Top of page     Home page

 BLAIR’S RICH FRIENDS AVOID TAX:

Labour Pampers Its Fat Cats

IN OPPOSITION, New Labour pledged that they would end the massive tax avoidance and corruption by the rich which was rife under the Tories.

John Reid

Now they’re in power Labour are no different; leading members of their party are bending every tax law to protect their millions stashed away in British and offshore accounts.

Former government minister, millionaire Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson, has had two of his luxury apartments in Cannes seized by the French authorities over a claim of £3.6 million unpaid taxes.

Cherie Blair and Gordon Brown have used these luxury apartments as holiday homes. Robinson also found some loose change to buy Peter Mandelson a £373,000 house in Notting Hill.

Multi-millionaire Lord Levy, one of the Labour Party’s main fund-raisers, paid only  £5,000 tax in 1998/99. This is about the same amount as somebody earning  £21,000 a year would be expected to pay.

Levy pulled this off by roughing it for a year, doing ‘unpaid’ voluntary work. Not too rough mind you, he still maintained his London mansions, Bentleys and other trappings of a millionaire lifestyle.

How did he do this? He received £160,000, as repayment of a loan which he made to a company he owns, thus avoiding tax payment. This is within the law in Britain, but if a person on benefit or low pay tried to supplement their poverty payments by a bit of work on the side they would be prosecuted by this government.

Labour protects the rights of the rich to avoid billions of pounds tax payment a year, while it attacks and cuts the living standards of the low-paid, pensioners and those receiving benefits and disability benefits.

New Labour in government represents the interests of big business and the rich. The Socialist Party says MPs and government ministers should be accountable to working-class people and live on an average workers’ wage. Labour look after the rich and ape their lifestyles too.

If the antics of Robinson and Levy sicken you; if you think they’re as rotten to the core as the previous Tory administration, join the Socialist Party and fight for a real alternative.

Top of page     Home page

Pride Not Profit

THAT'S THE message thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people will be giving on 1 July when the Pride march hits London streets with its traditional combination of defiance, diversity and display.

The gay rights movement has made significant advances recently. A gay couple have been recognised by the courts for housing purposes, gay people are finally serving openly in the armed forces, Section 28 has been repealed in Scotland and an equal age of consent is inching closer. But nothing has come easily.

The fascist David Copeland killed and maimed dozens of black, Asian and gay people and their friends. Then Brian Souter frittered away millions trying to save Section 28 in a vicious smear campaign. With supporters of discrimination redoubling their efforts, it is vital Pride maintains its political edge.

The first Pride march was organised in New York in 1970 to celebrate the anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Riots. The British Gay Liberation Front launched a March here in 1972.

Numbers rose steadily, but it was the Tory government's introduction of Section 28 which pushed the numbers up to 60,000 in 1988. After that participation reached six figures. But the downside was that commercial interests moved to cash in.

Last year the old free festival was relaunched as the ticket-only ‘Mardi Gras’. Then last autumn the multi-millionaires behind Mardi Gras took control of the March too. Instead of remaining a fully inclusive event, the words ‘bisexual’ and ‘transgender’ were dropped from the title.  

The march has become a ‘March-and-Parade’, overshadowed by the glitzy and dumbed-down Mardi Gras Festival, hyped as ‘the biggest party in London’.

The Socialist Party Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Group (SPLGB) believes the future of Pride is now at stake.

The SPLGB Group demands:

§         Launch a campaign to take the Pride march back into non-profit democratic community control as the first step towards the de-commercialisation of Pride;

§         A campaign by the gay rights and trade union movement to demand the immediate repeal of Section 28.  Scrap all discriminatory ‘guidelines’;

§         Put pressure on the government to stand up to the anti-gay peers and pass an equal age of consent into law. Remove the homophobic ‘abuse of trust’ clauses;

§         For a comprehensive anti-discrimination act, with legally-enforceable rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people at work, in the provision of goods and services, housing and working of government and public authorities.   

 Top of page     Home page

Not so ‘gay friendly’ New Labour

THIS IS an important week for gay rights activists. On 1 July tens of thousands will gather for Pride. Three days earlier, representatives from 34 trade unions assemble for the Lesbian and Gay Conference of the TUC (LGTUC).

