The Socialist Issue 188

TONY BLAIR, in best baby-kissing electioneering mode, seems to have changed New Labour’s policy on teachers. For years Blair and Blunkett have insulted teachers, blaming them for all the ills of an under-funded education system.

Now Blair calls teachers "saints and heroes" but will New Labour create schools fit for heroes to teach in? Or will teachers still need the patience of a saint to work in the conditions which they face? (see articles page 3).

There are 16% fewer graduates applying for one-year training courses starting this autumn than applied last year. Teachers in Essex may go to a four-day week because of a lack of staff. A school in Ipswich couldn’t open for two days after Christmas because of lack of teachers. The recruitment crisis would be worse if staff didn’t take on even more work to make up for shortages.

Teachers need a big pay increase and some hope of future improvements in conditions. Teachers in the capital are now building for action to increase their London Allowance.

Many public-sector workers are being frozen out of the housing market. Rents for a two-bedroom family home in inner London start at around £250 a week. It would cost at least £150,000 to buy a similar property. A household would need an income of £40,000 or more to get a mortgage which covers this.

No wonder the city’s teachers and ambulance workers (see page 11) are up in arms at a wages policy and housing policy which is making London unaffordable for the working class!

If the market system (ie capitalism) has failed to meet people’s needs during a boom, the coming recession will make things worse.

Blair is hyping it up now about record public spending and the "healthy" state of the economy but just look at the jobs being lost in manufacturing industry even before a recession.

New Labour’s commitment to jobs and public services is all froth. They never deliver. But we will shortly have the chance to deliver an election message for Blair and Co. by voting for Socialist candidates.

We don’t want platitudes and paper promises - we’re campaigning for socialist policies to improve our lives.

Students worse off under Labour

STUDENTS TODAY are well-off. At least that is what Malcolm Wicks, New Labour MP for Croydon North, says.

According to Wicks, students must be well-off because they apparently spend so much time living it up in the student union bar, frittering away cash on drinks or else spending it on other luxury goods.

This is no doubt handy for Wicks, education minister responsible for lifelong learning in the New Labour government, who will be keen to justify extending tuition fees, in the form of top-up fees after the general election.

However, his crude stereotypes of student life will convince few people of the justification for paying for higher education. Nor has the prospect of the ‘good life’ at university convinced students.

The number of students dropping out of university has so alarmed some MPs that the Commons Education Committee is conducting an inquiry. Nearly 40% of students at some universities - about one in six overall - now drop out of university. Student debt has tripled in the past four years according to a government-funded survey.

In reality life for students today is harder than since higher education was expanded after the second world war. That’s why 25,000 students marched through central London last autumn.

Tens of thousands of students are forced to work in poorly paid, casual work, in order to survive. These students often work during anti-social hours, and are left with little time to study. Most students also leave university up to their necks in debt.

If, in a few years time, most students really are rich, this will only be because the policies of New Labour put a stop to working-class students going to university because of the cost.

Malcolm Wicks didn’t face these problems when he was a student. In fact he enjoyed the experience so much he did an MA at the LSE, one of the universities first in line for introducing top-up fees.

Maybe Wicks would like to pay back the several thousand pounds that he never paid for his university education. After all, university no doubt provided an important stepping stone in his political career.

Wicks’s comments will infuriate many students, many of whom will want to take action against New Labour and the abolition of free education. The Socialist Party and Save Free Education are building a campaign of mass non-payment and mass action to make the fees unworkable.

Join us if you want to stop the introduction of top-up fees, bring back the grant and defeat tuition fees

What We Think

Now the Party's Over

THE BELL is tolling for the decade-long US economic boom. With all the US economic indicators showing signs of slowdown, US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s surprise cut in US interest rates has started speculation that something in the US economy is about to go spectacularly wrong.

Initially, the interest rate cut had Wall Street and world financial markets jumping for joy and share prices leapt up accordingly. Then questions were raised about why the ultra-cautious Greenspan was lowering interest rates in between the regular monthly meetings of the Fed.

Rather than calming nerves about a recession, Greenspan’s decision could lead to panic. Numerous rumours are circulating that a potentially bigger collapse than that which threatened Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) in 1998 is imminent and that is why Greenspan has lowered interest rates.

