BLAIR IS preparing to wage war in Iraq and at home. While resisting the firefighters' wholly justified pay claim he is preparing to spend up to £5 billion on sending troops to invade Iraq.
He tells teachers and other public sector workers in London that they cannot have any meaningful increase in their London weighting allowance but he spends millions on sending the biggest task force of royal navy ships to Iraq since the Gulf War in 1991.
Blair ignores all public opposition to war. 58% think getting rid of Saddam is not a good enough reason to go to war.
He accuses the FBU of being prepared to wreck the economy by refusing to accept cuts and job losses while he oversees the increasing collapse of manufacturing industry and the biggest trade deficit ever.
Despite Blair's best efforts, support for the firefighters has remained solid amongst workers who understand that a victory for the firefighters is in the interests of all those fighting against low pay, privatisation and to defend public services.
For all his bravado and arrogance, Blair doesn't want to fight on two fronts at once. We need to build maximum solidarity with the firefighters as well as campaigning to stop this war for oil.
Blair's support for Bush and his opposition to the firefighters and other groups of public sector workers could be his undoing. But we don't want to get rid of Blair only to find that he is replaced with Gordon Brown or any other pro-big business politicians.
It's time to replace New Labour with a genuine mass workers' party based on the trade unions and the working class as a whole - a party that could fight for the rights of all workers and for a socialist alternative to low pay and war.
Join the Socialist Party and campaign with us in the unions, communities and amongst young people to build that alternative.
"We have been fighting a campaign over the last four or five years to defend our conditions, our pensions and the service.
"They've been after our conditions for a while and trying to close fire stations and cut the service. But now people understand that the government is directly attacking our union and our jobs.
"We need to call on other public-sector workers to come out in our support but also to support themselves.
We should come out together. If the government up the ante then we will as well."
Billy Carruthers, London firefighter
There are only five weeks to go until the national demonstration on 15 February against war on Iraq, called by Stop the War Coalition. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to take part in the demonstration to show their opposition to the war.
As the anti-war movement grows in Britain and internationally, Bush and Blair's plans for war are also increasing with 150,000 US and British troops expected in the Gulf by the beginning of February.
This war is about the US trying to ensure that the huge oil reserves, which exist in Iraq, are secured for US big business, and that countries across the world have to bow down to US imperialism.
The majority of the troops being sent to fight against Iraq are young people; most of them have never taken part in war before. The financial cost of the war could be huge, not to mention the cost in the lives of Iraqi people and troops.
It is vital that the anti-war movement is built in every area of the country. 15 February will be an international day of action against war in Iraq and up to 10 million people are expected to take part in demonstrations in towns and cities worldwide.
Groups need to be organised in schools, colleges, universities and workplaces across the country to ensure that everyone who wants to get involved in fighting against war in Iraq, and building for 15 February, can do so in their local area.
International Socialist Resistance (ISR) is also organising for strikes, protests and meetings to take place in schools, colleges and universities internationally on the first day of war.
Many young people around the world are angry at the prospect of war on Iraq; it is our future that leaders such as Blair and Bush are jeopardising.
It is vital young people get involved in the anti-war movement and in the fight for a socialist world free from war and terror.
Dubbed 'Blair's Petroleum' due to a number of former BP executives being given jobs in Whitehall. Local protests will be taking place across the country.
If you would like information or material to help build for these events please get in touch.
Website: www.anticapitalism.org.uk
THE ARK Royal sailed off to the Gulf last weekend as part of a build-up of troops, warships and armaments in readiness for a war with Iraq.
At the same time, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed an order to deploy 62,000 more US troops. By the beginning of February, 150,000 troops are expected to be in the Gulf - enough to launch a full-scale attack on Iraq.
But the timetable for a spring war (before the summer heat makes fighting more difficult) has not been going entirely according to plan. In the absence of a 'smoking gun' i.e. clear evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, the US administration has been coming under increased pressure to delay an attack.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that 27 January - the date that Hans Blix the chief weapons' inspector, is due to deliver his interim report - should not be seen as a 'D-day' for decision-making. His comments have been echoed by Blair.
Blair has been feeling the heat from New Labour MPs who do not want a war unless there is concrete evidence of the production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and total UN support.
With or without UN backing, The Socialist is totally opposed to a war with Iraq. Any war would be to bolster and extend the power, profits and prestige of US imperialism on a global scale. John Bolton, No 3 in the US State Department, couldn't have made the real situation clearer than when he said: "There is no such thing as the UN. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the US". (Observer 12 January)
According to a Yougov poll last week, 30% of people in Britain think that seizing control of oil supplies would be the motive for war and 58% don't believe that Saddam Hussein is a big enough threat to justify war. 32% oppose war under any circumstances, while only 13% support action by the US and Britain alone.
Even the Blairite Labour Party has had to reflect, however feebly, this unprecedented anti-war mood. The public division between Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and defence secretary Geoff Hoon is symptomatic of the pressure that New Labour ministers are coming under. A survey of local Labour Party officials pointed to mass resignations of rank-and-file members if Blair goes ahead with backing a US led war without UN approval. Former Minister Kate Hoey warned of "severe repercussions", which could include ministerial resignations.
However, at his monthly press conference Blair refused to rule out the 'Kosovan option' of going it alone with Bush, without the backing of a second UN resolution. He clearly believes that the interests and prestige of British capitalism (and his own) require craven support for US imperialism.
If Blair were to decide to go down this road it would be a dangerous gamble. As some in the media have pointed out, war on Iraq could become Blair's own 'Suez' - resulting in his downfall just as the ill-fated attack in 1956 led to the resignation of Prime Minister Eden.
The size of the anti-war movement in advance of military action is an indication of the huge protests which could engulf Britain, even if war had the fig-leaf of UN approval.
Events in North Korea demonstrate how international developments can still blow Bush's war plans off course. They have certainly undermined his claims that war with Iraq is necessary because of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
North Korea is using its nuclear capability as a bargaining chip in a desperate attempt to secure security and economic concessions from the US. But it is a dangerous tactic that could spin out of control.