Lionel Wright, Socialist Party Lesbian Gay & Bisexual Group & MSF Delegate to LGTUC (personal capacity)

In May 1997, along with millions of workers expecting a reversal of the Tories' attacks, many hoped a ‘gay-friendly' Labour government would implement gay rights legislation.

Three years on, there has only been one substantial change. The ban on lesbians and gay men serving in the military ended in January. But Labour only lifted it after opposing European legal proceedings by people sacked from the armed services.

It was a similar story with employment rights. Labour opposed railworker Lisa Grant’s European action, and then blocked a Bill which would have given lesbians and gays more rights at work.

Since then the government has proposed a voluntary ‘code of practice’. But this will depend on the goodwill of employers.

The TUC’s 'Straight Up' campaign for anti-discrimination legislation is an important initiative. But the campaign should be widened and as a first step, unions still affiliated to Labour must demand that sponsored MPs support statutory protection.

The TUC general council failed to act upon last year's conference resolution calling for a national demonstration against racism, fascism and homophobia in the wake of the Soho and Brixton bombs. But in the same year that trade union membership rose for the first time in a generation, racist attacks multiplied. The trade union movement ignores the threats of racism, and all divisions between workers at its peril.

Against this background, both an equal age of consent and the repeal of Section 28 have been undermined by right-wing counter-offensives. But, as a motion to the LGTUC puts it, Labour's "half-hearted" approach has helped produce this backlash.

On Section 28, we face the prospect that when it goes in England and Wales as well as Scotland, repeal will only lead to new difficulties for gay people.

After 12 years campaigning for gay youth to enjoy equality in sex and relationships education, Labour’s post-Section 28 policies in Scotland and in England and Wales makes statutory requirements for teachers and others to emphasise marriage as the most 'desirable' form of personal relationship.

The gay rights lobby group Stonewall has deteriorated into a mouthpiece for the New Labour government instead of a fighting organisation. On every key issue, like the abuse of trust 'safeguards' to the age of consent, the watering-down of the repeal of Section 28 and the voluntary code ceiling on employment rights, Stonewall has traded away our just demands.

Long before the Blair government and its Scottish counterpart surrendered to the family values brigade on Section 28, Labour had spoken of "ensuring that we do not undermine the family".

This is the 'joined-up thinking' of Blair's political programme of shifting responsibility for social provision away from the state to individuals. Pensioners, single parents and students have all been targeted for cuts to protect the market system.

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people should join a union and its gay section - and help set one up if necessary. Gay activists should link their campaigns with the working class to mobilise a force for change which no anti-gay tycoon or evangelical caucus can block.

 Top of page     Home page

Uniting against fascist threats

THE NAIL bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho a year last April killed three people: two gay men – Nick Moore and John Light; and a married, mother-to-be, Andrea Dykes. One man had to have both legs amputated, five others each lost a leg, 30 are still undergoing repeat operations.

Manny Thain

That bomb did more than just shatter glass and limbs. It ripped through the heart of Britain’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. Despite the daily experience of discrimination many were unprepared for the realisation that some people want us dead simply because of what we are.

The Soho atrocity followed the bombs at Brixton and Brick Lane – predominantly black and Asian areas of London. The link was immediate. As was the defiant response.

Demonstrations showed that none of us – black, Asian, gay – were prepared to sit back in the face of such attacks. The black and the pink have always been targets of right-wing reactionaries, from Hitler’s Nazis to the neo-fascists of today, through to mainstream society.

David Copeland is currently on trial charged with planting the bombs. No one doubts his links with far-right groups such as the British National Party, even though they maintain that he acted alone.

And though these far-right groups are tiny, incidents like the nail bombings, whether directly organised – or indirectly ‘inspired’ – by them, show they pose a threat. Only massive, united action by working-class people can drive them back. The spontaneous upsurge of activity achieved that last year.

Recently, the far-right has been on the move again. Mardi Gras in Leicester was called off after threats were made by another neo-fascist group, the National Front (NF). Because of the role played by the Socialist Party, its leading organisers have received threats from the NF – adding the red to the black and the pink.

