Firefighters Must Stand Firm :: The Socialist 6 December 2002

The reality is totally different. The eight-day action taken by firefighters was even more solid than the first 48-hour strike.

Across the country opinion swung behind the firefighters. It became absolutely clear that New Labour's beef with the firefighters is that, unlike some other public sector workers, they have managed to maintain reasonable working conditions and an efficient service.

The 'modernised’ fire service New Labour wants would be no different to the 'modernised' health and ambulance service that we already have - massively overstretched and under-funded. John Prescott has admitted that government 'modernisation' means up to 11,000 job cuts.

Millions of working-class people understand that Blair's attack on the firefighters is part of a broad assault on public sector workers and that a victory for the firefighters would be a real blow to New Labour's plans for privatisation and cuts. Potentially, the national demonstration in support of the firefighters could have been massive with hundreds of thousands attending.

However, the situation has been complicated by the FBU executive's decision to cancel this week's strike. Nonetheless, the mood of the firefighters remains determined and public support for them is huge.

No further strike action should be cancelled for 'negotiations' unless the government drops their demands for massive cuts and offers a significant wage increase. The firefighters must not be left isolated. Other sections of the trade union movement must be prepared to take solidarity action in support of the firefighters.

The other lesson of this dispute is that it is time for the FBU and other unions to sever their links with New Labour. New Labour is just another party of big business.

The unions should set about building an alternative - a party that will uphold the interests of the working class by fighting for socialist policies.

Action needed to defeat Blair’s attacks

Many firefighters and other workers will have looked on bewildered as the FBU executive council called off the eight-day firefighters’ strike due to begin on 4 December.

Some firefighters will of course be hoping that a negotiated deal can now be agreed that will guarantee them a substantial pay increase with no job cuts or attacks on working conditions.

But New Labour have made it quite clear that their position has not changed and that any deal has to be "within the parameters" that they have set.

There was no deal on the table, no shift in the government's hardline stance that any pay rise over 4% had to be linked to 'modernisation' - not even negotiations - just 'exploratory talks' at the arbitration and conciliation body ACAS.

As The Guardian editorial (3 December) put it: "... all the dignity in the world cannot disguise the essential political fact. The FBU has peered over the brink and retreated".

Provocation

ON THE morning of the day that the strike was called off, the Daily Mirror declared; "Now it's open war" - and for the New Labour government it is. They finally admitted that as far as they are concerned 'modernisation' means thousands of jobs cuts. Government ministers were vicious in their attacks on the FBU. The armed forces minister Adam Ingram described one FBU official as "not fit to lace the boots" of soldiers.

Only hours before the executive made its decision, fire service minister, Nick Raynsford, would not rule out banning future strikes. The government was also considering passing legislation that would force through 'modernisation' over the heads of the firefighters and the union.

Andy Gilchrist said that ministers will be making a "grave mistake" if they see the FBU's decision as a sign of weakness. But in the face of such provocation, that is exactly how it will be viewed by a government that is hellbent on forcing through its agenda of low pay, cuts and worsening conditions not just in the fire service but in the whole public sector.

Politicisation

LAST WEEKEND Andy Gilchrist was accused of 'politicising' the strike after he made a speech to a meeting of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs. In it he called for New Labour to be replaced by Real Labour; a call, not for a new workers' party to replace New Labour - which is what is needed to represent the interests of working-class people - but for workers to go in and ‘reclaim’ the Labour Party, which would gain very little echo among rank and file firefighters.

There’s no doubt that the rabid attacks on Gilchrist (who is a Labour Party member) from the right-wing press, government ministers and even some trade union leaders influenced the decision not to go ahead with the planned strike.

Gilchrist declared that by calling off the strike the union was showing "proof of the non- political nature of this dispute". But, as The Socialist has consistently argued, for this government the dispute has been political from day one.

They will not pay the firefighters the wages they deserve - not because there is not enough money but because they want to use the firefighters as a stick to beat other public sector workers into accepting poverty wages and privatisation. The firefighters are pawns in New Labour's plans for a big-business friendly public sector where profits come before a living 'wage, jobs,, working conditions and decent public services.