International relations are extremely unstable - an instability that would be hugely exacerbated by a war against Iraq. Already anti-imperialist sentiments have erupted in South Korea, Pakistan and throughout the Arab world. This would be further fuelled by war, pushing some in desperation to support terrorist methods.
The exact economic effects of war cannot be determined in advance, much will depend on the length and severity of the war itself. However, the world economy is already in the fragile state and a war could trigger or intensify an economic crisis.
The total financial cost of war could be much higher than estimates suggest, especially as the US is talking about a period of military occupation after the war has ended. As the Financial Times pointed out: "The fighting could be the easy bit".
Nevertheless, despite all the possible negative repercussions Bush could still, with the support of Blair, push ahead with war in the next couple of months. After Blix's statement on weapons' inspections, the price of oil went up in anticipation of a spring attack. Maximum pressure is now being exerted on the weapons inspectors to come up with the goods. The issue of interviewing Iraqi scientists could become a crucial one in the countdown to war.
The build-up of troops and weapons in the Gulf has taken on a momentum of its own. Sustaining public opinion, let alone financing and maintaining the morale of 100,000 troops in the desert, or bringing them back, would be extremely difficult if war were to be delayed. Anti-war protests have been taking place in many US cities, including 15,000 in Los Angeles in the last week.
Whatever the immediate perspectives for war, the anti-war movement needs to take advantage of the divisions that are opening up between and within the imperialist powers to deepen and extend its influence, especially in the workplaces.15 February, an international day of anti-war protest, will be an important focus for the movement which must be seriously built for (see pages 8 and 12).
Worsening prospects for the British economy, renewed militancy by firefighters, discontent with public services and growing anti-war protests could potentially coalesce into a substantial movement against Blair and New Labour. They could also lay the basis for the emergence of a new mass workers' party and the growth of socialist ideas, which provide the only lasting solution to global conflict and war.
THE KILLING of two innocent young black women on New Years Day, apparently caught in the crossfire of a gang battle, sparked a flurry of media interest in gun crime.
There is genuine horror over these killings and concern, particular in inner-city areas, over the use of firearms. However politicians, in particular New Labour ministers, used the incident to divert attention away from the huge unpopularity of other government policies.
After statistics showed an increase in gun crime, the government proposed a mandatory five-year jail sentence for possession of firearms or replicas in a public place.
However as criminologist and former prison governor, Professor David Wilson said: "If sentencing had any part to play in reducing the crime rate, Britain would have the lowest crime rate in Europe".
We already have Europe's highest prison population and mandatory minimum sentences, yet still have one of the worst crime rates.
There has been a racist element to some of the comments, from the Birmingham coroner to Labour politicians like Kim Howells and Blunkett, hinting that the problems are somehow caused by black communities, or even rap music!
Government statistics claimed that, despite other figures showing a fall in crime rates, there was an increase in gun crimes by 35% last year. These were concentrated in particular in the big Metropolitan areas.
But statistics should always be approached with care; they are affected for example by changes in the ways they are recorded.
The British Crime Survey shows that in 84% of cases the gun was not fired. 97 of the 858 murders in England and Wales last year were from guns. So, although this issue is a serious one, particularly for families in inner-city areas, it has to be seen in proportion.
It is ironic when the government talk of stopping the import of guns and replicas, yet support the British arms industry's export of 1,200 tonnes of guns and military equipment since 1997.
Without condoning violence, the question remains as to why some young people in inner-city areas join gangs that use weapons.
For many youth there appears no alternative to a life of poverty, unemployment or low wages, repression and alienation in society.
Many hope that through a gang they will get respect, a feeling of community, protection from others and a way out of poverty. Of course it is also likely to lead to a higher chance of prison, injury or death.
The BBC Midlands news quoted one teenager saying that many join gangs because the alternative was "a crap job on £3 an hour".
Censoring rap music or simply increasing sentences will not solve the problem. Tackling the underlying causes of inequality, discrimination and repression, which result from capitalism, has to be part of the solution.
THE GOVERNMENT have announced a 'new campaign' to reduce the number of women and children made homeless through domestic violence.
They pledge to set up a 24-hour domestic violence help-line by this autumn, an Internet database of refuges and to help councils develop new refuges or havens. This is a welcome, if long overdue step forward. The government allocated £8 million from their homeless budget for the proposals - £1 million will come from the charity, Comic Relief.
Domestic Violence campaigners have been calling for a government-sponsored help line for years, as a potentially very effective lifeline for women experiencing violence in the home or from a partner.
Similarly, improved co-ordination between different agencies and refuges, making it easier to find available spaces in refuges and safe houses is welcome. However, this help line and database must have enough trained staff and ongoing resources to meet demand so callers can get through to an adviser straightaway.
Of course, the main problem facing families fleeing domestic violence is that there aren't enough safe houses, refuges or havens for them.
There are currently around 400 refuges in Britain, which take more than 55,000 women and children a year. However, 20 years ago a (Tory) government select committee on domestic violence recommended nearly three times this number.
After nearly six years in office, it appears New Labour are not prepared to commit themselves to meeting this recommendation. Given the limited extra funding on offer, it seems likely that any new refuge spaces created will fall well short of what is needed.
Women and their families fleeing domestic violence make up one in six of those who local authorities have a duty to house as homeless. Many of them end up in Bed and Breakfast Hostels which, as well as being unsuitable for any families, are not secure against possible attacks by ex-partners and do not have the support and advice networks that refuges provide.
The only government pledge is that homeless families (including those fleeing domestic violence) won't be housed in Bed and Breakfast accommodation after March 2004.
Could this be yet another 'sound bite' pledge like those on child poverty, access to higher education and sustainable transport systems which are quietly dropped when not achieved?
We must keep up the pressure so the government can't renege on even this most basic of aims, and to ensure that the 11,000 children currently living in B & B Hostels are suitably housed.