It is important to keep a sense of proportion. There has been an increase in homophobic attacks and bullying, which has included far-right involvement. The neo-fascists have been bolstered by the anti-asylum seeker propaganda peddled by the Tories and New Labour and the promotion of ‘traditional family values’ (which denigrates other familial relationships – single-parent families, same-sex couples, etc).

But in society in general there is an ever-increasing tolerance of gay relationships and recognition of rights. Some commentators, like James Collard, exaggerate the progress made: "In the UK, while bad things happen, equality seems to be just behind a creaky old door – a few sharp kicks and we’re through." (Independent on Sunday, 7 November 1999).

This is a perception only of a wealthy few looking down from pink pound penthouse suites. The vast majority of working-class and middle-class lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people have to deal with daily discrimination in the workplace, school and housing estate.

The fact that there have been few large-scale movements by working-class people has also raised the confidence of the neo-fascists.

Capitalism provides a fertile breeding ground on which neo-fascist ideas breed: poverty, bad housing, inadequate social facilities and the rest. The only way to clear out the racist, fascist scum is by eradicating the conditions on which it breeds. That means uniting to replace the whole rotten capitalist system with a new society – a democratic socialist society – based on human solidarity, understanding and tolerance.

 Top of page     Home page

Mugabe’s iron grip weakened

THE FINAL results of the Zimbabwe election were coming in as The Socialist went to press. It looked most likely that Mugabe’s ZANU-PF would cling to power on the basis of ‘radical’ rhetoric and widespread use of intimidation and terror tactics.

Keith Pattenden

Despite this, the huge turnout and the massive vote for the MDC opposition shows that that Mugabe’s terror tactics haven’t fully paid off.

This close-run electoral  ‘victory’ for Mugabe is a culmination of mass opposition that has grown in recent years, most significantly among the organised working class, led by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU). Mass resistance to wage cuts, privatisation and economic decline has seen big strike movements both official and unofficial.

The decision of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) to mount an electoral challenge to ZANU-PF had mass support despite Mugabe’s increasingly desperate tactics.

If anything Mugabe’s tactics increased the mass determination to be rid of this hated regime. Western imperialism is desperately trying to stabilise the situation but also protested that the elections were unfair.

Further instability and violence is likely to follow the election results. The need for a mass working-class party offering fundamental socialist change in Zimbabwe and throughout Africa is urgently posed.

Top of page     Home page

Zimbabwe’s political crisis

DESPITE MASSIVE intimidation orchestrated by the ruling ZANU-PF, many people refused to be cowed and turned out en masse, particularly in the urban areas, to try and turf Mugabe’s government out of office.

ZANU-PF, in power since independence, failed to satisfy the aspirations awakened by its “Marxist” rhetoric during the liberation struggle, are seen as little better than any other post-independence government: making the country safe for capitalism and attracting inward investment from multinational corporations. The working class, poor peasantry and landless have suffered years of desperate poverty and many are materially worse off than under white rule.

Mugabe has used Bonapartist methods to combine repression and returning to his old ‘radical’ demagogy to try to smash the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). The occupations of white-owned farms, brutal attacks on opposition activists and condemnations of Britain as the former colonial power were all aimed at undercutting the MDC.

Initially formed by ZCTU as part of its campaign against anti-working class measures, MDC rapidly moved to the right when it won support from sections of the business elite and farm-owners. To placate Western political and business opinion, it promised to continue with a neo-liberal agenda even before it was elected.

This is what happened in Zambia after Chiluba, also a trade union leader, was elected president in 1991.

This then allowed Mugabe to adopt a radical pose and play on popular fears about the MDC being a stooge of imperialism.

The Socialist Party has consistently opposed Mugabe maintenance of capitalism and landlordism in Zimbabwe. But equally we reject the hypocritical attitude of Cook, Hain and Blair who condemn Mugabe’s despotism and use of violence as though they have only just realised the character of his regime.

Mugabe has always ruthlessly suppressed his opponents, including the mass-murder of thousands of ZAPU supporters in Matebeleland in 1983, and has used prime farming land to reward his political cronies and army officers. Yet not a word of criticism was heard from Western capitalist politicians.