One potential candidate is the Bank of America and a number of other financial institutions (including Barclays in Britain) that threaten to implode because of their liability over California’s ailing privatised electrical utilities.

But the bigger fear is that the US economy as a whole is about to tip into a deeper than anticipated recession, which could see it go into a long period of stagnation, like the Japanese economy suffered throughout the 1990s.

All the indicators are that the US economic bubble is bursting. Now the fear is that even if Greenspan’s interest rate cut could start a final short-term spurt to the speculative shares bubble which will build in a worse recession in the future.

The so-called ‘New Economy’ of high-tech shares, which were grossly overvalued, saw a massive decline last year. The Nasdaq index that monitors these shares dropped 55% in 2000.

But this is no longer a matter of curtailing ‘irrational exuberance’. The consumer boom based on debt was reliant on confidence that income from shares would continually rise.

The decline in value of these shares has sucked out an enormous amount of personal wealth, causing consumer confidence to dip and sales to drop.

This in turn has affected the ‘real’ economy - manufacturing and retail - as has been seen in the mass layoffs at General Motors, Sears and many other large US companies.

The expectation that the boom would go on indefinitely has also left many US states massively exposed. In all, 12 states have not got enough reserve funds set aside to deal with a rise in unemployment benefit claims. If unemployment rises even marginally, then these states will become insolvent and will have to be bailed out by the US federal government.

The old adage that when the US economy sneezes the rest of the world catches cold is likely to be borne out once again. However, contrary to some cabinet ministers and commentators’ belief, the British economy is not ‘recession proof’ and could be heading for the flu or even pneumonia.

Stephen King, an economist at HSBC bank not the horror writer, sketched out the potential economic nightmare that New Labour faces in last week’s Observer: only Mexico and Canada - allied with the US in the Nafta trading bloc - are left more vulnerable by a threatened US recession.

That’s why Blair and Brown are hurriedly trying to hype up the government’s economic achievements, anticipating a May general election, which they hope will be before any significant world downturn.

But even then New Labour will not escape the fall-out. William Keegan, the Observer’s economics guru, said that "Labour’s economic policies will probably look ‘sound’ and ‘responsible’ until the election is out of the way. Then the fun will start."

The feeling in the US especially is that the party’s over. Time magazine reluctantly conceded: "This time it’s different" and said that Karl Marx’s theory that capitalism is doomed to repeated recessions because of cycles of overproduction has once again been "vindicated".

Marx also pointed out that workers bear the brunt of every capitalist downturn. But workers, as has been seen in recent strikes and anti-capitalist movements, will also want to ensure ‘this time it’s different’ and that the capitalists are made to pay for the mess that they’ve created.

Hackney: stand up to these attacks

MAX CALLER, Hackney council's managing director, and Hackney's councillors are giving council workers and residents no New Year's cheer.

They already aim to force through cuts of £4 million this year. Now, they want to add a further £9 million to the £18 million that they already plan to cut in financial year 2001/2002. They want to follow this up with £10 million cuts for 2002/2003 and £11 million in the following year!

This will lead to a wholesale butchering of jobs and services in Hackney whatever "Mad Max" might say. The joint Tory and Labour leadership of the council admit that "this will be a painful process for some".

Yet Max Caller isn't even prepared to defend his ideas in public. In December, Hackney Socialist Party challenged him to a debate. But since his drubbing at the hands of a mass meeting of Hackney council workers in November, he seems strangely reluctant to defend himself.

Ina reply to a Socialist Party open letter Caller accuses us of using gestures and empty words. But who's using empty words? Caller's trying to convince workers that they should face job cuts and pay cuts whilst he enjoys a very comfortable lifestyle on £150,000 a year!

Caller sees just one way out of the current situation - privatisation through leeches like Serviceteam who now run the refuse and street cleaning services. He argues that it's pointless to argue for more funding from central government. He claims: "Asset sales are the only way for us to move forward now."

At Christmas, Hackney council tried to get public justification for their cuts in a very crude questionnaire that starts off "Hackney tenants- you could win £100".

However, the only options that they give had nothing to do with winning! They included cuts or rent increases or both ranging from £8-a-week rent rises to £6.1 million cuts in the housing budget. Hackney Socialist Party plans a suitable response to this latest council propaganda.

