For a REAL public inquiry into war with Iraq
Build the socialist alternative to New Labour
ONCE AGAIN lapdog Tony is following behind his master Bush. Having said last week that there was no need for an inquiry into weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Tony Blair is now setting one up.
It's clear that Blair is planning another whitewash - blaming the spooks this time rather than the BBC. But we don't want a Hutton Mark 2. We want a real investigation - not a cover-up by establishment judges, civil servants and politicians.
We can't trust them to look at the real reasons why more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered; why more than £5 billion of our money has been spent on a bloody war and occupation rather than the services we need.
We want a real inquiry, carried out by elected representatives of ordinary people, including trade unions and community groups.
We've had enough of Blair's lies and deception. He lied about WMD, he lied about introducing top-up fees and he lied about public services.
The war in Iraq was about oil, profits, power and prestige. At home and abroad Blair and New Labour are in the pockets of big business. It's time to fight back.
Join us and help build a new mass party of ordinary working people to challenge the profit-seeking warmongers of New Labour and the rest.
AS ANY inept DIY bodger could tell you, whitewash, applied carefully and thinly will last years. Too thick and it will flake off in no time." (Letter to the Guardian, 29 January)
The long awaited report by ‘Lord’ Hutton on the ‘Kelly affair’ was so blatantly and crudely one sided that it has produced a massive public backlash against the ‘exonerated’ Tony Blair and his crony Alistair Campbell.
The ‘collateral’ damage to the government and its legal hit man, Hutton, is unprecedented in its scope and intensity.
Polls taken a few days after in newspapers and in TV programmes show that three times as many people were prepared to accept the BBC’s version of the truth as that of the government.
Blair’s personal rating in the ICM poll in the Guardian was minus 17 points, with 55% of voters unhappy with his performance.
Support for the war has dropped by six points, with less than half of voters now in support. Contrary to Hutton, 45% of voters believe the prime minister lied over his claim that he did not authorise the leaking of Dr Kelly’s name.
More people believe that Blair should have resigned than those who supported Greg Dyke resigning as the head of the BBC.
An avalanche of criticism and condemnation has rained down on Hutton. Even pillars of the establishment, such as Lord Rees Mogg, former deputy chairman of the BBC, have waded in, declaring: "I don’t have any confidence in Hutton."
Many capitalists luminaries like this, unlike the socialist and the Socialist Party, did have confidence that Hutton, one of their kind, would act fairly and ‘judiciously’.
BUT WHY should this scion of the aristocratic Unionist ascendancy of Northern Ireland act any differently than he did? He was a defending barrister of soldiers at the discredited Widgery inquiry set up after the Bloody Sunday massacre in Northern Ireland in 1972. Moreover, there is a long standing tradition of ‘inquiries’, judicious or otherwise, being used by governments, usually Tory governments, to cover up their crimes and misdemeanours.
The difference this time is that the inquiry was public, shedding light into the dark corners, the intrigues, dirty dealings and dishonesty of capitalist governments and their state.
The documented evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the guilt of Blair on the key issues. This showed that the intelligence evidence was changed by Blair and Campbell, that (a) they colluded in the ‘outing’ of Kelly who was alleged to have taken his own life, and (b) that the notorious 45-minute claim was altered to give the impression that Britain could be attacked by Saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction at 45 minutes notice.
The original title of the intelligence dossier – "programmes of weapons of mass destruction" – was altered. The word ‘programme’ was eliminated.
Both Blair and Bush are now falling back on this word as justification for the war. But this and Hutton’s report cut no ice with the British people, outraged at this colossal cover up. In their millions they protested in the last year against the war and its effects. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as troops, estimated at 55,000 by John Pilger, together with British, US and other troops, died for what a Tory, Max Hastings, has called a "war on a false prospectus".
It is this massive anti-war feeling, together with the fact that Britain is no longer a deferential society, which explains the indignation of Hutton and Blair. The gloating of Blair and Campbell the day after the report undoubtedly reinforced the sense of public outrage. One Labour apparatchik triumphantly declared of Hutton: "Make that man a duke." Instead of this, however, the report and its author have been discredited in a matter of days.
BLAIR HIMSELF, rather than basking in the afterglow of this ‘triumph’ came under pressure to emulate his buddy, Bush, in declaring, ‘it wasn’t me, guv, it was the intelligence spooks who got it wrong’. Up to now, like the character in the famous Monty Python sketch who declares that the parrot is still alive despite all the evidence, Blair has insisted that WMDs, or at least ‘programmes’, will be discovered. But now David Kay, Bush’s own hunter for WMDs in Iraq, has concluded what we and others consistently argued before the Iraq invasion, that Saddam’s WMDs do not exist. He has declared: "We were all wrong."
This ‘we’ refers to Blair, Bush and their pro-war supporters and, yes, they did get it wrong while the millions who marched against the war, and who still oppose the war and its consequences, were right. If the 'intelligence community' got it wrong it shatters the whole premise of the Bush doctrine of 'pre-emptive strike'.
Will Blair and Bush, therefore, follow the example of Dyke and Davis at the BBC and ‘fall on their swords’, resign? Not a bit of it. Bush is preparing to set up another "inquiry into US intelligence" and the information allegedly supplied to him on WMDs. Blair is to follow suit, thereby hoping to deflect responsibility for the war onto the ‘un-intelligence community’ in Britain and the US.
This manoeuvre, however, is fraught with difficulties, perhaps more for Blair than Bush. Bush hopes that his congressional supporters can delay the results of such an inquiry until after November’s presidential elections. If Blair concedes an inquiry, again narrowly restricting it to intelligence issues and not the overall reasons for war, than it is likely to report well before a general election is called.