THE FIREFIGHTERS are preparing to go into battle once again against the government's attacks on their wages and conditions. The employers have made absolutely no move to accommodate the firefighters' pay claim of £30K and are now saying conditions are attached to the pre-Christmas offer.
The FBU says: "We have now been offered 4% providing we unreservedly sign up to the Bain report. A further 7% will only be offered when the audit commission are satisfied that the Bain proposals have been fully implemented. This will not be 7% for everybody; it will be an average of 7%. Finally, for each of the next four years there will be a 2% reduction in staff year-on-year, which is almost 5,000."
Blair and his hard-nosed group of local authority employers, are hell-bent on beating the FBU into the ground before the even more difficult task of sending troops into battle. This has produced a wave of anger across the fire service. Firefighters are saying: "We might as well go for broke."
In response to this mood at the national reps meeting last week, the FBU decided to go for more strikes including a 24-hour strike on 21 January. This will be followed by two 48-hour strikes on 28 January and 1 February.
They also plan further "guerrilla action", including two-hour stoppages well into March. The idea is to keep the 17,000 troops fully occupied, even on the days when there are no strikes. Whether this will work remains to be seen.
The union leadership's use of discontinuous action has put the government on the back foot. But the postponement of action, six times before Christmas, has led to confusion in the firefighters' ranks.
Blair boasted that the troops were as good as the firefighters. This is pure propaganda and is seen as such by most workers. But it is clear that the government won't let the initiative pass onto the FBU without fighting back. Already the Financial Times is egging the government on to lock out firefighters or to consider sacking them all. As they point out: "This is now legal as the dispute is more than eight weeks old."
The worse thing would be for the union leaders to hope this won't happen and not prepare for it.
The leadership should declare now that they won't cancel any more planned strikes until the employers are prepared to make a substantially improved offer, with the complete dropping of any strings, cuts and job losses contained in the discredited Bain report.
The union must make serious moves to call for solidarity strike action from other groups of workers. This means calling on those most at risk without proper fire cover, like tube and rail workers, even if it is in defiance of the anti-union laws.
The best way to pose this is by calling for a one-day general strike of the whole trade union movement.
It is clear that the government want to smash the FBU as an effective fighting force. Blair fears that the example of a militant union will spread to others. The firefighters' campaign is now not just about pay but about the future of the union itself. The only answer to this from all trade unions is that an injury to one is an injury to all.
THE GOVERNMENT have upped the ante in a really underhand way. They started by giving us a 4% offer with no strings attached. Now they're offering 4% but we have to agree to Bain.
We won't get 7% unless Bain is fully implemented and the 7% is a global figure so most people will get less.
Rather than cutting the number of people in the fire brigade, Bain should propose increasing the staff. Improving fire prevention needs more people. To prevent fires you need to educate the public, which takes time. That means more firefighters.
They talk about the terrorist threat but last year this station was going out twice a day to 'white powder' incidents - the anthrax scare. Our fire rescue unit, which has the equipment to deal with chemicals, was out twice a day. We didn't have enough resources to deal with it. Now there's the ricin poison scare.
To take people off fire engines and train them to deal with terrorist incidents, you need more firefighters. If you're going to have a modern fire service you need more people.
They promised millions of pounds to fight terrorism after 9/11 but it's actually coming out of existing budgets.
When we were out on the picket line for eight days we had hundreds of other trade unionists coming to give us their support. We should build on that. Somebody's going to have to challenge the anti-trade union laws. We should call on other trade unions to support us like nurses, teachers, the bin men and everybody else who works in the public sector.
ONE OF the cost-cutting measures proposed in the Bain report is for joint control rooms between the fire and ambulance services and the police. GEOFF ECCLESTONE, from Nottinghamshire UNISON police branch executive responds to this idea.
"NO ONE has spoken to UNISON in Nottinghamshire about this. We'll be annoyed if this is happening without us being involved.
"The control roles are very different and the skills and knowledge demanded are very different. No one is suggesting joining up air-traffic control and the railways.
"We need to get our own control rooms right before thinking of joining them up. Modernisation of Nottinghamshire's control rooms started three years ago and we're still struggling to get to a level we can feel proud of.
"Our members have worked themselves into illness to make things work. Many families have suffered with the amount of overtime that has been put in. We understand stress - we have worked for years suffering under-funding and old and decrepit equipment.
"Our members have so much time off for overtime owing to them it is unlikely they will ever get to take it.
"We have every sympathy with the FBU. We expected this Labour government to put workers first and sadly we have seen little sign of this. We abhor the position that firefighters have been placed in. UNISON publicly supports them and our branch has passed a resolution in support."
BIRMINGHAM FIREFIGHTER Steve Godward was sacked on 2 December, for "attempting to persuade his colleagues to remove and sabotage equipment"
This accusation arises from Steve following local officers' instructions to protect some safety-critical equipment in case stations were burgled during the strike. But a story alleging sabotage was on the front page of The Times on 15 November.
Steve has had massive support from other FBU members and members of other trade unions. His appeal hearing is on 16 January and the FBU has called a national rally outside the hearing. The West Midlands FBU have asked permission to ballot for action if Steve is not re-instated at the appeal.
One of the "modernisations" included in the Bain report is for the repeal of Section 19 of the 1947 Fire Services Act.
The effect of this would be to allow chief officers to cut jobs, stations and appliances without local consultation. This will be a green light for managers to force through their cuts agenda and attack FBU members and activists.
Steve's case shows the importance of fighting these measures as well as fighting for a decent wage.
ACCORDING TO the annual reports from the Chief Inspector of Fire Services, between 1981 and 1999 emergency calls to the fire service increased by 78% from 541,140 to 965,200.
There was also a 98% increase in calls to emergencies other than fire.
During this time there was a 2.5% decrease in the number of full-time firefighters. But fire fatalities were reduced by 35%.
Because of improved techniques and faster response times, in the year 2000 firefighters attended 2% more fires than 1999 but there was a 2% decrease in fire deaths and casualties.