Max Caller and Hackney council's leaders were shaken by council workers' and residents' response to their attacks, particularly the magnificent strike on 20 December.

We must keep up the pressure through ensuring further strike action takes place this month. We must also develop the community campaign, build a mass united movement to defeat these attacks and win the extra resources that Hackney people so desperately need.

Hackney debate: How to take the dispute forward

We have received a letter from John Page, branch secretary of Hackney Unison, taking up points made by Bill Mullins concerning the role of the negotiating committee of Hackney UNISON in the current dispute. We reprint John's letter, and below it we carry Bill Mullin's reply.

Can I take this opportunity to thank all Socialist Party members who have worked with the trade unions in Hackney to build our fight against the council’s disgraceful cuts package. I am also grateful for the supportive coverage in your newspaper.

I must however correct a glaring inaccuracy in Bill Mullins’ strike report. Bill claims that "already the negotiators have accepted that they will negotiate on the implementation of lower terms and conditions".

As a member of that negotiating committee I am angered at the inaccuracy of Bill’s report. The negotiating committee meet weekly with management, and there are further meetings of sub groups. These include a working group on life-and-limb cover for strike days, (convened at our insistence) and a group attempting to force the council to lift redundancy notices that have been unlawfully served on our members.

Written reports of these meetings are distributed to our members who have overwhelmingly approved the approach taken by our negotiating team.

Our position is simple, we will meet with management at any time to discuss any proposals they have, however unpalatable. Bill seems to have confused meeting with management with accepting from management.

Management do not want to meet with us, but have been forced to. It would be wholly counter-productive for us to let management off the hook by refusing to meet and explore their proposals.

We will use any opportunity at our disposal, including the threat of legal action. It is precisely because our members believe that we have been prepared to use every possible avenue, that they have had the confidence to vote for and then take strike action.

There will be further strike action in Hackney, and we have already built an impressive alliance between council workers and residents.

Despite our role in negotiations, we have consistently told our members that this dispute will be won or lost through industrial action. Bill appears to have brought a pre-concieved formula to his interpretation of this dispute.

His misguided comments can only undermine confidence, by creating the suspicion that there is something that our members are not being told.

The Socialist welcomes John Page’s letter. Where we make mistakes we have no problem in correcting them.

John is wrong however when he says that "I have a preconceived formula regarding this dispute" or that I have assumed that the dispute "is going to lose and wants a ready-made political critique in advance". Nothing could be further from the truth.

John accepts our members have played a key role both as UNISON branch officers and as Hackney tenants in building this dispute. Indeed, our own members’ livelihoods are on the line. We have only one interest and that is ensuring the dispute’s success.

My concern regarding the negotiators’ position was based on a letter written to chief executive Max Caller by Jim Flood, Secretary of the negotiating team, that the unions were willing "to reaffirm our commitment to negotiation on the local implementation of single status."

The national and provisional agreements (including the single status agreement) are a minimum set of terms and conditions. Hackney workers enjoy conditions over and above these. If the council agreed to apply the national agreement this would mean widespread cuts in their pay and conditions.

Max Caller has made it clear that this is what he wants. I think it is incumbent in a letter from trade unions to the management, that inevitably becomes a public document, to make it clear that the unions are not prepared to go down this road.

Jim Flood’s letter, unfortunately, gives the impression that the union side is prepared to make concessions to the employers.

John says that there was no such intention and that they are relying on a "protection" clause in the agreement which protects local terms and conditions, which are better than the national agreement.

But the letter did not say this. John says this was for tactical reasons to attempt to at least bring management into negotiations. If that were the case then he might have a point, but it is clear that some on the trade union negotiating body are prepared to make concessions.

If that was not the case why is there opposition to the idea of democratic control over negotiations. Why did John himself not support the resolution to the UNISON branch committee proposed by Brian Debus, the chairman, calling for democratic accountability?

Fight for all Vauxhall jobs

JUST BEFORE Christmas it was announced that when production of the Vauxhall Vectra was finished, the replacement model would not be made at the Luton plant. This means that in effect mass production at the plant would cease.

This announcement was made over the local radio station and the workforce were the last to know. Nick Reilly, the boss of Vauxhall Motors UK (VM), tried to explain it to an angry workforce protesting at VM headquarters. Angry walkouts followed at Luton and Ellesmere Port, in support of the Luton workforce.