Solidarity support

THAT'S WHY it has been in the interests of all workers to back the firefighters. And the firefighters have had enormous support from ordinary working-class people. Other union leaders have also understood that if the firefighters lose then they and their members could be next in line and have, feeling the pressure, come out and backed the FBU.

As John Edmonds, certainly no left-wing union leader, stated: "This is no longer just a dispute between the FBU and a government: it has descended into a fight between the government and the whole union movement".

Even the TUC general secretary, John Monks, normally a loyal supporter of Blair, was forced to reflect the mood amongst ordinary workers by calling on everyone to support the firefighters and by backing the national demonstration organised for 7 December.

This demonstration potentially could have mobilised hundreds of thousands of workers in solidarity with the fire-fighters' strike and in defence of jobs and services. It could have acted as a springboard for wider solidarity action, which is the key to winning this dispute.

But, instead of putting their efforts into making the demonstration an enormous show of strength in support of the firefighters and building for solidarity action, the TUC were manoeuvring behind the scenes to involve ACAS in the dispute.

Even if ACAS was genuinely a neutral body which it is not, the government will still insist that any agreement be paid for by 'modernisation'.

Stand firm

THE FULL Bain report is due to be published on 16 December. Firefighters will remain determined that their leaders must resist any pay deal which involves job cuts or any undermining of their hard won working conditions or of the fire service as a whole.

Unless the government agrees to fund a substantial pay offer with no strings attached, then the FBU must resume strike action. Andy Gilchrist has said that the next eight-day strike, due to begin on 16 December, is still "live". However, four strikes have already been called off so far.

There's no doubt that the tactic of discontinuous strike action, interspersed with fruitless negotiations, could eventually have the effect of confusing, demobilising and even demoralising firefighters who have so far stood firm.

In order to match the determined stance of the government, firefighters need to stand equally firm. No further strike should be called off unless a significant offer is on the table. If necessary the FBU should consider all-out action.

The firefighters' resolute stance to fight to defend pay, jobs and services won widespread support amongst other workers. This is a fight that affects the whole working-class. The FBU must continue to stand firm. With solidarity support they can win. And given the ambivalent role of the TUC so far in this dispute, the left trade union leaders should be discussing now how that support can be organised.

Stop This War For Oil

GORDON BROWN, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his budget statement set aside £1 billion to wage war on Iraq. Some analysts put the true cost of war at £5 billion.

That's £5 billion to bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age, yet Brown's government flatly refuses to fund firefighters (who save lives) an £8.50 an hour take home pay.

The message is clear: public-sector workers must accept low pay in order for New Labour to be part of the US-led war on Iraq. And make no mistake, unless workers and youth in Britain and internationally can exert enough opposition, George Bush and Tony Blair intend to carry through a "regime change" in Iraq.

But an invasion and occupation of Iraq (for that is the reported plan) isn't about restoring democracy. Saddam Hussein will undoubtedly be removed but only to be replaced by a pro-US stooge resting on US and British military might.

The long-suffering Iraqi people aren't going to have a say over how the wealth of this oil-rich country should be used. That has already been decided.

It will be the giant oil and energy corporations that bankrolled Bush's presidential campaign who will receive their reward, by exploiting Iraq's vast untapped oil deposits (the country contains an estimated one-third of the world's total reserves).

As one industry analyst puts it: "Ninety cents a barrel for oil that sells at $30 - that's the kind of business anyone would want to be in."

But this threatened war is about more than greedy oil corporations backed by military might. Along with the 'war against terrorism', this 21st century colonial conquest is designed to serve as an example to the world's poor and the world's poorest countries ie, accept the New World Order of capitalism or face annihilation.

In this way the fate of ordinary Iraqis is linked to the interests of working-class people in Britain. Neither can gain from this rotten profit system that only benefits a privileged minority.

But workers and the poor internationally have everything to gain by affecting not just a 'regime change' to oust the likes of Bush and Blair but a 'system change' to bring a redistribution of wealth and power i.e. socialism. Join us in that fight.