The FBU points out that there are actually 1,181 fewer firefighters working now than are actually required to fill the currently agreed establishment.
A MAN, earning the median average wage, who has been in continuous work since 1979 is likely to have been robbed of over £50,000 from his wages by his bosses.
Bosses have driven down the share of company revenue given out as wages, in order to boost profits and incomes for directors and senior executives.
This theft was committed by businesses that went into battle against the trade union movement and was organised by the Conservative governments between 1979 and 1997.
Thatcher, Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990, introduced anti-trade union laws and influenced the labour market by forcing unemployed workers into low-paid jobs and removing limited minimum wage controls.
Over the period of Tory rule from 1979 to 1997 the share of national income (GDP) spent on wages shrank and the share taken by corporate profits rose.
On top of this UK income tax policy underwent a counter-revolution, shifting the burden of taxation onto lower-paid workers.
The rate paid by top earners was massively reduced. And a loophole was created for company directors and senior executives, in the form of tax-free share options.
In 1997 the Tories were finally driven from office but New Labour has now made its own position clear to the unions. The government will continue to defend business interests against workers and will fight to maintain the 'reforms' of the Thatcher era.
Government ministers have been quoted in the press as looking forward to defeating the unions as Thatcher did when the miners lost their heroic dispute in 1984 / 85.
Blair and New Labour ministers try to maintain a radical facade by talking about social exclusion and poverty amongst the poorest 20% of households. This would be more convincing if they turned their words into any sort of action.
But it is not a small minority who have lost out to the great wage theft; the majority of workers in Britain have suffered a significant cut in wages. I estimate this to be between 15% and 30%, according to circumstances.
This has been compounded by further cuts to take-home pay as a result of a shift in the burden of taxation from top earners to those on typical and lower wages.
AVERAGE WAGES can be very misleading. An arithmetic mean average includes a small number of very highly paid individuals, some earning tens of millions, which distorts the average upwards.
Only a third of British workers actually earn as much as the mean average.
To get a better picture of what a typical worker earned when Thatcher came to power in 1979 and when the Tories lost the election of 1997, it is more useful to look at modal and median averages.
If every wage in Britain were written out in order from highest to lowest the median income is the wage that is right in the middle of the distribution.
Half of all workers earn less than the median while half earn more.
The Modal average is calculated by sorting each individual wage into ranges and then determining which range covers the greatest number of workers. The modal average is the most commonly paid wage in Britain.
Table 1 shows the real buying power of wages allowing for inflation. It suggests that workers earning around the modal or median average were better off in 1997 than they had been in 1979.
But wages could be expected to increase in line with economic growth. If GDP increases by 3% over a year, then so should wages but this was not the case after 1979.
| 1979 | 1997 | ||
| £ | £ | ||
| MEAN | Male | 253 | 383 |
| Female | 171 | 292 | |
| MEDIAN | Male | 228 | 317 |
| Female | 158 | 254 | |
| MODE | Male | 193 | 261 |
| Female | 138 | 181 |
Although wages rose more quickly than inflation, the share of Britain's national income going to a typical worker fell significantly.
WHEN THE Tories were elected to government in 1979 British business was suffering against a backdrop of a worldwide fall in profitability.
Economic growth had been sluggish throughout the 1970s and Thatcher had a plan to address this crisis by forcing workers to restore business profitability by accepting lower wages.
Named after Nicholas Ridley, a minister in Thatcher's first government and leading Tory strategist, the plan outlined a strategy for breaking the power of the British trade union movement.
Thatcher understood that if the unions could be controlled then so could wages. The Conservatives identified the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) as their primary target.
The Ridley Report recognised that the defeat of the NUM, seen as the most militant and effective section of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), would erode the confidence of the whole trade union movement.
A strategy was therefore prepared to fight the miners' strike of 1984/85 even before the Tories came to power.
Details of the Ridley Report were leaked to The Economist in 1978 and included legal restrictions on the unions, the stockpiling of coal and the provocation of a strike when the timing suited the government, all important components of the eventual defeat of the NUM.
Tragically it was the role of the Labour and trade union movement's own leaders that played the most crucial role in defeating the miners.
Labour leader, Neil Kinnock refused to fully support the NUM and launched public attacks on pickets. For their part the TUC refused to act on calls for solidarity action to defend the union movement from Thatcher's attacks.
Having broken the miners' strike, Thatcher and the business interests she represented went on the offensive, most notably at Wapping when Rupert Murdoch's News International defeated the printers' unions.
Having played a major part in the miners' defeat Neil Kinnock led the Labour Party's abject capitulation to Thatcher and British business.
Together with a government-engineered decline in manufacturing industry, the stronghold of Britain's unions at that time, the labour movement leaders contributed to falling trade union membership and disorientation of activists and stewards that sapped workers' confidence.
Shareholders and directors of Britain Plc basked in their glory, squeezing more profit from workers in return for slower wage growth.
The graph shows what has happened to wages, profits and taxes on production as a share of national income between 1979 and 1997. Wages have fallen from a 58.8% share in 1979 to 53.4% in 1997, a decrease of 5.4%.
Profits have risen from 17.9% to 22.6%, an increase of 4.7%. Taxes on production have gone from 10.6% to 13.1%, an increase of 2.5%.
These three components of national income account for just under 90% of GDP, the rest is made up from the operating surplus of publicly owned corporations and other minor components.
This fall in wages has allowed firms to increase their profit share despite a small increase in the share of national income taken by taxes on production.
If a fall of 5.4% does not sound very dramatic, consider that if wages have fallen by an amount equal to 5.4% of GDP this corresponds to a fall of over 10% in the wage bill itself, which is only 53.4% of GDP.
That means a drop of 10% compounded year after year, eating away at workers' standards of living.
"OUR FINDINGS paint a picture of a dramatic social and economic change in Britain, over the 1980s, the scale and consequences of which are probably not yet fully appreciated by policy-makers or the population at large." The Rowntree Report (1995).