The announcement that production of the Frontera would be moved to Luton was of no comfort to the workers. This model only has two or three years to run and it is not produced in the same numbers as the Vectra.

What is in effect the announcement of the closure of the Luton plant is only the tip of the iceberg. General Motors, the parent company, is also closing plants in Poland and Hungary.

The insult to the workers is doubled by the fact that two years ago VM UK workers were persuaded to accept a poor pay deal under threat of the closure of the Luton plant. There were written guarantees that Luton would get the replacement to the Vectra.

The closure has been blamed on the high pound but a national newspaper even claimed that a bad review by Jeremy Clarkson was to blame!

As for the high pound, when the pound was low we were told that the company could not afford to give us a decent rise because they had to buy expensive parts from the continent. So exchange rates have always been the excuse.

General Motors, along with the other multinationals, have never had much sentiment when it comes to closing down car plants when it suits them. This was shown in the film by Michael Moore (Roger and Me) in which GM closed down several plants in Flint, Michigan, the birthplace of GM, making 35,000 workers unemployed.

The reason for the closures, despite improvements in productivity and quality, is overproduction. The car industry in its hunger for profits, has competed ruthlessly. By driving the workers even harder and flooding the market, it is now making the workers pay for their mistakes. All the US indicators suggest this is the starting point of a big recession and the car industry is always the first to feel it. Hence redundancies at Rover and the halting of car production at Ford Dagenham.

All redundancies must be resisted. The European Works Council of GM workers employees has called for a Europe-wide day of action in support of our fellow workers in Luton.

This must be given a definite date and strike action should be prepared among all GM employees in order to defend jobs and living standards against multinationals. Workers must organise Europe-wide and even worldwide.

Import controls no solution

THE LUTON factory is surrounded by smaller supplier factories who were told they had to locate nearby or they’d lose their contracts with Vauxhall. For every Vauxhall track worker, five others are dependent on them.

The local New Labour MP in Luton North, Kelvin Hopkins did call for "the government to take control of the multinationals". But nothing more has been heard of that idea. Showing the growing demand for import controls from some, Hopkins also points out that "there is no overproduction in the UK, more cars are imported than exported."

But on the basis of a capitalist economy import controls would inevitably lead to a trade war. Workers in exporting industries would be in danger of losing their jobs to protect the jobs of those who produce for the domestic market.

The Socialist demands:

No job losses, no asset-stripping.
Open the books: where have all the profits and subsidies gone?
That the unions confirm and organise a demonstration and day of action before the end of January.
Extend the campaign with a Europe-wide GM strike to defend jobs.
Nationalise the car industry under democratic workers' control and management.

He who pays the piper...

NEW LABOUR has reluctantly admitted receiving three individual donations of £2 million each. The three donors - supermarket magnate and government minister Lord Sainsbury, wealthy publisher Lord Hamlyn and ex-Tory backer Christopher Ondaatje - are further proof of Labour's subservience to big business: and high time the trade unions break their financial links with Labour.

The Socialist presents a series of articles on the funding of the establishment political parties

THE THREE £2 million donations to New Labour has put the funding of political parties back in the spotlight.

But these donations are the tip of a sleazy iceberg that shows how New Labour is in hock to big business.

It's not only that Labour gets huge donations from wealthy individuals in return for honours. Big business gets its reward in the form of contracts, lax government regulation and, most importantly, a government that carries out a pro-big business agenda, ideologically insistent on privatisation, cuts and anti-working class measures.

Lord Hamlyn is one of eleven people who have been honoured by new Labour after donating more than £5,000 to the party between 1996 and 1999 (The £5,000 figure is all the party has to list in its record of these donations, the actual figure could be as much as Hamlyn's £2 million).

These included another £2 million donor and a government minister Lord Sainsbury; Granada group chairman Alex Bernstein; and Northern Foods Chairman, Christopher Haskins, who was made a Lord in 1998 after regularly donating large sums to the party from 1996. He is now chairman of the Cabinet Office's Better Regulation Task Force.

But it's not just a matter of wealthy individuals donating to gain the baubles of office. As the examples above show these individuals want positions of power with a direct link to their areas of interest. Private companies also operate in the same way by donating to Labour.