THOSE WHO opposed and demonstrated against the war, as well as the dead and mutilated victims in Iraq, have no need for anymore whitewashes, cover ups in the form of more US and British ‘inquiries’. No trust in capitalist governments to honestly and democratically examine their own actions, particularly on the most crucial of events, going to war!
If there are to be any more ‘inquiries’ let them be convened by the organisations of working class people in Britain and the US and, moreover, on the broad general reasons for this war and the culpability of capitalist politicians, and not on this or that aspect, which can allow the perpetrators of the Iraq adventure to go unpunished.
Blair and Bush and their cronies unleashed a war not for ‘liberation’ in Iraq, but for the imperialist plunder of Iraqi resources, particularly oil. They have created devastation and terrible suffering for the peoples of Iraq and the world.
They should be driven from office. But the alternative is not their capitalist critics, whose concern is not for the British or Iraqi people but in defending their own system and preventing similar adventures in the future which could endanger this. The real alternative is a new mass party of the working class, pledged to oppose war and militarism by establishing a new democratic socialist society.
We want an inquiry that actually looks at the real reasons why more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered; why more than £5 billion of our money has been spent on a bloody war and occupation rather than the services we need.
We want a real inquiry, carried out by elected representatives of ordinary people, including trade union and community groups.
We have had enough of Blair’s lies and deception. He lied about WMD, he lied about introducing top-up fees and he lied about public services.
Blair and Bush and their cronies unleashed a war not for ‘liberation’ in Iraq, but for the imperialist plunder of Iraqi resources, particularly oil.
They have created devastation and terrible suffering. They should be driven from office.
But the alternative is not Blair’s capitalist critics, whose concern is not for the British or Iraqi people but defending their own system and preventing more Bush-style adventures in the future that could endanger capitalism’s stability.
The real alternative is a new mass party of the working class, pledged to oppose militarism by establishing a new democratic socialist society.
IT TAKES a perverse talent to achieve what Hutton, Blair and Campbell et al did within the BBC last week. At a stroke they united tens of thousands of BBC workers in support of their multimillionaire former bosses who were initially seen as 'Tony's cronies'.
Allegedly, there's a civil war going on inside the BBC. But if so, it is a civil war of unequal proportions. The overwhelming majority of the BBC's workforce are incandescent at the attempted witch-hunt of the BBC by one wing of the establishment around Hutton and the government. They are almost as angry at the establishment inside the BBC who are preparing to roll over and play dead to satisfy Alistair Campbell's bloodlust.
But many BBC workers realise that behind the war with the government are more than just the issues of BBC independence and integrity. Many suspect, correctly, that another agenda is emerging more openly in the run-up to the BBC's charter renewal.
The Hutton Inquiry report was leaked to the Sun, confirming how close the Murdoch empire is to Blair and his courtiers. The Downing Street clique will be delighted for Murdoch to increase his already substantial influence in Britain at the expense of the BBC and other media organisations (some of whom, like ITV and the Telegraph group are also experiencing crises at present).
If Murdoch were to expand his slimy tentacles it would suit Blair and Campbell to have a public broadcasting system similar to Murdoch's Fox News in the USA, which uncritically repeats every sliver of propaganda from the Bush regime.
The BBC was not, contrary to some government insiders' claims, anti-war; as anyone who tried to get media coverage for the anti-war movement would confirm. The BBC proved during the war that it is part of the establishment. But, having to reflect public anger, neither was the BBC completely uncritical of the government, which is what Blair and Campbell wanted.
BBC HEADS and Andrew Gilligan himself admitted that (relatively minor) errors were made of attribution with his initial source. But as the full transcript of Hutton reveals, Gilligan's story was overwhelmingly correct (as was Susan Watt's Newsnight piece, which made the same point and was based on the same source, Dr David Kelly).
Indeed, all the BBC's reporting under scrutiny at the Hutton Inquiry was immeasurably more factual and accurate than government intelligence dossiers. And, none of the BBC reports were at all influenced by 'subconscious' thought processes.
After Hutton polls show a substantial majority of the public believe the BBC told the truth, by a margin of 3:1 against the government. The 'accuracy' of Gilligan's report and the subsequent government/BBC war was a diversion from the real issues raised by BBC reporting after the war, which Blair is increasingly under pressure over.
It remains to be seen who will replace Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke. But, whoever emerges, BBC workers will have to ensure that their trade union organisations take a determined stand to protect any journalist or BBC employee who faces pressure for being critical of the government, big business or any establishment figure.
The National Union of Journalists' threat of organising strike action if Andrew Gilligan was sacked was not put to the test - Gilligan resigned. Nevertheless, BBC workers will stage protest action again on 5 February.
BBC workers and the wider public can have no trust in the BBC board of governors, whose "grovelling" apology to the government is viewed as a humiliation by BBC staff.
Instead, to ensure a BBC free from commercial influence and ensuring relatively independent journalism, the BBC board should be genuinely representative of society as a whole, which includes having elected representatives from workers' organisations like the trade unions.
Fire Brigade Union (FBU) branches have just submitted resolutions to their annual conference calling for the union to break with Labour.
The RMT railworkers' union debated the threat of its expulsion from the Labour Party at a special conference. This is after deciding last year to support other political parties, like the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP).
On 6 February this year the RMT conference voted 42 - 8 to re-affirm its decision to allow branches to support other political parties, despite an ultimatum from the Labour Party, and on the 7 February the Labour Party disaffiliated the RMT.