No War on Iraq

called by Stop The War Coalition

Saturday 15 February 2003

National anti-war demonstration, London

Blair's war propaganda

HOT ON the heels of the Blair government's widely ridiculed report on Saddam Hussein's "nuclear threat", comes another dossier exposing the Iraqi dictator as a dictator!

The timing here is critical. This report (accompanied by a video showing the aftermath of Saddam's gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja back in 1988) appeared only six days before the deadline for the Iraqi regime to release details of any 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Clearly, this is another piece of British government propaganda designed to soften up public opinion prior to launching an all-out attack on Iraq. The report also coincides with US President George Bush's pre-emptive comments saying Saddam has failed to co-operate "willingly and completely" with United Nations weapons inspectors.

Saddam's human rights abuses are well documented. Less well publicised is evidence of British, US, Russian, French, Israeli and many other governments, who armed and financed the dictator during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war. This includes the Thatcher government which continued to support the regime after the imposition of UN arms sanctions and the Halabja massacre.

And why only a report on one dictatorship? Where's the report on Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and a host of other rotten Middle Eastern regimes and regimes throughout the world which ban trade unions and political parties, imprison without trial and torture opponents?

In reality governments in both the USA and Britain are happy doing business - including arms sales - to any regime providing it complies with imperialism.

Kenya bombing: Terrorism and state terrorism

WHILE THE US and British governments relentlessly prepare to attack Iraq as part of their 'war on terrorism', a suspected al-Qa'ida cell blew up a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, packed with Israeli tourists. Most of the fatalities were from a Kenyan dance troupe.

Dave Carr

The Mombasa attack follows the Bali bombing outrage where nearly 200 people, including many foreign tourists, were killed.

Israel's hardline prime minister Ariel Sharon has vowed to avenge the three dead Israelis. As the terrorist cell used a flag of convenience - calling itself the Army of Palestine - Palestinians in the occupied territories will be bracing themselves for another deadly assault by Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).

As if on cue, the IDF narrowly failed to assassinate an Islamic Jihad commander in Gaza last Sunday. Earlier, troops backed by tanks, destroyed the homes of three Palestinian militants wanted by Israel for alleged attacks stretching back over six years. In the process many unrelated Palestinians saw their homes destroyed.

While Western governments were quick to use the Mombasa attack to justify curtailing democratic rights in order to fight domestic 'terrorism', none of them will concede that it's their imperialist policies, by oppressing the world's poor, which have created the conditions in which terrorist groups can find a ready source of recruits.

Imperialist aims

The US-led war in Afghanistan, fought supposedly to "root out" terrorism, failed in that task but at a cost of killing thousands of innocent civilians and wrecking hospitals and homes. Post-Taliban Afghanistan is awash with ruthless warlords terrorising the poverty stricken population. Atop of this mess sits the US-backed stooge regime of Hamid Karzai

George Bush and Tony Blair also gave tacit approval for Russia's Vladimir Putin to wreak terror in the former breakaway republic of Chechnya - creating a new generation of Western hating terrorists.

This led directly to the Moscow hostage crisis when scores of theatre goers were killed when Russian special forces used lethal gas to 'subdue' Chechen terrorists.

Now the US and British governments are determined to wage war against the Iraqi dictatorship led by their former ally, Saddam Hussein. Not, however, to restore human rights nor democracy to Iraqis but to secure their regional strategic aims of political domination and control of oil reserves.

George Bush and Tony Blair regularly justify their war aims with talk of combating Iraqi 'terrorism'. Yet secular Iraq is loathed by the Islamist terrorist groups responsible for 11 September and the Bali and Mombasa attacks. Moreover, a recently leaked letter from the US spy agency, the CIA, concedes that a sanctions-weakened and NATO-bombed Iraq poses little threat to its neighbours or the wider world.

Not to be left out of the Bush/Blair 'war against terrorism', Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, has warned of adopting a pre-emptive 'first strike' military action against 'terrorist' targets in neighbouring Asian countries.

Far from making the world a safer place Bush and Co. with their capitalist policies are oppressing millions of people, deepening their poverty and widening inequality, thereby driving many into becoming volunteers for terrorist acts.