A former member of New Labour's national executive committee (NEC), Liz Davies, spoke at the Socialist Party's annual education event Socialism 2000 last year on precisely this subject. She had been pursuing government ministers and Labour officials at NEC meetings for them to have ethical guidelines about who the party should accept donations from - particularly big business. After a lot of pressure a review was held over two years which has so far produced no recommendations! Liz revealed the following:

*Big business now contributes a third of the party's funds - more than the trade unions for the first time in the party's history. Over £2 million was raised from big business buying stalls and seats at gala dinners at last year's Labour Party conference.

*All the major supermarkets - Sainsbury, Somerfield, Safeway and Tesco - have contributed. Is it mere coincidence that New Labour allows these giant companies to be the arbiters on pricing and health matters relating to food standards after it has severely watered down its proposals for a Food Standards Agency?

*All the major utilities - BT, the water companies, British gas and Scottish Power among others - have all donated. These companies are all subject to government regulation and also have to bid for government contracts.

*Many of the rail companies donate such as Connex and Railtrack - again their relationship with the government is similar to the utilities.

*Mobile phone companies that are awarded licences by the government also donate as does Novartis a producer/purveyor of GM foods and McDonald's which has been slammed for its employment practises by the High Court.

*Enron Europe, a major player in the British water industry, whose US parent company has been convicted of labour law infringement and charged with human rights abuses by Amnesty international, also donates.

*Raytheon is the third largest arms dealer in the world. It sells arms to oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Indonesia as well as to the US Pentagon. Since donating to New Labour it has been awarded a large contract by the Ministry of Defence.

*When New Labour came to power in 1997 it announced an ethical arms policy. A likely casualty from this policy was British Aerospace (BAe), which had a contract to deliver 14 Hawk Jets to Suharto's repressive Indonesian regime.

New Labour foreign secretary Robin Cook could have stopped the delivery of those jets in June 1997 but didn't. In 1998 BAe gave money to New Labour and the jets were delivered and seen in action over the East Timor capital, Dili, by observers in 1999 during the conflict and bloodshed there, when the East Timor people were engaged in a referendum over separation from Indonesia.

Arms sales to Indonesia were temporarily stopped - for four months - after the massacres in East Timor but were quietly resumed in early 2000.

State Funding - Where do socialists stand?

IN THE recent USA Presidential and Congressional elections the Republicans and Democrats spent nearly $4 billion, with most donations coming from big corporations or wealthy individuals.

It's clear that money talks: 92% of the Representatives and 88% of the Senators elected in the US were the candidates who spent the most money. Radical Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who secured nearly 3% of the national vote, could only match a fraction of the spending by the two big parties.

Likewise, the Socialist Party, which will be contesting a small number of seats in England and Wales at the next general election, will struggle to raise enough election funds from its members and supporters - many of whom are on low incomes.

Not so with New Labour and the Tories whose rich backers will expect favours in return for their donations, as the Bernie Ecclestone and Michael Ashcroft affairs revealed. (F1 motor racing boss Ecclestone donated £1 million to Labour's coffers who 'coincidentally' exempted the sport from a ban on tobacco advertising. Tory party Treasurer Michael Ashcroft bankrolled the party as a tax exile living in Belize - he then was awarded a life peerage).

To stop this 'sleaze-democracy' and to be fairer to smaller political parties, some people say: 'why not have state funding?'

Corruption and capitalism go hand-in-hand. State funding won't stop the bosses' continuing to 'buy' politicians as the recent political scandals involving former Christian Democrat leader Helmut Kohl in Germany and President Jacques Chirac in France show: where both countries have state funding.

Socialists have previously opposed state funding. State funding could be used to compromise the independent political position of workers' and socialist parties.

Pressure would be brought to bear on such parties to conform to the capitalist status quo, rather than campaign against it, because of their dependence on the state for cash.

Also the acceptance of large sums from the state could give the impression that workers' representatives are no different from other capitalist politicians and are riding the state funding gravy train.

However, elements of state funding already exist. For instance all candidates' general election manifestos are delivered free by the Royal Mail.

If state funding was more widely introduced it's likely, depending on circumstances, that socialists would utilise the funds provided that they did not become dependent on these funds to keep the party viable.