On 7 February the trade union Convention of the Left took place, called by the Socialist Alliance (SA), where those who want to keep the link with Labour will debate with those who are in favour of breaking or loosening it.
FBU GENERAL secretary Andy Gilchrist, who faces increasing criticism of his handling of last year's dispute, says he intends to keep the union affiliated to Labour. However, rank-and-file firefighters have other ideas after the way they were treated in the dispute.
It's essential that left-wing activists in the RMT, as well as reaffirming the decision to begin the break with Labour, also campaign at every level in the union for support for its campaign to end the link. |
Similarly, many railworkers in the RMT have drawn the conclusion that New Labour is a party that directly attacks their interests and their union. Last year the union's conference took an historic decision to change its rules and allow branches and regions to support other political parties, notably the SSP.
Labour says it will immediately expel the RMT, one of the founder unions of the Labour Party, if it reaffirms its decision to affiliate to the SSP. But the Communication Workers' Union passed a resolution at its national executive last week condemning Labour's stance and calling for urgent talks to find a "mutually acceptable solution", something Bob Crow has said he is open to.
Labour's expulsion threat is intended to provide ammunition to all those union leaders who want to retain the Labour link. Andy Gilchrist has already hinted that the union would lose influence 'like the RMT' if it is expelled from Labour.
Inside the RMT, where a branch consultation exercise is underway, the right wing are raising similar arguments.
Some branches in northern England have argued that the union would effectively be impotent at the very time when it should have more influence over Labour's alleged 'renationalisation' of rail - a claim hotly contested by many railworkers experiencing the current conditions on the mainline rail and in London Underground.
Right-wing officers in another branch talked about "no return to the days of the loony left" and warned it would campaign in next year's political fund ballot for the union not to have any political fund rather than be affiliated to the SSP or break with Labour.
These voices are unrepresentative of their own members at present and of railworkers in general. But they are a warning sign of arguments that need to be urgently addressed by those who are pushing for a break from Labour in some form.
Where genuine consultations have taken place, railworkers have shown real hostility to Labour and expressed surprise that the union is still affiliated to the party.
It's likely that the RMT special conference on 6 February will reaffirm its decision of last July's conference; though it is also likely to be a more sharply contested debate.
The socialist argued, when the expulsion of RMT was first raised, that it was also intended to isolate Bob Crow, RMT general secretary and the union itself. Blair's government, like Thatcher in the 1980s, wants a bogeyman to persecute to show that the threat of militancy will not pay.
It's essential that left-wing activists in the RMT, as well as reaffirming the decision to begin the break with Labour, also campaign at every level in the union for support for its campaign to end the link.
THE ISSUES being debated by the RMT are likely to surface at the Convention of the Trade Union Left, which takes place the day after the RMT special conference.
Originally the Convention was called in the name of the Socialist Alliance (SA) but organisers later claimed the: "convention has nothing to do with the Socialist Alliance."
The stated aim of the 'Convention' is to discuss issues like "who should we vote for at the next elections? What can we do about the state of political representation for trade unionists [and]... the question of the political fund".
The Socialist Party believes there is a pressing need for the trade union Left to come together and debate these issues, particularly given what's happening with the FBU and RMT. But we feel that the primary responsibility for organising this rests with the new Left union leaders - collectively known as the awkward squad.
Regrettably, many of these leaders still claim it is possible to 'reclaim the Labour Party'. But this assertion flies in the face of the evidence of recent weeks with Blair's pushing through top-up tuition fees and the Hutton whitewash.
The Left union leaders, even the best ones, are unable or reluctant to square up to the reality of New Labour being an openly pro-capitalist party. They are not drawing the necessary conclusion that a new mass workers' party is needed. This has left an enormous vacuum on the left of British politics and trade unionism.
The SA is incapable of filling this vacuum, as some of their leaders recently admitted at the Respect Unity Coalition (RUC) founding rally. SA leaders signalled in their statements signing up to the RUC that they believe the SA has not developed because socialist ideas are not yet popular enough with working-class people and the electorate generally.
But, as the Socialist Party has modestly demonstrated, where a base for socialist ideas is properly built then socialists can beat Labour. Five Socialist Party councillors in Coventry and Lewisham demonstrate this.
THE NEED for a new workers' party to give a political voice to trade unionists and to give a real choice for workers at elections has never been greater. And, a meeting of rank-and-file trade unionists can play a useful role, even without the presence or support of the union leaders, if it is representative and if it draws clear conclusions.
Unfortunately, given the previous experience of the Socialist Workers Party-dominated Socialist Alliance, the meeting's aim of just 'debating' the issues will not take the struggle for workers' political representation forward.
The issue of a mass workers' alternative will become ever more pressing. It will no doubt dominate large sections of this year's union conferences. At these most union leaders, with a few notable exceptions, will be fighting tooth and nail to retain their union's link with Labour.
New Labour's marketisation of health and education, their commitment to letting the market rip in all areas of the economy has produced a boiling, angry mood amongst workers throughout Britain.
The mood of the rank and file of the trade unions is far to the left of most of the union's local and national leadership on breaking from Labour.
Most workers cannot see why their unions continually fund a bosses' party and will increasingly be demanding something more decisive than just debates about the issue.
The SA Convention, however, will be used by some union leaders as an opportunity to sound off on the issues rather than their being pressed to organise a genuinely representative conference.
Union leaders like Bob Crow of the RMT and Mark Serwotka of the PCS need to put their full weight and authority behind a genuine conference which will inspire the millions of workers looking for a left alternative to Labour that at last something concrete is being done.