In 1995 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation inquiry into income and wealth found that wage inequality in Britain had grown dramatically during the Thatcher years.
Table 2 shows the changing proportion of the mean wage earned by workers earning the median and modal average wage.
All workers earning a typical wage have lost ground against higher earners and those who have lost most are the lowest-paid women who earn the modal average.
Median and modal wages and their proportions of the mean in 1979 and 1997.
| 1979 | 1997 | ||
| MEDIAN | Male | 90.2 | 82.7 |
| Female | 92.6 | 86.9 | |
| MODE | Male | 76.1 | 68.2 |
| Female | 80.6 | 62.1 |
A woman earning this wage would be 23% better off today if her wage represented the same proportion of the mean wage as in 1979.
There have been many attempts to explain away this increase in wage inequality. Economists and government-sponsored studies regularly claim that income inequality is a product of modern technology, which has increased demand for skilled labour while declining manufacturing has reduced the need for unskilled workers.
This, the argument goes, pushes up wages for a minority of highly skilled workers while depressing wages for those in so called unskilled sectors.
But several important academic investigations have questioned this.
Studies by Atkinson, Jenkins and Leslie and Po (details right) have found that although inequality has increased between different employment sectors, skilled and unskilled and between groups of workers according to gender, age or educational level, the growth of inequality within sectors/groups is even larger.
Wages have been redistributed from workers to directors and senior executives, irrespective of what product or service an individual firm produces.
The report by Leslie and Po estimates that trade unions increase pay by around 7% for members under collective bargaining, compared to similar workers in firms where there is no trade union recognition.
Contrary then to the warnings of New Labour that Britain cannot afford higher wages, British workers have actually given up a significant share of their incomes to their bosses over the last two decades.
The overall share of national income paid as wages has fallen and what is left has been paid to directors and senior executives.
BY 1990, successive Tory budgets had cut the top rate of income tax by more than half, from 83% to 40%.
Those in the top 5% of earners received post-tax pay increases of well over 300% as a result. Even then top earners could take advantage of loopholes allowing shares to be given as wages without any tax payable at all.
What about the workers? The basic income tax rate was also cut, from 34% in 1978 to 25% by 1990.
At the same time the tax-free allowance, the amount an individual worker can earn before paying tax, was increased faster than the rate of inflation, so the effective rate of income tax fell even further.
This cut to the basic rate was partly offset by an increase in National Insurance (NI) contributions from 6.5% to 9%.
And because there is an 'upper earnings limit' beyond which no more NI is paid, this hit basic-rate payers much harder than higher earners.
In his study of UK tax policy Chris Hamnet has estimated that when other tax allowances are taken into account, the net position of workers earning less than the mean wage is broadly neutral, while those earning above the mean wage are now much better off.
But this is only part of the story of Thatcher's tax policies. Although a typical worker was treated fairly neutrally by direct taxation (income tax and NI) they ended up paying far more in indirect tax.
The very first Thatcherite budget of 1979 more than doubled Value Added Tax (VAT) from 6% to 15%, rising again to 17.5% in 1991.
Because VAT is charged on over half of all consumer expenditure, this tax increase has a significant impact on workers' overall tax burden.
VAT is a regressive tax that falls more heavily on the lower paid who spend a higher proportion of their incomes on consumer goods and consequently pay a higher proportion of their incomes in VAT.
Other indirect taxes charged specifically on luxury goods were cut to further shift the tax burden from rich to poor.
In 1997 the modal average wage was £260 (male) or £180 (female). Many families with one earner at this level, the most common level of wage in Britain, would be entitled to state benefits.
Cuts in such benefits since 1979 will have further eroded the wages, net of tax and benefits, of many workers.
TABLE 3 shows an expected pre-tax wage. This is the wage that typical UK workers, male and female, earning the modal or median average wage, would have been earning by 1997 if the share of GDP taken by wages and the distribution of wages between income groups remained as it was in 1979.
| Actual | wages | Expected Wage | Shortfall % | ||
| 1979 | 1997 | ||||
| MEDIAN | Male | 82 | 317 | 382 | 17 |
| Female | 57 | 254 | 298 | 15 | |
| MODE | Male | 69 | 261 | 322 | 19 |
| Female | 50 | 181 | 260 | 30 |
Typical men and women earning the median average have lost around 15% - 20% of their expected income. Women earning the modal wage have fared even worse, losing around 30%.
Despite the protests of Blair and Brown that the country cannot afford higher wages the fact is that British business has enjoyed nearly 25 years of wage restraint to boost profits.
The wages lost in Table 3 are pre-tax. The extra tax burden on British workers comes on top of the cut in pre-tax wages.
With New Labour defending the gains made by business at the expense of workers, the task facing the unions and British workers is to re-build and launch a counter attack against its class enemies.
One source of confidence for British workers is the slowdown since 1990 in the rate at which the transfer of income from wages to profit has taken place.
Most of the shift from wages to profit had already been achieved by 1990. The following thirteen years have yielded only a slight further shift in favour of business.
British business and government are finding that trying to extract more and more from their workers is provoking a reaction that has been threatening to explode ever since the Tories were finally forced from office.
British business should not be confident of Blair's ability to maintain the spoils of Thatcherism.
This article has been produced from a report by the same author. The full report and comprehensive list of sources can be obtained from woodj at red1017.fsnet.co.uk
Atkinson (1999), The Distribution of income in The UK and OECD countries in The Twentieth Century, Oxford review of Economic Policy Vol.15 No.4.
Commission for Social Justice (1994), Social justice: strategies for national renewal: the report of the Commission on Social Justice. (Vintage)
Dilnot and Kay (1990), Tax Reform in The UK, Ch9 in World Tax Reform, edited by Michael J. Boskin and Charles E. McLure. (Eurospan)
Hamnet (1995), A stroke of the chancellor's pen: The social and regional impact of the Conservatives' higher rate tax cuts, Environment and planning A, Vol 29.
IFS (2000), Institute of Fiscal studies, A survey of the UK tax system.