In many European countries there are systems of state funding based on parties' popular mandate, ie a proportion of the votes received or election of candidates.

Of course the devil is in the detail. Clearly, we oppose state funding for fascist parties.

For smaller parties to qualify for funding, say, by the election of candidates, there would also have to be a system of proportional representation in elections.

But whether or not state funding is introduced, the resources of our party will grow along with support for socialist ideas amongst the working class.

"Rise with your class, not out of it"

WE PUT forward the demand 'For a Workers' MP on a Worker's Wage' because we want our representatives to be democratically accountable to the working-class and the movement that got them elected.

Workers' representatives whether an MP or trade union official should only take the average wage of the people they represent. They should also be subject to immediate if those they represent are dissatisfied.

Coventry Socialist Party councillor and former MP Dave Nellist spells out what our demand means in practice:

"The one thing, above all, which marked off the three socialist MPs in the 1980s - Terry Fields, Pat Wall and myself - and for which we're still remembered today, was that by living on the same wage as the people we represented it was clear we were in Parliament for what we could do for people, not for what we could get out of it for ourselves.

"My own wage was set at the same level as the average toolroom worker's rate across 10 factories in Coventry. That was about 40% of an MP's wage (or in other words, MPs were on about two-and-a-half times a skilled worker's rate). Because of that, unlike almost all other MPs, we were not insulated from the day-to-day financial pressures faced by other working-class families.

"Over my nine years in parliament we were able to donate over £50,000 of my take-home wages to campaigns and working-class appeals.

"Being able to represent working people and their families as an MP or full-time union official should be a privilege, not a career move. Good representatives will share in the improvements they help to achieve for their constituents - and should equally share in the hardships. Or as the famous Scottish Marxist, John Maclean, once said: "Rise with your class, not out of it".

The Tories: Paragons of sleaze

THE TORIES, the traditional big-business party, received massive corporate donations in the past but the supply dried up during the 1990s.

John Major's spectacular defeat in 1997 brought company donations to the Conservative Party crashing down. In the equivalent year of the last parliament, the Tories raised £2.5 million from companies.

In 1998-99 they got £605,000 from 38 firms. Last year 31 companies gave a total of only £359,059. Labour Research magazine said it was the lowest level of corporate donations to the Tories since records began.

Now road builders Tarmac, which gave Hague's party £40,000 in 1998-99, gave nothing in the last financial year. Why should they? The latest figures show that Labour is completing more road schemes than the Tories ever did.

The Tories say they are now more and more dependent on wealthy individuals - like Lord Ashcroft, the billionaire party treasurer who gave his party £1 million last year plus £390,000 worth of gifts in kind including staff and the use of aircraft.

Ashcroft made money running "flag of convenience" ships which sacrificed safety for quick profits. This former tax exile never used to pay tax anywhere until he was forced to do so to become a peer. This paragon of virtue has given the Tories over £3 million and collected far more. The Tories are still sleazy.

Fund the fight for socialism

CAPPING GENERAL election spending by political parties to £20 million might make Labour and the Tories jittery but its no impediment for the Socialist Party!

Our concern is having enough funds to stand candidates and at the same time continue our campaigning work - fighting privatisation, job losses and cuts in services - and building our socialist international organisation, the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI).

Every reader of The Socialist can help by donating to our £40,000 special campaign fund.

Many members have pledged a week's income or more - a fantastic commitment to socialism. But we equally value every donation whether it's £5 or £500.

As we explain in this centre page feature the Socialist Party isn't funded by millionaire businessmen - nor would we want it! We depend entirely for resources on our working class supporters.

Free the funds

IN 1999 the trade unions donated nearly £6 million of their members dues to New Labour.

And in return? Most of the anti-trade union laws remain on the statute books. Privatisation of health, education and other public services is being speeded up. The government has done nothing to stop the haemorrhaging of jobs in manufacturing industry.

New Labour no longer represents the interests of working-class people. Instead it has become yet another party of big business.

Trade unionists are questioning the relationship with New Labour and raising the issue of alternative political representation for workers.

At the CWU conference, delegates voted to 'withdraw moral and financial support' from New Labour, if they proceeded to privatise the Post Office. Debates have opened up in the RMT, FBU and other unions about loosening the link with New Labour.