"Today has been really good. Most people are respecting the picket line.
"Management's heavy-handed tactics have wound up the staff even more. The Permanent Secretary who is on over £100,000 has angered people by saying that £11,000 is a decent wage.
"There have been over 100 people join the union in the last couple of weeks. I'd like to see the union be even more co-ordinated in future actions, with rallies and walk-outs, including linking up with other unions.
"I'd ask other trade unionists to support us in any way they can - whether it's standing with us on the picket line, spreading the word or donating to our strike hardship fund. Most civil servants earn less than £15,000 a year."
Clayeon McKenzie, PCS branch chair, Home Office
"It's been going very well today. We've had a really significant impact on the number of courts open.
"There is a lot of anger about the below-inflation pay offer which was imposed three days into a ballot of the members. So it's about a lousy pay offer and it's also about the democratic right of our members to reject or accept a pay offer.
"We've had dozens of new members joining us, so that we're now the largest branch in DCA. The threat of action has had an impact on management and the main entrance here is not actually open.
"After today we'd like to see management come back to the table but if they don't there will be calls to take further action."
Mike Loates, PCS branch secretary, covering the Royal Courts of Justice
West Yorkshire
THE STRIKE by PCS members in the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has hit management in West Yorkshire hard.
Rob Williams
On the first day, Leeds Crown Court was due to hear 13 cases but only five went ahead. That was only because two of the cases were heard by high court judges whose clerks are in effect personal assistants who are not in PCS.
Management attempted to open more courts by bringing in agency staff but the locally based judges refused to work with them!
In Bradford only two out of eight scheduled cases went ahead and the County Court offices were closed. Pickets said they were determined to make DCA management come back to negotiations with an improved offer.
Alistair Tice and Colin Wray spoke to pickets outside Sheffield Crown Courts:
Richard, an admin assistant, told us he was on only £15,000 after 15 years service: "I'm so low-paid that if I issued a summons at the court I work at, I would be 'fees exempt'".
Martin Nolan, PCS branch secretary, asked: "Has Ian Magee (Corporate Board leader - Office of Constitutional Affairs) had his pay award imposed, was his pay rise lower than last year, was it unconsolidated for his pension? Not damn likely but that's what we've got!"
He told us that 80% of PCS members were on strike. Howells' Solicitors had them brought tea and coffee. Even some judges had been 'shocked' at how low their staff's wages are.
Top story though was the report from Portsmouth that a jury had refused to cross the picket line!
Strike threat forces negotiations in civil service pay battle
OVER 5,000 members have been recruited to civil service union PCS since our pay campaign started. It has inspired a new layer of members and activists. Members see their willingness to take action has forced management to make concessions.
[Since this article was written negotiations broke down and on Friday 6 February the strike was back on]
Rob Williams, PCS National Executive (NEC), personal capacity
But management’s offer to the Group Executive Committee (GEC) of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) two days before the strike, was conditional on action being called off in that department. The GEC saw the offer was not good enough to settle on but it could not be dismissed. It was obvious that if the GEC pressed ahead with the strike, management would have told members and the public, that we were hell-bent on striking no matter what and unwilling to negotiate. Management wanted to sow division amongst the membership.
The Left Unity-led GEC decided to suspend the action for two weeks. This gave us the opportunity for detailed negotiations on the hated Performance and Development System (PDS) and to squeeze every last penny out of management.
PDS is a system which links the annual pay increase to a discriminatory performance mark decided in secret by a panel of managers.
DWP management had previously provoked members’ fury by attempting to introduce a discriminatory five-day rule, which would have docked pay for any special leave above five days, such as for sickness, bereavement leave, study leave and even maternity leave. They also imposed a below-inflation pay rise to those on the maximum of the pay scale - in real terms amounting to a pay cut.
Management were forced to withdraw the five-day rule when members voted to reject the offer. They then made another offer at the 11th hour, under the threat of strike action.
The GEC will push the negotiations onto the open stage, to expose the management’s tactics. At the end of two weeks, there will either be enough concessions to ballot members on or strike action will be called.
Concessions have already been extracted. This is a significant gain from the position of an imposed pay offer.
Members have found that the threat of industrial action is a powerful tool against the employer and this new-found confidence is a valuable for those previously hesitant and some bruised by previous defeats.
The NEC worked hard to co ordinate action across departments. Clearly the left-led GEC had to take into account the effect of not striking with the other departments. But pressing ahead with the strike would have allowed management to say the union had ignored fresh talks and an improved offer.
Nothing demonstrates more clearly the need for national pay bargaining for the whole civil service. This is the major campaign of the Left Unity-led NEC for 2004.
+The DWP Left Unity conference on 31 January discussed pay and the programme for the coming year. Delegates voted to endorse the GEC’s strategy on pay. All the Socialist Party members standing were re-elected to stand for the GEC as Left Unity candidates.
Strong support for civil service strike
MARK SERWOTKA, Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) general secretary spoke to a 300-strong civil servants' pay rally on 29 January. Having gone round the picket lines that morning, he said it was clear that their two-day strike had widespread support.
Bill Mullins, Socialist Party industrial organiser
The strike involved workers from the courts, the Home Office, the Prison Service and the Treasury Solicitors.
He told them: "Civil servants are some of the lowest-paid in the land with 25% on no more than £13,750, 41% on £15,775 and 81% on less than the europoean union decency threshold."
He reported that at the Royal Courts of Justice, a Group Four prison van was held up with the prisoners inside for over an hour. The pickets demanded that this be taken off their time in prison! In Shoreditch, postal workers and a number of casual workers refused to cross the picket lines."