Only workers' governments by removing these injustices can rid the world of war and terror. That means fighting to change the capitalist system and replace it with a democratic socialist society.

Stop Funding Blair

Time for a new workers' party

ON PICKET lines all over the country firefighters have been asking why the unions continue to finance New Labour. Why should FBU members fund a party that wants to cut thousands of jobs, undermine working conditions and the fire service and refuses to pay firefighters a decent wage?

Christine Thomas

In some stations firefighters are filling in forms to withdraw from paying the political fund which goes to the Labour Party. Others are passing or circulating resolutions that question the FBU's link with New Labour.

This dispute has completely exposed whose side New Labour are really on. They are squaring up to the firefighters in the interests of big business.

The Financial Times called the dispute "a full-fledged confrontation between the Labour government and the trade union movement over the future of Britain's public services". They, the bosses and New Labour - all want public services on the cheap. That means private sector vultures swooping in and making a killing while jobs are cut, working conditions made unbearable and public sector workers are expected to survive on poverty pay.

For New Labour, which is now the bosses' party, taking on the firefighters is part of its pro-big business agenda.

Resolving to break the link

THE BITTER experience of five years of New Labour government has pushed more and more workers towards challenging the unions' financial and political link with Labour. The postal workers' union CWU voted to cut the money it gives to New Labour by £500,000 and the rail workers union, RMT, is cutting £700,000 over five years and only backing MPs who support union policy.

At the UNISON public sector union conference in 2001, Socialist Party member Glenn Kelly successfully moved a motion calling on the national executive to review the union's financial links with New Labour. This reflected the huge anger of health workers, council workers etc who are facing privatisation and attacks on jobs, pay and working conditions.

In the same year, delegates to the FBU conference voted to instruct the executive to prepare any necessary rule changes that would allow the union to support candidates and organisations in opposition to New Labour, as long as they uphold policies and principles in line with the FBU.

Unfortunately, the rule changes were not brought to this year's conference and the FBU maintained its affiliation to the Labour Party. But there's no doubt that next year's conference will be flooded by resolutions from firefighters, like the ones in Euston, who've had enough of paying for the privilege of being kicked in the teeth by New Labour.

Time for a new party

SOME union leaders have raised the idea of "reclaiming" the Labour Party. This is what Andy Gilchrist said he meant when he called for New Labour to be replaced by Real Labour. Before the current strike he told The Guardian that remaining inside the Labour Party was "the best opportunity to be in the game where the big decisions are taken".

But despite donating millions every year to the Labour Party, the unions have no real influence over party policy. Labour Party general secretary, David Triesman, showed his contempt for trade unionists when he said that the party "cannot be bought" by unions demanding concessions in return for finance.

The union block vote at Labour Party conference has been reduced from 90% to less than 50%. At this year's conference, delegates voted two to one in favour of a review of the Private Finance Initiative. Union delegates voted in favour by a margin of eleven to one. But Blair turned round and arrogantly declared: "It won't affect our determination to proceed with the policy because we think it's the right policy".

The New Labour 'fixers' prevented the firefighters from even getting a resolution about their impending dispute on to the conference agenda.

In some areas, individual Labour MPs have supported the firefighters but they are part of a party that is completely tied to the market and the interests of big business. The time has come for the unions to break the link with New Labour and begin the task of building a new party that can stand up for the interests of workers in the same way that the Labour Party stands up for the bosses.

Building a new workers' party

MANY FIREFIGHTERS who've had enough of New Labour are opting out of the political levy and raising the question of the FBU disaffiliating from the Labour Party. But firefighters and other workers also need a political voice. Firefighters at Euston have said that they want the money that the union currently pays to the Labour Party to be used to support in elections parties and individuals who backed them in the strike.

The Socialist Party supports the idea of the unions' political funds being used to finance alternative candidates and parties in elections, whose policies correspond with those of the unions.

In previous elections trade unionists (including FBU members) have themselves stood as election candidates. In the 2001 general election in Wyre Forest, a retired consultant was elected with 58% of the vote campaigning against the downgrading of a local hospital. This gives an idea of the support firefighters could generate and the impact they could have if they stood candidates in the future.