As long as he defended international big business interests, Mugabe was given a free hand. The West’s sudden change is because of Mugabe’s incitement of land occupations and threats to redistribute white farming land without compensation.

This could have repercussions beyond Zimbabwe’s borders, possibly igniting a process beyond imperialism’s control and destabilising the whole region. This concern, recently exacerbated by Mugabe’s comments, since retracted, about seizing British-owned assets, explains the switch of Western imperialism’s support to the MDC.

Mugabe said in advance he would not recognise an MDC victory and would govern through presidential decree. If he continues to try and ignore the MDC it will provoke widespread unrest on the streets and in the workplaces.

Mugabe’s answer could then be to fall back on the army and police, or rekindle the ethnic conflict between Shona and Ndebele, so desperate is he to maintain power.

However, in the short term there could be imperialist intervention to finance land reform, or broker an interim power-sharing deal. Since there are few fundamental differences between Mugabe and MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai, this could suit all the main players. The MDC has already said it would not ask Mugabe to quit office before 2002.

Whatever the final outcome, the underlying problems facing the masses will remain unresolved and they will be left politically unarmed.

Any new administration will inherit a crisis-ridden economy, worsened by the political crisis. Attempts to resolve this on a capitalist basis can only be at the workers’ and peasants’ expense.

Real change will only come when there is a powerful socialist opposition committed to fundamental change. Only the working class can provide this.

The trade unions must break from the influence of pro-capitalist elements within MDC and build a genuine working-class party. Armed with a socialist programme of democratic nationalisation of land and all the assets of the capitalist class, combined with appeals for solidarity action from the working classes throughout Africa and worldwide, this could end the super-exploitation of the African people for good.

Top of page     Home page

"Cheaper to hire, cheaper to fire"

Angry Ford workers demand action

TO CHANTS of “no closure” and “the workers united will never be defeated”, hundreds of Ford workers marched through fashionable Bayswater, west London to lobby Ford UK’s headquarters.

Manny Thain and Dave Carr

12 coaches of workers from Dagenham were joined by two coachloads from the Jaguar plant on Merseyside. There were workers from Ford’s radiator plant in Basildon and from Johnson Controls, a component company from Dagenham.

The message was straightforward; Ford should stick to its 1997 agreement with the unions and keep Dagenham assembly plant open.

Faced with manufacturing overcapacity in Europe, Ford wants to end current Fiesta production at Dagenham in 2002, axing 4,500 assembly jobs. The new Fiesta will be produced in Cologne, Germany.

A Ford worker’s banner proclaimed: “Dagenham worker: cheaper to hire, cheaper to fire”. Productivity levels at Dagenham match Ford Cologne’s and labour costs are £6 an hour less, but UK employment laws make it far easier to shed workers here.

Speaking to union members before he met Ford UK bosses, chief TGWU union car negotiator, Tony Woodley, criticised Ford for reneging on its commitments.

“In 1997 there was an agreement that Dagenham would be assured a new model and a future but it’s quicker to sack British workers and we’re not having that”, he said.

Woodley promised a fightback: “We’ll resurrect the campaign to stop the body and assembly plant closing. If it closes the rest of the plant will go too and the future of other component companies will also be short term.”

 He finished by saying: “After today there will be a lull” [during which time 1,500 out of 4,500 jobs will go through voluntary redundancies!]. “If we can’t reach agreement we’ll ballot for industrial action”.

The Socialist Party’s Ford Workers’ Bulletin was well received. Workers demanded that the unions stand by what they said. “If there’s no agreement today, there should be a ballot for industrial action”.

The Socialist Party agrees; waiting for a strike ballot sometime later this year will undermine union members’ morale and their confidence that the plant can be saved.

Our demand that Dagenham workers link up with Ford workers in Europe also facing job cuts got a good reception.

Asked whether the Labour government should act to prevent closure several workers sneered contemptuously. As a worker’s banner said: “Tony Blair, do you care?

Peugeot workers ballot for strike -see page 11 of The Socialist

* For an all-out strike of all Ford plants to defend every job.