As a result of the workers' action the Department for Constitutional Affairs have asked for talks, starting on 2 February.
Mark outlined the situation in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and why the strike there had been suspended: "The DWP are the worst management in the civil service."
They had refused talks before and had imposed a below-inflation pay increase and a divisive performance scheme. The threat of action forced them to the negotiating table on the eve of the strike. "The offer is not good enough and the strike remains live if there is no improvement over the next fortnight".
He realised the workers who were on strike were disappointed that the 90,000 PCS members in the DWP were not on strike with them: "But it is inevitable if there is to be any talks."
Later on, Tom Taylor of the PCS DWP Group Executive (GEC) explained more to a carefully listening audience: "The issue in the DWP was not just pay but more importantly the full-blown performance appraisal system that management have imposed. It makes 70% of the members worse off. There was bigger vote against this than there was against the imposed pay increase.
"We were told at 3pm on the eve of the strike that the management wanted talks and were suspending the performance system.
"The new offers are unacceptable and if there is no movement we will set the strike dates again."
Mark in his summing up said: "If the union had rejected the talks then the management would undoubtedly have publicised this amongst the membership."
Leicester Lecturers On Indefinite Strike
LECTURERS AT Leicester College are out on indefinite strike. The FE College is imposing new contracts that cut holidays, push through Saturday working and worsen conditions of service.
Lecturers' union NATFHE, sees it as an attack on union rights because the changes were not negotiated with them. The college say they are 'voluntary' but they will be imposed on all new posts and anyone who changes jobs within the college.
Members of Leicester Socialist Party spoke to workers on the picket lines. At the St Margaret's site Tony Wightman, NATFHE member said:
"We are not asking for anything other than what we agreed when we accepted our positions. We signed a contract with the college and they want to tear it up".
Kate Drew NATFHE branch secretary said: "They are introducing a non-negotiated contract. We tried to negotiate but they would not shift from a position of worsening our conditions. They want to remove four days of holiday entitlement, bring in unlimited Saturday working and take out the protection on the number of hours we teach.
"The response has been incredible. The college was claiming that all lessons were 'covered' but classes are cancelled and those students who have turned up are leaving again. We have even had students standing alongside pickets, with placards supporting the strike.
"Management have over-reacted - telling us to take placards off the premises and putting security all over the place. Highly paid managers are out on every door to greet students when they arrive!
"Management representatives complained that there were too many pickets, saying there should only be six and threatened to call the police.
"We have had to fight the college to get pay owed to part-timers for up to three months, yet they could offer a bribe of a £1,800 one-off payment to staff who signed the new contract before Christmas! It is not worth losing holidays and worsening conditions for life in return for a one-off payment."
Arum, a student on an English as a second language course was on the Abbey Park site picket line with a number of fellow students: "If the lecturers don't oppose these things there will be more attacks in the future. We want to support the lecturers because they support us".
Strike committee member
Siobhan Logan said: "Support is already coming in from other unions. We visited the PCS picket lines to support them and they are supporting us in return. The FBU phoned us to ask what they could do. The postal workers refused to cross the picket lines and just turned around. We have circulated trades unions with collection sheets."
Messages of support and donations would be appreciated and can be sent to Siobhan Logan, 22 Kensington Street, Leicester. [email protected]
Stop These Council Cuts
Southampton
"I USE the centre because it's convenient for me and my family and friends. We're not rich, we can't afford to join posh health clubs where the fees are very high. Soon there'll be nowhere to go and the young will be back on the streets getting into all kinds of trouble."
Nick Chaffey, Save St Marys Leisure Centre Campaign
That's how a local resident felt about plans by Liberal councillors in Southampton to close St Marys Leisure Centre and cut other services whilst asking us to pay an extra 6% in council tax for the pleasure!
A recent government regeneration scheme gave £26 million public money to property developers who built private housing, hotels and a new football stadium but nothing for local leisure users.
The community, staff, trade unions and users are fighting to keep the centre open. Hundreds have signed petitions and a demo is planned for 7 February. The campaign and UNISON are organising a joint lobby of the council budget setting on 18 February.
Southampton's leisure facilities are not safe with the current parties on the council. Socialist Party members support calls for campaigners to stand local candidates who will put up a real fight to improve services.
We argue for a council budget based on the city's needs, fully funded by central government and a freeze in council tax levels.
Leicester
AROUND 300 people lobbied Leicester city council's meeting on 29 January. The Liberal/Tory ruling group's proposed £4 million cuts threaten hundreds of jobs in vital voluntary projects and direct council services.
Bethan Lloyd, worker at the Braunstone Adventure playground, says that Liberal council leader, Roger Blackmore had: "...asked us 'What does the Adventure playground do? What age groups does it take? When is it open?' Shouldn't he have asked these questions before he said he'd shut us? He's clueless about what he's cutting!"
The Liberals gained power in May after campaigning against Labour's previous cuts and rate rises, but now the council propose cuts, a 14% rate rise and widespread privatisation of parks and gardens, museums etc. One parks worker said: "They're talking about hiving us off to a 'charitable status' trust which will receive a grant from the council.
"I asked would the council be legally obliged to give that money? A couple of years down the line they could stop it, just as they're destroying the voluntary sector now as it's outside the council's 'front line' services."
All three major parties stand for cuts and ignore the long-term fundamental issue of under-funding by national government. The Socialist Party says that a deficit budget is needed - i.e. refuse to make cuts or massively increase council tax and organise a mass struggle to force the missing cash from the government.