There are bound to be hundreds of firefighters itching to take on New Labour candidates in future elections and they should be able to do so, with the backing of the union.

Firefighters, postal workers, rail workers, council workers, health workers - all are under attack from the pro-big business policies of this New Labour government. If, after this dispute, the FBU was to approach the newly elected left leaders in unions such as the RMT, CWU, PCS, ASLEF etc about organising a cross-union rank and file conference to discuss what concrete steps could be taken now to build a new political alternative, it would be a huge step forward for working-class people.

As we wrote in the Socialist Party pamphlet 'The case for a new workers' party': "A new workers' party could play the role of uniting together, around a fighting anti-capitalist programme, all those who want to struggle against the system and its effects. It could be a vehicle for defending the interests of working-class people through collective action in the workplaces, communities and society generally..."

Donations

THE TRADE unions make up eight out of ten of the largest donors to the Labour Party. Last year they donated a total of £9.87 million.

In the summer New Labour went to the unions, cap in hand, to beg for more money to fund their debt of over £10 million. The unions agreed to raise affiliation fees by £750,000 in 2003. Instead of giving millions to bail out a big business party that is attacking ordinary workers, the unions should be donating that money to the FBU hardship fund and supporting the campaign for a new workers' party.

Free the Funds

FREE THE Funds is a cross-union campaign for a new workers' party, initiated by the Socialist Party.

Its founding sponsors include ten trade union national executive members from six trade unions.

If you would like to invite a Free the Funds speaker to your union branch or would like copies of model resolutions or petitions, telephone:

THE FIREFIGHTERS' union has called off the next planned strike to go into 'exploratory talks' brokered by ACAS.

It is clear the government want to force through service cuts and job losses before agreeing to any pay increase.

The articles below show what is on the government's agenda and expose the truth behind the NHS pay 'deal'.

'Modernisation': Saving Money Not Saving Lives

THE LATEST proposals for job cuts in the fire service is New Labour once more carrying through the Thatcher revolution in attacking public sector pay and conditions.

Steve Harbord, UNISON branch committee, London Ambulance Service (personal capacity)

One of the proposals is to amalgamate control rooms. This is not as simple as it sounds. Control staff have skills directly related to the service they work for. We would not expect the fire control staff to give specific medical advice to a patient over the phone and the same goes for ambulance staff giving advice on fire brigade calls.

These proposals are just the start of a longer term plan to unite the fire and ambulance service. But the ambulance and fire services answer quite different calls. If the fire service is dealing with flood or structural damage they don't need ambulance staff. Likewise ambulance staff would not need a fire pump if dealing with a patient with a heart attack at home.

Ambulance service staff have no problem with fire staff taking on more medical skills. We think it's correct that a defibrillator should be carried on pumps. But not at the expense of an ambulance being called.

For all the talk of modernisation and efficiency, when somebody picks up the phone in an emergency they want to know that a vehicle and crew is standing by ready to deal with the call. If it's a heart attack they want an ambulance to turn up with the right drugs and equipment.

Government plans for the fire service are not about saving lives but saving money.

"The Person You Are Calling Knows You Are Dying..."

From FBU Southern region, members' newsletter

'Increase Spending' Says Covered-Up Report

WHEN JERRY Pagan, the chair of South Yorkshire FBU spoke at a Sheffield Socialist Party public meeting, he exposed some of the truth about 'modernisation':

"It's the union that has pushed for the employment of more women and black and ethnic minority firefighters. They talk about modernisation, we've still got fire stations without separate toilets and showers for female members.

"The Fire Cover Review was a three-year investigation into the fire service commissioned by the Audit Commission. Its findings were due out in the summer but have been suppressed because they say the opposite of what the government wants to hear. Instead of cutbacks it recommends an increase in the fire service budget from £1.6 billion to £3.8 billion."

Sid Platts, the FBU Branch secretary in Kentish Town fire station told The Socialist: "As far as the government is concerned this dispute is purely about cuts, not just about our pay campaign. In London in the last 20 years, we've seen operational firefighter posts reduced from 7,000 to 5,700. We've lost 40-odd pumping appliances and four fire stations have been closed permanently.