* Open Ford’s books - show us where the profit has gone.

* Nationalise the car industry under democratic workers’ control and management.

 Top of page     Home page

Signal workers vote for strike

MEMBERS OF the Rail Marine and Transport (RMT) union have voted for strike action against Railtrack over signal workers’ pay. The bosses claim they’ve offered 9% but only 3% of this is new money. 2% is linked to productivity and 4% is incorporation of roster payments.

The railworkers are very angry against the greedy private companies and the Labour government.

This is the third time RMT members have been balloted but the union leaders are still not naming a date for strike action. If the RMT leaders don’t begin to reflect railworkers’ anger then they could be pushed to one side by a movement of industrial action from below.

RMT conference: delegates defy leaders

NO SOONER had the rail union RMT conference started than it came to a grinding halt. For a day and a half, delegates wouldn’t let the union leaders start the conference until the issue of elections for the national executive seat for the north west had been sorted out.

Craig Johnston, Carlisle city delegate and Bill Mullins

General secretary Jimmy Knapp had ruled that the postal ballot election, which was tied after second preference votes were counted, would be given to the candidate with most first preference votes. The Knapp candidate was declared the winner.

The delegates were so outraged that the whole standing orders committee resigned and the conference couldn't start. Eventually conference, against Jimmy Knapp’s wishes, voted to re-run the election, after which Knapp stormed off the stage.

In this acrimonious atmosphere, conference debated a resolution calling for a special conference to consider the union’s links to the Labour Party. The movers wanted to allow the union to set up an independent political fund so the union could sponsor candidates more in line with union policies.

Knapp threatened to report back those who voted for it to their RMT branch and their local Labour parties! He demanded a recorded vote and the resolution was lost by 28 votes to 20.

Meanwhile RMT seafaring members are preparing to take industrial action for shorter hours. In response, the Ministry of Defence organisation, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) had threatened to maroon union members in overseas ports.

When the RFA’s government-backed threatening letter was read out, delegates were extremely angry. Those who’d voted to maintain links with the Labour Party said they’d have voted against if they’d known of this letter.

A further sign that delegates no longer see Labour as was conference’s voting down of a resolution to go to Labour’s conference, demanding Ken Livingstone’s readmission to the Labour Party. Most delegates certainly weren’t backing Vernon Hince, their assistant general secretary, who campaigned against Livingstone in the first place.

Knapp was further rebuffed by a 40 to 1 vote when he tried to get conference to restructure union branches in line with the privatised rail companies.

The delegates saw this as tacit acceptance of privatisation and wouldn’t go along with the leadership. One resolution accused Knapp of "craven cowardice" in the face of the private companies.

*The Socialist Party held a successful fringe meeting on the issue of the new workers' party.

 Top of page     Home page

       Left win in Tipperary

SEAMUS HEALY, a left-wing candidate, has topped the poll in the Tipperary South parliamentary by-election in Southern Ireland, decisively defeating the right-wing Labour candidate. He is opposed to coalition with the corrupt right-wing parties.

The capitalist ruling party, Fianna Fail’s vote collapsed from 37% to 22%. Their candidate is the first Fianna Fail candidate in living memory to be eliminated in a by-election. The main capitalist opposition party, Fine Gael, couldn’t benefit from the government’s present troubles - the establishment political parties are up to their necks in sleaze and corruption scandals.

With a general election possible this autumn, there is growing support for the Socialist Party. The Irish Times commented: “The biggest emerging voting block is the Independents, including the Workers’ Party (ex-communist party) and the Socialist Party [our sister party in Ireland, represented by Joe Higgins in Parliament] which has grown to 10% overall and has a 12% profile in Dublin.”

Alongside Joe Higgins’ re-election, there is a real opportunity to get Socialist Party councillor Clare Daly elected to the Dail (parliament) in Dublin North.

         Top of page     Home page

Keeping it out of the family

Is a woman’s work ever done?

MOST WOMEN are constantly squeezed by the double burden of pressures in the workplace and in the home.