Jenkins (1996), Recent trends in the UK income distribution: What happened and why? Oxford review of Economic Policy Vol.12 No.1.
Leslie & Po (1996), What caused rising earnings inequality in Britain? Evidence from time series 1970-93, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 34:1.
New Earnings Review, Department of Employment. ONS, Office of National Statistics, on-line at www.statistics.gov.uk
Rowntree (1995), Joseph Rowntree Foundation inquiry into income and wealth.
"This movement today, not Tony Blair, is speaking for the British people," declared Aslef member Andrew Murray, opening the Stop the War national conference. 800 activists came from local coalitions, political parties, trade unions and peace groups, along with some new young people getting active for the first time.
In a rousing speech, Tony Benn said, "We speak for humanity. This is an argument between the people of the world and the rulers of the world."
Former president of Algeria, Ahmed Ben Bella, who at the age of 86 has just become president of the newly-formed International Campaign Against US Aggression on Iraq, spoke to a standing ovation. He said, "There is terror in the world - the terror of George Bush... The world system keeps 85% of the population in poverty and dependency." He called on the British anti-war movement to "take the smile off Tony Blair's face."
There were cheers as George Galloway MP paid tribute to the train drivers in Motherwell who refused to drive trains with ammunition intended for use against Iraq. The conference agreed to campaign within the trade unions for such decisive action on a mass scale to stop the war.
Socialist Party councillor Dave Nellist called on the recently-elected left trade union leaders to plough at least some of the money they currently give to New Labour into the anti-war movement and to drive on this campaign.
Later in the day, an announcement that soldiers in the north of the country were refusing to go to Iraq was met with huge applause.
The conference agreed that the immediate priority is to aim for an unprecedented turnout on the national demo on 15 February. On that day, there will be demos in most European capitals and in many other countries as well. George Galloway said, "It's hard to imagine a more important day in any of our lives so far. Nothing but death can be an excuse to not be in London on February 15th!"
Delegates were also urged to build for action the day war breaks out, for a demo in every village, town and city. Workers were asked to take at least one hour of protest on that day - for "a massive howl of protest and rage, so that the government are more frightened of us than we are of them."
The Socialist Party is organising stalls, leaflets, posters, meetings, local protest actions and stunts all to help build up momentum for the demo on 15 February.
But when war starts we want to see mass occupations, walkouts and strikes at schools, colleges and workplaces all over the country. We are using pledge sheets, ballots and resolutions to help build the confidence of workers and students to take action.
On behalf of the Socialist Party, Dave Nellist argued that "demonstrations alone won't shift a capitalist government like New Labour, wedded to the political and economic interests of the US. Only sustained, organised mass civil disobedience can stop a war in progress and force a government to retreat."
Dave gave the example of the campaign against the poll tax, led by the Socialist Party (then called Militant), which was rooted in estates, schools, colleges and workplaces, and was organised through democratic structures locally, regionally and nationally.
To great applause, he also stressed that as well as fighting against this war, "we have to raise an alternative, and be just as determined to build a new world, in my opinion a socialist world".
This was an optimistic and enthusiastic conference. 26 resolutions were debated, plus two composite motions on policy and trade union work. All three resolutions put forward by Socialist Party members were passed.
However, unfortunately it was very difficult for ordinary delegates to intervene in conference discussions unless they were moving resolutions. The Socialist Party will be putting proposals forward on this and other issues to try and ensure future conferences are more inclusive.
To build a successful anti-war movement now will require the development of democratic and open local coalitions, not dominated by any one group, brought together in elected and accountable regional and national bodies.
The newly elected steering committee of the coalition has representation from political parties, trade unions and peace and other campaigns involved in the coalition, plus some individuals.
Clare James from International Socialist Resistance (ISR) was elected (despite a recommendation against her from the officers of the Coalition) because the majority of the conference wanted more young people involved.
Socialist Party delegates voted against the tiny number of delegates who argued that the Muslim Association should not be asked to co-sponsor activities. The Stop the War Coalition is a broad coalition based on support for three minimal demands: stop the war, no to a racist backlash and defend civil liberties.
The Muslim Association has agreed to these demands and, via the mosques, has mobilised tens of thousands on anti-war demonstrations. This has strengthened the anti-war movement and has also, from the Socialist Party's point of view, given an opportunity to reach a wide layer of Muslims with socialist ideas.
We supported the resolution which "unreservedly condemns terrorist attacks", which was opposed by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and was defeated at the conference. We think it is a serious mistake for the coalition to take this position.
We understand that it is brutal conditions and imperialist oppression that lead some to turn to terrorist acts in desperation. However, such attacks are completely counterproductive, particularly when they involve the killing of many innocent people - as with the September 11 and Bali attacks.
Surely it is clear by now that September 11, far from undermining US imperialism, made it possible for Bush to dramatically step up US oppression of the neo-colonial world.
If we are to build a mass movement in Britain against the war, it is imperative that anti-war activists condemn attacks which directly harm working-class people, deepen divisions and provide imperialist governments with an excuse to step up repression. The way to fight not only war but the system that perpetrates such injustice is mass action, not individual acts of terror.
Socialist Party members will now be out campaigning to make the 15 February demo a massive success; building in every section of the community for mass action against the war.
NEVER IN recent history, has a state assembly election in India created such a sensation as the Gujarat elections of 2002.
This election became a focal point for heated debates and discussions in the entire country and internationally.
The backdrop to these elections was the anti-Muslim pogroms organised by right-wing Hindu communal forces with the full blessings of the BJP state administration, in February and March 2002. These pogroms were sparked off by the Godhra train massacre of Hindu Kar-Serwaks ("volunteers" - ie fanatics) returning from the site of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, which was destroyed by Hindu mobs in 1992.
Narendra Modi, the chief architect of the anti-Muslim pogrom, as the Chief Minister of the State made all the election promises that communally charged Hindu mobs would wish for.
