democrats smashed all records in raising over $500 million in 'soft' money, that is unregulated campaign finance that exploits loopholes in earlier laws supposedly intended to limit the influence of 'special interest groups' over the parties. From the morning after election day 2002, 'soft money' donations are supposed to be illegal under new legislation passed last year, the so-called McCain-Feingold law. Both parties, however, have been busy opening up new loopholes. They have had plenty of help from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), appointed by political leaders in Congress, which has already re-interpreted the rules in favour of big-business donations. "The chief enabler who lets this seamy game continue," comments the USA Today (7 November), "is the very agency charged with enforcing the law. "Instead of aggressively blocking end runs around the law, the Federal Election Commission has led the way to keep special-interest millions flowing."
Home | The Socialist 15 November 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
Asylum Laws:Blunkett's Vicious New RestrictionsHOME SECRETARY David Blunkett has added vicious new proposals to the government's Asylum Bill, causing a rare rebellion by New Labour backbenchers. Naomi ByronWhen the bill returned to the Commons after one of 52 defeats in the Lords, 42 Labour MPs opposed Blunkett's proposals to educate asylum-seekers' children in special accommodation centres. They wanted the children to have access to mainstream state education instead of being segregated from the rest of the population. But the whole bill was eventually passed with minor amendments. New Labour are still playing the race card to distract attention from their responsibility for the problems that working-class people and large sections of the middle class face. Blunkett's bill revived the Tory idea of a "White List" of countries that the Home Office considers "safe". They could turn down asylum applications from people from these countries without considering their cases properly. The first countries on the White List are those, mainly from eastern Europe, which are to join the European Union. But last year, even before the List, the Home Office did not grant one single asylum application from the Czech Republic, despite the horrific discrimination and attacks the Roma people face. Only 1% (approximately nine people) were given Exceptional Leave to Remain on humanitarian grounds (which can be taken away by the government at any time). Blunkett is seeking powers to expand the White List to new areas, possibly to Turkey. The Home Office's 1998 assessment for Turkey, which helps decide whether asylum-seekers from that country are at risk of persecution, asserted: "Outside south east Turkey, Kurds do not usually suffer 'persecution', or even discrimination, provided that they do not insist on their Kurdishness". But many asylum claims by Kurds from Turkey are because the authorities there won't tolerate peaceful expression of Kurdish identity. That intolerance can lead to harassment, arrest, even deaths and disappearances. CynicismBLUNKETT ALSO proposes that more asylum cases are processed abroad. The Home Office already slaps visa requirements on people travelling to Britain from any crisis-racked country they think likely to produce refugees. Recently they sent immigration officials to the Czech Republic, with powers to turn back anyone they thought likely to seek asylum, with no right of appeal. The scheme was temporarily suspended after accusations that officials turned back Roma people disproportionately. However, officials were soon sent back to the Czech Republic to continue their work. The proposal to process cases abroad means that, as refugees aren't in Britain, they have no access to support networks that have helped bring the government to account for many unjust decisions. Will these people get a fair hearing? Asylum applications processed abroad can be done more secretly and with less embarrassing repercussions for the government when they turn down refugees' applications unjustly. How will officials making these decisions be held to account? Despite government assurances, some of the people whose cases will be processed abroad could be in more danger from the government or the forces they're fleeing as their application will mark them out. Proposals to exclude people who apply for asylum in-country (ie after they enter Britain) from benefits - unless they can "prove" good reasons for not applying at their port of entry - repeats Tory attempts in 1996 to deny this group of asylum-seekers (65%-70% of total applications) financial support. The Tories were then trying to starve refugees into submission and prevent them claiming their right to asylum. Blunkett's measures are done for the same reason, but even more cynically. This July New Labour scrapped even the minimal rights asylum-seekers had to ask for government permission to work in Britain from six months after their application for asylum is lodged. Now asylum-seekers have no legal right to work until their claims are decided - it can take some 18 months just for the initial decision (not including the time taken by appeals or judicial reviews), and many of them will have no entitlement to benefits if this proposal goes through. Blunkett's Asylum Bill aims to make the unjust, bureaucratic, racist asylum system even less accountable to both refugees and Britain's population.
Home | The Socialist 15 November 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
|
|||