Jane Nellist

Wealth created in our society, far from easing women’s life is concentrated in the hands of a few. Rich women can buy the services of others to carry out household chores like laundry and cleaning.

The number of women in paid employment is at an all-time high, but despite 30 years’ equal pay legislation, women's wages are still 20% lower than men's. One problem is the type of work women do. Jobs like retailing, hairdressing and call centres are low paid with fewer opportunities for advancement.

A serious campaign should be launched in schools to encourage young women into engineering and new technologies. Millions of pounds should be invested into training women with proper allowances and benefits.

Whilst women bear the brunt of unpaid labour at home; in the workplace they have been exploited as well. The national minimum wage, is not a living wage. Only a minimum wage of at least £7 an hour would address the real needs of many women workers.

British workers work on average the longest hours in Europe. A shorter working week, strictly regulated, with no loss of pay, would not just help women but would make a real difference for everyone. A 35-hour week should just be a start with the aim of reducing hours even more.

Many women after childbirth take part-time jobs or jobs which can be fitted into weekends or evenings to juggle childcare. Many of these jobs entail flexible working and short-term contracts.

Any legislation to protect part-time workers must include full rights to holiday and sick pay as well proper pension rights and training opportunities. Women could remain in the same job but work temporarily reduced hours at the same level so their skills, qualifications and talents are not wasted.

The same facility should be available to men.

After a day at work, women face hours of unpaid work in the home. Statistics show that women still bear the brunt of organising and doing household chores like cooking and cleaning. If only some of the wealth that women created in the first place was invested into providing services to help lift the burden then life could be so much better.

A recent report into young people’s health suggests that fast foods and junk foods are not healthy. Yet companies like McDonald’s make billions out of us. More and more families use takeaway food services because of increased pressures at home.

Local authorities should have resources to provide good quality subsidised restaurants on local estates to enable families to have access to healthy food. These should be well-equipped with healthy food at minimal cost and should enable families to mix in a social atmosphere.

Good quality, minimal cost or free services should be available for laundry and cleaning chores. If wealthy women can have these services, why not us all? This would also save energy. For all of these services the quality has to be high and the cost low - society should subsidise services like these.

Services like cleaning, laundry and catering in today's society are predominantly run by women workers who are low paid and highly exploited. These essential workers  should be well paid and well protected. All of these demands would help women and men.

Women would be freed from the drudgery and isolating activities of housework. They could begin to play a much fuller role in society and enjoy leisure time with their family or take up hobbies or further education.

Socialists must aim high and demand a socialist society where the exploitation of all workers is ended and where the double exploitation of women is no longer tolerated.

Top of page     Home page

Giving parents a break

A LONDON Business School advanced management course concluded that "Britain is the worst place to be a mother" Women from Sweden, Denmark and Norway were astonished at how few legal rights working women have in Britain to time off and pay.

Eleanor Donne

In all three countries women are entitled to a year’s paid leave. In Sweden fathers get ten days paid paternity leave immediately following birth and a further four weeks during the first year. They can also take some of their partner’s entitlement so that the year's leave can be shared.

The average woman in Britain has just eight weeks' maternity leave on full pay, the European average is 32. I am about to go on maternity leave and am aware that for most women in paid work having a baby means a huge income drop. I am entitled to 40 weeks off, but as over half of that time would be unpaid I can't afford to.

The Department of Trade and Industry are reviewing existing maternity and parental leave . Given New Labour's attachment to big business and their tradition of looking to the US for their social policies this is a bit chilling. American women have no statutory maternity rights or pay.

Some MPs are attempting to be "family friendly" and aiming to "meet the needs of business" at the same time. Harriet Harman, who cut lone parent benefit as Social Security Minister, has put forward a 15-point plan including extending maternity leave to one year, the right to return to a job part time, and grants to small employers to help them implement changes.

Socialist Party members would support these proposals and those advanced by trade unions and pressure groups to extend existing provision. But, unless maternity paternity and parental leave are on full pay most families will not be able to afford to use it fully. Genuine freedom of choice would only exist for the well off. Maternity/Paternity rights should be part of a range of family friendly policies and support for new parents which address their needs fully, rather than what the Treasury or company shareholders will permit.