Demo organised by "Playfair - Save our Services". Saturday 7 February, 1pm Victoria Park, Leicester. March to Town Hall square for 2.45 pm approx.)
Protest against Ealing's cuts
DESPITE OPPOSITION from the staff, unions and local community, Ealing council in west London is determined to press ahead with its programme of cuts. On 3 February there was a mass lobby of the New Labour cabinet, called to set the budget and council tax for next year.
Brian Blake, Ealing UNISON and Ealing trades council, personal capacity
This was a very angry demo, enabling ordinary workers and the people of Ealing to show the cabinet members how they really feel about their handling of the current financial crisis. (Full report next week).
The proposed increase in the council tax is estimated to be around 9%, though the government would like it to remain in the low single figures. On top of this the council is intending to increase charges in many areas. They are intending to stop delivering black bin sacks, for example, forcing people to buy their own. Many families already struggle to make ends meet and charges like this will penalise them further.
They also want to cut grants to community organisations, including the only centre providing facilities in the borough for people of Afro-Caribbean origin.
At the same time, the council is determined to push ahead with its pet scheme, "Making A World of Difference" (MAWOD) despite growing local opposition. The leader of the council, John Cudmore, was reported in the local paper this week to be getting very upset with the opposition to MAWOD. That is going to be nothing to the anger this New Labour council will face if they continue with their programme of cuts and council tax rises.
No to MAWOD No to cuts in jobs and services No to council tax rises Brazil - Movement For A New Workers' Party Is Launched
ONLY ONE year after the Presidential election victory of "Lula" (Luiz Inacio da Silva) of the Workers' Party (PT) a new movement has been launched by former PT activists, trade unionists and socialists. Their task is to build a new workers' socialist party in Brazil to act as an alternative to the capitalist programme that the Lula government and PT leadership has implemented since coming to power.
TONY SAUNOIS of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) reports on this important development.
ON 19 January 2004, in Rio de Janeiro, representatives of various left-wing socialist organisations, (including Socialismo Revolucionario, the Brazilian section of the CWI), together with trade union leaders, intellectuals and four former PT parliamentarians (three deputies and one senator, expelled from the PT for voting against the government pension reform) met and launched the 'Left Democratic Socialist movement'.
One of the first objectives of the new movement is to collect the 500,000 signatures required to legally establish a new party.
This movement represents an important new phase in the struggle of working-class activists and socialists in Brazil and has important lessons for other countries where new mass socialist parties of the working class are needed.
Betrayal
THE LAUNCHING of this movement follows a protracted swing to the right by the PT and its leadership and a rapid decline in its active membership. Lula's election victory was greeted with tremendous enthusiasm and high expectations by the mass of Brazilian workers. It was, after all, the first time the PT had won a presidential election.
Moreover, Lula, a former metal worker and street 'shoe-shine' was the first president to come from a working-class background. This alone gave renewed hope to Brazil's oppressed.
During the election activists around the PT had opposed the rightwing shift by the PT leadership and were concerned about what it would mean for the new government. Many workers and poor however hoped that this was just an 'electoral tactic' and that once in power Lula would revert to the radical socialist policies historically defended by the PT.
They voted for the PT, not because of the rightward turn by the leadership. They voted Lula to reject the 'neo-liberal' policies of the former President, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, or FHC as he is known. However, they have ended up with FHC's policies implemented by Lula.
Immediately the new government set about demonstrating not to the poor but to the capitalists, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank that it could be trusted.
The government even signed an agreement with the IMF giving it more concessions than it actually demanded! The government supported giving greater independence to the central bank and appointed Henrique Meirelles, former executive of the Bank of Boston, as its director.
A vicious pension 'reform' was introduced which raised the age of retirement and attacked all the previous gains made by the federal state employees. This 'reform', originally proposed by FHC was at that time opposed by the PT!
University fees are to be introduced and the government wants to introduce a labour reform programme attacking the unions and workers' rights.
Amongst the proposals being considered are withdrawing the additional 13th month holiday pay which is paid each year and weakening of trade union rights to organise in the work places. Such is the opposition that is likely to develop to these proposals the government has postponed them being implemented until 2005 - after all regional and local elections!
New Labour II
THE PT in government has become more and more 'New Labourised', a process which had begun before the election. This development has a particular twist of historic irony. Former New Labour minister Peter Mandelson visited Brazil during the first Presidency of Cardoso between 1994/98. He denounced the PT as representing the past and supported the capitalist Cardoso.
As David Fleischer, a political commentator at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Brasilia pointed out: "It is like Britain in 1997 when old Labour became New Labour. New Labour did a lot things that old Labour would be shocked to think about."
The rich elite (Brazil is one of the most unequal countries) have been fully reassured by Lula's first year in office. Lula was praised in the Spanish daily El Pa’s in an editorial (The Lula surprise - 5/1/04) for the "strict fiscal and monetary policies" carried out by the government.
A rich shopper followed by half a dozen servants leaving the elite fashion store Daslu in Sao Paulo, where designer shoes sell for US$1,500, expressed her relief and was quoted in the Financial Times (31/12/03): "Lula seems to have come to his senses. I thought I was going to have to move to Miami"
The fears of the elite of a Lula government have proved unfounded. Lula immediately sought to reassure the ruling class and imperialism that his government would be safe for them.
For the working class and oppressed the first year of Lula has meant disappointment and anger. Lula has carried out policies against the working class and acted as a capitalist government. The promise of 10 million new jobs within the first four years has been abandoned.