Workers in struggle, like the Tameside carers, have stood candidates in opposition to New Labour councillors involved in attacking their jobs and conditions. London Underground workers also stood their own anti-privatisation candidates in the London assembly elections and supported Ken Livingstone for Mayor in open defiance of the New Labour leadership.

Free the Funds is a Socialist Party initiated, cross-union campaign to free the unions' political funds so that they can be used to back candidates and parties whose policies defend members interests and campaign for a new, mass party which would represent the real interests of working class people.

To sponsor the campaign, speakers, model resolutions, etc write to Jean Thorpe, secretary, Free the Funds, PO Box 24697, London E11 1YD. Tel 020 8988 8769. Email: free_the_funds@hotmail.com

Political Parties Act - full of holes

THE POLITICAL Parties, Elections and Referendums Act will come into force on 16 February. This requires the names of donors and the size of their donations to be disclosed to an 'electoral commission'.

The Act follows the 'Neill' report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The report criticised the 'arms race' between political parties which resulted in Labour and the Tories spending £54 million between them at the last general election.

The Act requires all donations over £200 to be recorded by political parties and for quarterly reports to be prepared for the Electoral Commission listing donations of over £5,000 or which have come to over £5,000 in a calendar year.

Spending per constituency for one year before a general election is capped at £30,000, around £20 million per party. (Possibly £15 million for this election because it will apply to less than a full year.)

But experience in the USA has shown that limits on electoral spending can easily be side-stepped by the big parties. Although some donations directly to political parties are regulated and have to be declared, the raising and spending of unregulated, so-called 'soft money' has escalated. In the last Presidential election, the Republicans and the Democrats raised over $400 million between them in this way - mostly spent on advertisements on single issues in key 'swing' states.

Thousands rally in support of Czech TV workers

ON THE night of 3 January 100,000 people packed into Wenceslas Square, Prague, the Czech capital, in support of a strike and occupation by national TV journalists against right-wing political interference. ALEXANDRA GEISLER of Socialisticka Alternativa - Budoucnost - (Czech section of the Committe for a Workers International, the socialist international organisation which includes the Socialist Party) reports on events.

THE CZECH Republic is run by a minority government of Social Democrats (CSSD) supported by the conservative Civic Democratic Party (ODS, its leader is Vaclav Klaus the architect of neo-liberal reforms). A right-wing split off from ODS, the Freedom Union (US), is building a coalition with the Christian Democrats (KDU-CSL).

The country's key media bodies, including the television council that appointed Hodac, are almost entirely dominated by party nominees. The television council is approved by parliament and is composed of representatives of political parties. The nine-member television council, counts four members of the CSSD and three from the ODS. One member, who belongs to the centre-right Freedom Union, resigned last year to protest the dismissal of the previous Czech television (CT) general director.

On 20 December 2000 the television council voted back the old TV director and named Jiri Hodac as director general; three days later, he installed Jana Bobosikova as news director. The appointments of Hodac and Bobosikova increased political tensions.

Hodac had once applied to be the spokesman for conservative former Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus, while Bobosikova, was the economic adviser of Klaus for six months in 1999. "We believe the [appointments were] motivated by an attempt to politically influence Czech television news," said Filip Cerny, a spokesman for the journalists.

In a statement, the TV employees noted that the Television Council was required by law to act apolitically in picking a director. Unless Hodac was removed or resigned, it continued, "CT will become an instrument of the persons currently in power."

The crisis, the statement added, was "about political arrogance which pins its hopes on lack of interest and weariness on the part of our population." An earlier communiquŽ by the dissenters also warned ominously of 'political cleansing'.

Czech television journalists and crew members of Czech television staff began a sit-in to protest against the appointments of Hodac and Bobosikova. This led to a split of the CT, with Hodac's mainstream group running one staff and his opponents, who occupied the newsroom and prepared independent news, both from inside the Czech television complex.

For four days beginning on 24 December, management and opponents traded broadcasts - until Hodac closed all non-satellite transmission and shut down all broadcasting for one day on 28 December. After the shutdown, the rebels turned to cable and satellite links. Hodac's repeated calls for police intervention went nowhere, as authorities preferred a more cautious approach.