 Top of page     Home page

Kids – who’d have them?

A RECENT survey found that 75% of parents currently feel good childcare is impossible to find. Childcare costs for example £20 per day per child. If you work full-time, five days a week this is £400 from your monthly wage packet.

Sam Ashby

Gordon Brown says he wants children who “live in poverty to receive good childcare at nursery age as it is recognised that a good education can raise children's chances of later exam success.”

But, according to the Day Care Trust, for parents in poor communities access to quality childcare is as much a “pipedream” as private education. There are currently 600,000 children under-three living in poverty but only 42,740 free or subsidised places.

Government Sure Start schemes will not be enough to fill the ‘childcare gap’.

A recent Socialist Women's meeting discussed family friendly childcare. What do modern women need from childcare?

As an expectant mum I face the minefield that is current childcare. My first assumption that I could register the baby due in November for childcare next July at our 'workplace nursery' was wrong; there is a shortage of places for babies and I have to make alternative arrangements. Assumption two - that my maternity pay is for 18 weeks; also wrong: currently it is only for six weeks, to get the extra 12 weeks you have to guarantee to go back to the workplace on the same hours you left!

Assumption three - that the childcare would meet parents’ needs by providing at least 8am-5.30pm cover: Wrong! You have to book the child in for mornings/afternoons, this way they can charge for two sessions instead of one.

I work for Coventry University, which has won has an award called 'Investors In People'? I'm not sure which people they invest in but it’s definitely not pregnant employees.

Child-friendly policies should include access to free childcare for all mothers, whether in work or at home. Nurseries, playgroups and crèches should be of the highest standard with enough qualified workers on decent wages. They should be accessible for parents who work part-time, full-time, weekend workers, and those on shifts.

The emphasis must be on quality childcare not profit margins. Childcare provision should be free - children are the responsibility of the whole of society.

Top of page     Home page

Cuba

        Socialism and democracy

SOCIALIST PARTY general secretary, Peter Taaffe's new book, Cuba: Socialism and Democracy, is a timely explanation of the processes that led to the Cuban Revolution, the development of the Cuban regime and its perspectives for the future.

Kevin Parslow

Cuba has recently attracted international publicity around the case of Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban boy at the centre of the conflict between his father in Cuba, and his relatives in the Miami exile community and their supporters in the USA who wish to keep him. In addition, the possibility of scrapping economic and trade sanctions imposed by the USA to strangle Cuba has been raised.

Also some of those entering the socialist movement are searching for 'models' to compare ideas. With the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and the drive towards capitalism by the Chinese 'communists', the example of Cuba, which has apparently maintained a 'socialist' government in isolation and against huge odds, may seem attractive.

This new book explains that socialists supported the Cuban Revolution in the late 1950s and early 1960s. But our forerunners in the Militant and before were critical of its leaders, prominently Fidel Castro, who was not a 'Marxist' before the revolution. They were forced later, through the US blockade, into measures such as the nationalisation of the economy which were undoubtedly progressive.

We argued that without the necessary workers' control throughout society, then the Cuban regime would tread a similar path to those regimes in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, run by a bureaucratic caste at the top of society, with most elements of democracy eliminated. Unfortunately, as the book explains, this was the route chosen by the Cuban regime, particularly as it became economically dependent on the Soviet Union. 

This book is an answer to those in the international labour movement who have become almost uncritical adherents to the Castro regime, and even compare its leaders and the processes involved with those of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution in 1917. These groups have mistaken a thin veneer of workers' control and 'popular power', particularly in the early days of the Cuban Revolution, for the necessary requirements of a healthy socialist democracy. The Cuban regime today relies on a level of repression, a lack of democracy and the introduction of elements of capitalism to survive. Peter Taaffe's book critically analyses these developments.

The Socialist Party and the Committee for a Workers' International's criticism of the Cuban regime has been attacked from many quarters, including the Democratic Socialist Party in Australia, whose ideas this book refutes.

All socialists, whether new to the movement or familiar with genuine socialist ideas for decades, will benefit from buying and reading this important new addition to the catalogue of modern Marxist works.

Top of page     Home page