In the first twelve months unemployment rose by over 800,000 to 13% nationally. In the largest city Sao Paulo it has reached 20%. In Rio de Janeiro, 160,000 people applied for 1,000 job vacancies as rubbish collectors. The queue of applicants stretched for miles!
At the same time the standard of living of those in work has declined with the level of real wages falling by 15% during the first 12 months of Lula's government.
Class struggles
THE ATTACKS by the government have begun to provoke struggles by sections of the working class. The most significant of which was the strike of 600,000 federal employees whose bitter struggle against pension reform lasted more than one month. Other sectors such as the metal workers and 24,000 car workers from the ABC industrial belt around Sao Paulo have also been involved in struggles.
The scene is now set for major struggles against the introduction of university fees. Meanwhile, teachers in Sao Paulo are preparing an important wages campaign.
It is against this background that the 'Left Democratic Socialist Movement for a new party' has been launched by socialists, activists and trade unionists in Brazil. In December 2003, 7,000 activists, union leaders and intellectuals signed a petition concluding that a new socialist party is necessary and that it is no longer possible to fight for socialism inside the PT.
Lula still enjoys the support of over 60% in the recent polls. His working-class origins and the hope that things will change is still giving Lula a diminishing fund of goodwill to draw upon amongst a layer.
He is also trying to present more radical credentials on international questions - especially by linking up with the populist President of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, to make a limited challenge to US imperialism during the recent all-Americas trade negotiations.
However, Lula's support is declining with each new anti-working class measure announced by the government. Amongst the federal state employees and other layers of working there is already a burning anger at the betrayal of the PT government. Amongst these workers there is widespread support for the idea of forming a new party and the union leaders are supporting the new movement.
Prospects
THERE WILL be big opportunities for the new party to develop with the increasing opposition to the pro-capitalist policies of the Lula government. The next phase of the process of building the new party is to get nucleuses of it established at work places, universities and in the working class communities. Local assemblies are being organised in the states throughout Brazil. Local branches are beginning to be formed in offices, factories and at universities.
A national meeting of trade unions is also being planned. The 'Left Democratic Socialist Movement for a new party' has correctly agreed that the new party will be open to all who " ...reject being seduced by the palace privileges and who defend the independence of the working class in the face of the bourgeois... It is open to all those who are clear of the absolute incompatibility of satisfying the demands for social justice and the radicalisation of the democratic process within the limits of the capitalist system. It is open to all who define themselves as being 'left' and identify with socialism and democracy as a strategic, explicit and permanent objective."
The new party will be formed by activists who have broken from the PT or are not members of it. It will, however, also appeal to those on the left of the PT and PT voters to join it some of whom are waiting until after the local and regional elections before deciding what to do. There is the prospect of another wave of splits from the left of the PT during 2005 following regional and local elections in 2004.
The new party, when established, will be inclusive and the right for all tendencies and factions to openly operate within it is clearly established.
There are many obstacles still to be overcome. Achieving the necessary 500,000 signatures in order to legally register the party to be able to fight elections will be a big test. It will not be possible to do this before the local elections later this year for legal reasons. However, the first steps towards the launching of a new party represents an important step forward for the working class in Brazil and also has many important lessons for socialists internationally.
Socialismo Revolucionario, the Brazilian section of the CWI, is playing a significant role in helping to establish this new party and at the same time is fighting to win support for its own revolutionary socialist programme and polices.
Venezuela: Workers Struggle Against Reaction
ON A recent Miami television programme, a group of Venezuelan ex-military officers openly called for a US invasion to overthrow the twice-elected radical, nationalist government of President Hugo Chávez.
Alistair Tice
This reflects the increasing desperation of sections of the anti-Chávez opposition who have given up on constitutional change and are courting American military intervention.
Currently, the National Electoral Council is checking the signatures from the opposition petition drive for a referendum against Chávez. The opposition coalition, Democratic Co-ordinator, claimed they collected up to 3.8 million signatures in December (they need 2.4 million to force a recall referendum).
But a taped phone conversation between opposition figures has revealed that the US funded opposition organisation SUMATE, which provided logistical support during the petition drive, had counted only 1.9 million signatures.
Chávez has described it as a "mega-fraud" citing examples of petitions containing the names of people who were not registered, of people who voted two or more times, or were deceased!
Even before the referendum petition drive, other opposition leaders were calling for "civil rebellion" to oust Chávez. In another taped phone conversation, the fugitive ex-leader of the pro-bosses Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV), Carlos Ortega, (and a leading figure in the April 2002 right-wing coup attempt), was heard saying: "They are fucked... the government is going to fall... We are going to need about 10, 12 or 15 years of dictatorship to rescue the country, I have no problem with that."
Sabotage
THESE REVELATIONS expose the 'democratic' credentials of the Venezuelan elite who claim they want to remove Chávez because he is authoritarian and wants a "Castro-type" dictatorship. The truth is that the ruling oligarchy (the rich capitalist class) who have pillaged the country's oil wealth and monopolised political life for decades, despite their domination of the private media organisations, have not been able to undermine Chávez's support amongst the workers and poor.
Indeed, following the failure of the April 2002 right-wing coup and the ten-week bosses' strike and work lock-out from December 2002 to February 2003, support for Chávez has begun to increase again (now around 40% in the polls which is probably an underestimate).
The economy, which suffered a catastrophic collapse in 2002-03 due to the capitalists' sabotage, has begun to recover, albeit from a dire situation. GDP (annual productive wealth) is expected to rebound by 6.7% in 2004 and unemployment has fallen to 15% from 20% last January.