The terrorist attack on Gujarat's Akshardham temple by Islamic extremists during the run up to the elections was a blessing in disguise to the BJP and particularly to Modi. Huge cut-outs of the Pakistan leader, Musharraf, were placed in strategic places against Modi's image, challenging voters to decide whether they will choose a "patriotic Indian" or an enemy of India. His rabble-rousing propaganda implied that a vote for opposition Congress would be a vote for Musharraf.
While the Western imperialists are trying to bring both India and Pakistan to the dialogue table, LK Advani, the deputy Prime Minister, in his first election speech in Gujarat, threw down a challenge to Musharraf by saying, "Let us fight it out face to face. We have fought thrice, let there be a fourth war."
The BJP's victory in Gujarat is seen by many as a trail-blazer for the days to come. The five states that are due for elections this year would become yet another battle between the BJP and Congress. However, there is hardly any difference between the two parties.
Many newspapers dubbed Congress as the B-team of communalism. Shanker Singh Vaghela, a recent dissident from BJP was the chosen man of Congress to take on the BJP. Just as the tiger never changes its stripes, Vaghela went on a binge to outsmart the Modi brigade in the campaign to win his erstwhile communal Hindu constituency.
Instead of exposing Modi and the BJP for all their evils, and standing four-square behind the battered Muslim minority, the Congress adopted a soft Hindu line to say that it was not a party which only appeases Muslims, as made out by the BJP. It had no convincing argument against the BJP's campaign against Muslims which aims to dub all of them as terrorists.
OF THE 968 candidates in the elections, the two 'communist' parties CPI (M) and the CPI together had a symbolic presence in only two seats. The left failed miserably in providing any way forward, let alone an alternative to the riot-torn Muslims and other minorities.
Gujarat is an industrial giant within India, with important industries such as textiles, diamond cutting and polishing, pharmaceuticals and ceramic tiles.
There are thousands of workers in these factories who have a rich history of struggles. The CPI (M) and CPI have some base in the trade unions of this state. But instead of rallying the workers and youth against communalism and capitalism, they tail-ended Congress.
TO THE BJP, which was losing ground very fast, this electoral success is a shot in the arm. Though Gujarat is the only decisive victory for the BJP since it came to power at the centre, the hard-line factions within the party will want to use this opportunity to take the party on an openly communal line at the all-India level, along with their VHP and RSS extreme-right allies
The BJP will try to push further the anti-working class reforms and, more importantly, the privatisation programme, to make themselves nearer and dearer to the national and international bourgeoisie. They will further foment the temple issue, the cow-slaughter issue, abrogation of article 370 giving special status to Jammu and Kashmir etc, to divide and disorient the working class.
IT IS easy to get dazzled by this BJP victory. The working class, which is beginning to move on various issues such as labour law reforms and on the impending large-scale privatisations, will certainly see it as a jolt.
However, workers are preparing for a show-down on the issue of labour reforms. Already a rank and file trade union formation called the 'New Initiative for Trade Unions' is preparing for the future battles.
Working-class unity is the need of the hour. A campaign based on the bedrock of working class unity, can and will take on the forces of capitalism and communalism to defeat the BJP-VHP-RSS gang and the Congress.
The New Socialist Alternative (CWI-India) will be campaigning on these slogans and link this to the formation of a new working class mass party based on the programme of socialism.
ON 5 November 1956 British and French paratroops occupied Egypt's Port Said at the entrance to the Suez Canal.
Two months earlier Egypt's president, Colonel Nasser, announced to a massive cheering crowd in Cairo: "We shall all defend our freedom and Arabism. I announce the nationalisation of the Suez Canal."
Having Egypt's request for a loan to finance the building of the Aswan dam hydro-electric project blocked by Britain, France and the USA, Nasser declared he would use the $100 million revenues collected by the Suez Canal Company to finance the project.
The nationalisation measure incensed British and French imperialism. Nasser now had control of a strategic waterway through which Arabian oil supplies were shipped to the West. Moreover, this self-proclaimed leader of the Arab revolution was winning support from the region's exploited workers and peasants, thereby threatening to topple the stooge, oil-rich, feudal dictatorships of the Middle-East.
Spurred on by the Chinese revolution and India's independence, workers and peasants throughout the colonial world were fighting anti-imperialist struggles to achieve national and social liberation. The days of direct rule by the old colonial powers were numbered.
British PM Anthony Eden, bolstered by his Tory backwoodsmen, hankered to restore the fortunes of the British empire. Despite the accelerated economic and political decline of British imperialism as a consequence of World War Two, Eden believed that Britain could play a pivotal role in world affairs. Similarly, the French ruling class believed in resurrecting France's former imperial glory. Yet for all their brutality employed in fighting colonial wars, French imperialism received a mauling in Vietnam and Algeria, forcing a withdrawal from these countries.
"WE SHALL build the dam on the skulls of the 120,000 Egyptian workmen who died to build the Canal." For the working class and unemployed dwellers in the slums of Cairo and Alexandria and for Arabs throughout the Middle-East, Nasser's proclamation was an electrifying rallying call.
The response in the West was predictably frenzied. Both British and French parliaments likened Nasser's actions to those of Mussolini and Hitler! The capitalist press and the Tory MPs' chorus of 'Nasser-Hitler' was joined by Labour and Liberal MPs who urged Eden to take punitive measures against Egypt. Eden duly obliged by freezing the assets from the Suez Canal held in British banks. These sterling deposits amounted to two-thirds of the Canal's revenues.
Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell, while encouraging the Tories to refer the matter to the forum of the United Nations, was careful not to rule out the use of armed force against Nasser. The French PM Guy Mollet promised to "launch a severe counter-strike."
Overtly, the British government attempted to resolve the crisis diplomatically. They convened an conference of 24 maritime countries in London against the 'threat to the free movement of international shipping'. Less publicised was the call-up of armed forces reservists and the assembling of a huge naval task force.
Nasser's response was to call for an international strike of solidarity to coincide with the conference. On 16 August massive strikes gripped Libya, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon with smaller actions in Sudan, Iraq, Tunisia and Morocco. Everywhere riots and demonstrations were directed at British and French embassies.