THE JOURNALISTS formally went on strike 1 January, demanding that Hodac stop barring their broadcasts but in reality it has been an occupation strike since the 23 December. Every day at 7pm there were demonstrations in front of the Czech television complex to support the striking journalists, with at least 1,500 participants.

On 3 January, a 100,000-strong demonstration took place in Prague, with lots of youth, actors, sportspeople and other celebrities supporting the strikers, who are seen as combating not only their bosses but a whole political culture that opinion polls suggest the public sees as wasteful, corrupt, and inept.

They spoke against politicians, especially against ODS, but also against CSSD. Crowds demanding Hodac's resignation formed in Prague, Brno and Ostrava.

On Thursday 4 January, Hodac, under pressure to resign, went to hospital, exhausted! The CSSD government has prepared a new TV law, which could be voted on in parliament between 5-12 January.

ON THE 3 January, demonstration Socialisticka Alternativa Budoucnost distributed 1,000 leaflets (we didn't have more), and leaflets against school fees advertising our next public meeting.

We called for a one-day general strike, a new TV council based on one-third from TV trade unions (they led this strike), one-third from professional organisations (actors, film producers etc.) and one-third from the state. We also included slogans against unemployment, closure of factories, postponing of wages, for democratic trade unions and for a new workers party.

One of our members took the general strike demand to his trade union branch and got support for this. This is now on the the web site of the official TV-support campaign.

The television incident also brought to the forefront growing popular disdain for the Czech party system, criticised in many polls as top-heavy, corrupt and exclusive.

"The reason this happened and the reason it has political consequences, and the reason people will be on the streets, is simply the performance of Czech politicians," said Irena Valova, who heads the Syndicate of Journalists.

The Socialist 12 January 2001	Exposed: Labour's Election Hype
Exposed: Labour's Election Hype	TONY BLAIR, in best baby-kissing electioneering mode, seems to have changed New Labour’s policy on teachers. For years Blair and Blunkett have insulted teachers, blaming them for all the ills of an under-funded education system.
Students worse off under Labour	STUDENTS TODAY are well-off. At least that is what Malcolm Wicks, New Labour MP for Croydon North, says. Kieran Roberts, Save Free Education and Socialist Students According to Wicks, students must be well-off because they apparently spend so much time living it up in the student union bar, frittering away cash on drinks or else spending it on other luxury goods.
World Economy: Now the Party's Over	What We Think: THE BELL is tolling for the decade-long US economic boom. With all the US economic indicators showing signs of slowdown, US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s surprise cut in US interest rates has started speculation that something in the US economy is about to go spectacularly wrong.
Hackney: stand up to these attacks	MAX CALLER, Hackney council's managing director, and Hackney's councillors are giving council workers and residents no New Year's cheer. By Chris Newby Hackney debate: How to take the dispute forward Bill Mullins replies
Fight for all Vauxhall jobs	JUST BEFORE Christmas it was announced that when production of the Vauxhall Vectra was finished, the replacement model would not be made at the Luton plant. This means that in effect mass production at the plant would cease. David Wevill, Vauxhall Ellesmere Port plant, personal capacity Import controls no solution The Socialist Demands
He who pays the piper...	The Funding of the Establishment Political Parties: NEW LABOUR has reluctantly admitted receiving three individual donations of £2 million each. The three donors - supermarket magnate and government minister Lord Sainsbury, wealthy publisher Lord Hamlyn and ex-Tory backer Christopher Ondaatje - are further proof of Labour's subservience to big business: and high time the trade unions break their finacial links with Labour. State Funding - Where do socialists stand? Workers' MP on a Workers Wage: "Rise with your class, not out of it" Coventry Socialist Party councillor and former MP Dave Nellist spells out what our demand means in practice The Tories: Paragons of sleaze Fund the fight for socialism Trade Union donations: Free the funds Political Parties Act - full of holes
Thousands rally in support of Czech TV workers	ON THE night of 3 January 100,000 people packed into Wenceslas Square, Prague, the Czech capital, in support of a strike and occupation by national TV journalists against right-wing political interference. ALEXANDRA GEISLER of Socialisticka Alternativa - Budoucnost - (Czech section of the Committe for a Workers International, the socialist international organisation which includes the Socialist Party) reports on events.
	This is just a small selection of articles from The Socialist - why not subscribe?

Exposed: Labour's Election Hype