This mild economic recovery has come about as a result of the restoration of production at the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, and Chávez's programme of publicly funded reforms.
These include government spending on construction projects, aggressive support for small and medium sized businesses and social programmes for the poor, land distribution to peasants, deeds to urban slum-dwellers, degree sponsorship for several thousand high-school drop-outs, a literacy programme that has helped 1 million people to read and write in just 6 months, and the "Barrio Within" plan in which Cuban doctors have set up shop in slum areas to provide free basic healthcare attending 10 million cases.
All these have reinforced Chávez's support amongst large sections of workers (especially in the informal sector which accounts for 50%) and the poor in the barrios.
Zigzags
HOWEVER, Chávez, by his own admission, is not a socialist. He was initially elected with 80% support, including the middle-class, promising a Bolivarian revolution, a mix of nationalism and reforms. Without overthrowing capitalism, he has zigzagged between attacking the 'oligarchy' and compromise. This has driven the capitalists mad but also lost support amongst the middle-class and some more privileged workers, whilst the economic dislocation has hit the poor the hardest.
At the recent Summit of the Americas, he attacked the neo-liberal economic model, but upheld US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his 1930s New Deal as his alternative. He is also trying to promote with other 'radical' Latin American governments, a regional trading bloc as a counter-balance to the US inspired Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA).
Whilst Chávez may, especially if the recall referendum fails, be able to go much further in his reforms, ultimately these half-way house measures cannot solve the huge social problems of capitalist crisis-ridden Venezuela. The oligarchy may have to bide their time longer, but perhaps after US Presidential elections, they might try to oust Chávez again along the lines of Chile's president Allende's overthrow in 1973.
On two occasions, the workers and poor have come out in their millions to defeat the right. To an extent they are organised in 'Bolivarian Circles' (pro-Chávez semi-militias) and neighbourhood committees but these are not linked together to provide an alternative base of class power to that of the capitalist state.
What is needed is an independent workers' party to not only defeat reaction but also develop a class programme capable of leading the struggle for socialist change.
The first steps in that direction may have been taken as a result of the split away from the corrupt CTV. The UNT ("Unete") was founded last April bringing together 120 trade unions and 25 regional federations.
Although pro-Chávez, at their first national congress in August they adopted a more radical action programme, calling for nationalisation of the banks and cancellation of the external debt, nationalisation of failing enterprises, a shorter working week and elements of workers' control.
However, some important unions, especially the steelworkers from the south, have not yet joined with UNT, which so far represents only 12% of the workers in the formal sector of the economy. Links will also have to be made with the unorganised workers in the informal sector, as well as the urban poor and peasants.
The masses have shown repeatedly that they are the real power in the land. That needs to be consciously organised in democratic action committees at every level, laying the basis for a government of workers and the poor that can complete the reform process, creating a socialist Venezuela as a beacon to the rest of Latin America.
Audio version of this document
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.
Our demands include:
Public services
- No to ALL cuts in jobs, public services and benefits. Defend our pensions.
- No to privatisation and the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Renationalise all privatised utilities and services, with compensation paid only on the basis of proven need.
- Fully fund all services and run them under accountable, democratic committees that include representatives of service workers and users.
- Free, publicly run, good quality education, available to all at any age. Abolish university tuition fees now and introduce a living grant. No to academies and 'free schools'!
- A socialist NHS to provide for everyone's health needs - free at the point of use and under democratic control. Kick out private contractors!
- Keep council housing publicly owned. For a massive building programme of publicly owned housing, on an environmentally sustainable basis, to provide good quality homes with low rents.
Work and income
- Trade union struggle for an immediate increase in the minimum wage to £12 an hour without exemptions as a step towards a real living wage of at least £15 an hour. For an annual increase in the minimum wage linked to average earnings. Scrap zero hour contracts.
- All workers, including part-timers, temps, casual and migrant workers to have trade union rates of pay, employment protection, and sickness and holiday rights from day one of employment.
- An immediate 50% increase in the state retirement pension, as a step towards a living pension.
- Reject 'workfare'. For the right to decent benefits, education, training, or a job, without compulsion.
- Scrap the anti-trade union laws! For fighting trade unions, democratically controlled by their members. Full-time union officials to be regularly elected and receive no more than a worker's wage. Support the National Shop Stewards Network.
- A 35-hour week with no loss of pay.
Environment
- Major research and investment into replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and into ending the problems of early obsolescence and unrecycled waste.
- Public ownership of the energy generating industries. No to nuclear power. No to Trident.
- A democratically planned, low-fare, publicly-owned transport system, as part of an overall plan against environmental pollution.
Rights
- Oppose discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, disability, sexuality, age, and all other forms of prejudice.
- Repeal all laws that trample over civil liberties. For the right to protest! End police harassment.
- Defend abortion rights. For a woman's right to choose when and whether to have children.
- For the right to asylum. No to racist immigration laws.
- For the right to vote at 16.
Mass workers' party
- For a mass workers’ party drawing together workers, young people and activists from workplace, community, environmental, anti-racist and anti-cuts campaigns, to provide a fighting, political alternative to the pro-big business parties.
Socialism and internationalism
- No to imperialist wars and occupations.
- Tax the super-rich! For a socialist government to take into public ownership the top 150 companies and the banking system that dominate the British economy, and run them under democratic working-class control and management. Compensation to be paid only on the basis of proven need.
- A democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, and in a way that safeguards the environment.
- No to the bosses' neoliberal European Union and single market. For a socialist Europe and a socialist world!
Audio version of this document
To hear an audio version of this document click here.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/5630