"In the last two years fire deaths have increased in the capital for the first time since World War Two. And there has been an increase in the population year on year, in the number of incidents we attend and the varieties of incidents we attend."

Home Office Reject Joint Control Rooms

THE HOME Office published a document in 2000, called "The Future of Fire Service Control Rooms and Communications in England and Wales". After a detailed study, they rejected the idea of joint control rooms because:

The other emergency services have lower performance standards and may want to cut costs by cutting staff.

It makes you wonder why the question of joint control rooms is being raised again now...

How The Armed Forces Really Coped

TONY BLAIR was on the propaganda trail to an army fire station in Darlington last week. He said: "We have learned a lot about how the armed forces have coped while the firefighters have been on strike."

He meant trying to force firefighters into an army-style 8-day 96-hour week and having joint emergency control rooms.

Troops escaped major injury or other disasters by having the help of striking firefighters when lives were at risk.

In many cases the troops recognised they were out of their depth and called for help.

Lt Col Napier, commanding troops in the West Midlands remarked for example that trying to tackle a big fire in West Bromwich had showed them "they had not understood the complexities" of tackling such fires.

The truth about the health service pay deal

WHEN HEALTH secretary Alan Milburn announced 'Agenda for Change', a pay and 'modernisation' offer to health workers, he claimed: "It is about paying more to get more so that staff who take on new responsibilities get extra rewards. This is a something for something deal."

But NHS unions have pointed out that no agreement has been reached at all. The government spinners were just desperate to put pressure on the firefighters by 'proving' that another group of workers were prepared to accept cuts and increases in workload in return for a pay deal.

In fact as the reaction of health workers below shows, the deal is not a forgone conclusion. The UNISON health group executive passed two resolutions giving full support to the firefighters and said that formal consultation on the offer ie a special conference and a ballot would not begin until the firefighters' dispute was over.

Labour's lies

THE BOTTOM line is a 3.2% pay rise. Extra money is, as always with New Labour, for the future, contingent on modernisation. All this stuff about a ground-breaking agreement leading to dramatic pay rises for over a million workers is irrelevant.

Alan Manley, UNISON personal capacity.

"Agenda for Change" is a complex job evaluation scheme, a regrading exercise. Management will assess your suitability for further pay increases on basis of your willingness to be flexible - in other words - nurses will do junior doctors' duties for a wee bit of extra cash.

The fact is that after four years in discussion Agenda for Change will not answer the immediate issue of low pay and poor pay in the NHS.

No, far better it goes to the likes of Jarvis with over £10 billion in PFI contracts and a monthly pre-tax profit of £3 million to continue the privatisation of the public sector.

The timetable for implementation is set for 2004, workers need to be consulted and an agreement reached. It is simply false for claims to be made about a scheme yet to be set in place.

New Labour want to isolate the firefighters from other workers in the public sector by proclaiming that the issue of pay is being resolved in the health service. The fact that it isn't is neither here nor there.

We should mobilise NHS staff, as the FBU have, behind a genuine campaign of action to improve pay.

'Horrendous for everyone'

THE MAJORITY of UNISON members working for the NHS stores agency, NHS Logistics, earn between £10,000 and £18,000. The prospects of a 10% pay deal over three years will be horrendous for everyone.

Brian Loader

By a simple calculation, each year's increment will be less than last April's 3.6% pay award.

Many UNISON members remember the previous three-year deal, in which the final increase was dependent on the inflation rate in December 2000. We were left with around 3%.

Gordon Brown has admitted that all his financial forecasting from last April is now up the creek and he has been forced to borrow more money.

Why should we accept any deal over three years? Nobody now believes the government figures on inflation and economic growth will be anywhere near their targets for the next year, let alone three.

Like what has happened in the firefighters' strike, it will be the government who will be tearing up the agreement when the figures are not going their way and using words such as 'modernisation' - which now means cuts in public services and job losses for everyone.

Firefighters Must Stand Firm