THE US president Eisenhower was in the middle of a presidential election campaign and would not support an Anglo-French military response. Moreover, US imperialism was locked into an intense rivalry with Britain and France in exerting its influence in the Middle East.
The cover for the invasion of Egypt was an Israeli invasion of the Sinai. The British and French forces would then intervene to separate the Israeli and Egyptian armies in order to protect international shipping through the Canal.
Representatives of the Israeli, French and British governments secretly met on 24 October at Sevres near Paris to sign a pact. Sir Anthony Nutting, a Foreign Office minister at the time of the Suez crisis, describes the British government action as "a sordid conspiracy in collusion with France and Israel."
Using the pretext of cross-border Palestinian raids and the blocking of the port of Eilat by the Egyptians, Israel invaded on 29 October. The next day Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to Israel and Egypt to withdraw ten miles on each side of the Canal. This was when the main Israeli force was still 100 miles and six days' fighting from their ceasefire line!
As expected, the Egyptians refused the ultimatum and Israel accepted. British and French forces then pounded Egypt's airfields followed by an invasion of the Canal Zone on 5 November. 1,000 Egyptians, overwhelmingly civilians, were killed in the storming of Port Said.
IN BRITAIN the labour movement mobilised opposition to the invasion by staging a huge demonstration and rally in Trafalgar Square. Demonstrators attempting to march on Downing Street clashed with police.
Fortuitously for Eden, a workers' uprising in Hungary against the Stalinist dictatorship was being crushed by Soviet tanks on the very day that Egypt was being blitzed. Nevertheless, the Tory government was becoming increasingly isolated.
Internationally there were huge repercussions. Most Arab states broke off diplomatic ties with Britain and France. The British-owned oil pipeline across Syria was blown up. Saudi Arabia blocked oil exports to Britain. The US demanded a complete withdrawal from Egypt. The Soviet Union threatened retaliation.
British imperialism's economic and political weakness was exposed. The Canal was blocked with sunken ships. Within weeks there was petrol rationing. The US refused to provide a loan and blocked Britain's application to the International Monetary Fund for a loan. The pound plummeted. Foreign currency reserves were rapidly exhausting.
After six weeks British and French forces started withdrawing. The Israelis too were forced out.
Nasser paraded as a victor who had humbled the imperialists. Eden, by now a politically and physically broken man, was forced to resign.
Following the Suez debacle, the Arab revolution was given a new impetus almost in direct proportion to the collapse of British imperialism's influence.
AT THE end of last year Hackney council made vicious attacks on union activists. They suspended the two job-share UNISON branch secretaries Brian Debus and Will Leng and the branch equalities officer John Page.
All three are facing the sack but council workers responded swiftly with an angry protest lobby.
The council justified the suspensions by calling a draft UNISON report on Hackney Council's race relations "defamatory and libellous".
Hackney is the only borough in the country on which a critical non-discrimination notice has been served twice by the Commission for Racial Equality. The report argues that since the last notice was served in the year 2000, little has changed.
After threatening UNISON nationally and regionally with legal action, management suspended the three branch officers. Meanwhile the council is moving on with plans for restructuring, which could mean further plans for cutbacks.
The suspensions are following management attempts to undermine UNISON's ability to defend their 3,000 members. After the struggle over terms and conditions with several strikes, the council still ignored the anger of their workforce. Although management were not able to carry through the whole package of savage cuts, they still pushed through a worsening of conditions. At the same time they have increased their own salaries.
In the last two years the council have also taken away facility time from UNISON representatives and forced UNISON to move into a tiny office.
Our main task is to mobilise the workforce to defend our union representatives. We are calling for them to be reinstated immediately and for a full investigation into the serious concerns raised about race relations in Hackney.
Please send messages of support and donations to: Hackney UNISON, 2 Hillman Street, London E8, Tel. 030 8356 4701, Fax 020 8985 6749, email: [email protected] And protest letters to: Pam Case, Head of Human Resource Management, Town Hall, Hackney E8, email [email protected]
Public Forum organised by Hackney TUC: Monday 20 January at 8pm at the Hackney Empire Bullion Rooms, Mare Street (next to the Town Hall).
Socialist Party public meeting: 30 January 7.30pm, Old Fire Station, Leswin Road (off Brooke Road), London N16.
Hackney library staff fight on
HACKNEY LIBRARY workers' struggle to get back their Saturday enhanced pay, is in its 15th month. One of the suspended branch officers, Socialist Party member Brian Debus, is also a library worker and has played a leading role in the dispute from the beginning.
His colleagues are outraged about management's disciplinary action against him. But in the last few days there has been anger about the role of the UNISON regional office.
The council has moved on to employ scab labour on Saturdays: They have introduced new timetables for the permanent library staff, in which Saturday work is not included. They are trying to open the libraries on Saturdays with part-time staff.
At this crucial point UNISON regional office did not renew the notice for industrial action.
First they said it was an error but when we requested it should be served for the next weekend, it still did not happen. Nevertheless the library staff were able to pull off significant action.
Last Saturday, when new staff were to start, striking workers ensured that some libraries had to be kept closed. After a lot of protest we got the regional office to finally serve the notice for industrial action for the coming weekend. We hope that with that official notice we will be able to convince more of the new part-time workers to join the struggle.
A date for the Employment Tribunal on the question of Saturday payment is set for 11 February. And the workers are discussing what kind of action to take around that date.
Please send messages of support to: Hackney UNISON, address above.
To hear an audio version of this document click here.
What the Socialist Party stands for
The Socialist Party fights for socialism – a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also oppose every cut, fighting in our day-to-day campaigning for every possible improvement for working class people.
The organised working class has the potential power to stop the cuts and transform society.
As capitalism dominates the globe, the struggle for genuine socialism must be international.
The Socialist Party is part of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), a socialist international that organises in many countries.
To hear an audio version of this document click here.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/24433