November
2 reports from Seattle, Twin Cities, Tacoma, BostonTHE LAST week has been a nightmare for Blair. For the second time in 12 months he’s had to sack his best mate David Blunkett. Blair’s statement that he left office “without a stain on his character” left most people thoroughly unconvinced.
A few days later Blair, with a majority of over 60 seats in parliament, only managed to scrape through an important part of his terrorism bill by one vote, before suffering one of the biggest defeats for a serving prime minister since 1945. It’s clear that he is only hanging on to power by his finger nails.
Blair is now primarily obsessed with what history will say about him once he goes. But he will mainly be remembered for the destruction of much of the public sector and his foreign ‘adventures’ in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The bookies have reduced the odds on Blair going this year and that is where the ‘smart money’ seems to be. But who will replace him? Blair would probably prefer would-be Tory leader David Cameron who has been praising his public sector ‘reforms’.
But millions of workers are hoping against hope that if Brown replaces Blair then things might at last change. But unfortunately it will be more a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee politics with no fundamental change in policies.
To bring about a change in direction requires not a change at the top of the Labour Party or government but a completely different party that will represent the aspirations of working people.
The working class’s voice in the Labour Party has long ago been drowned out by the raucous din of the fat cats as they bay for policies that will increase their profits and drive down the living standards of working-class people.
The Socialist Party therefore welcomes the decision by the rail union RMT to organise a conference early in the New Year to “discuss the crisis of political representation for the working-class”.
We believe that this crisis can only be resolved by the creation of a trade union-based new mass workers’ party, and this weekend at Socialism 2005 we will be launching a campaign for such a party to be established, including gathering support for a representative conference in the spring, which could build on the RMT’s initiative.
What we think
"IN OFFICE but not in power, a lame duck prime minister," jeered Tory leader Michael Howard at Tony Blair (a case of the 'dead duck' denouncing the 'lame duck'!).
His pretext for this was the second ejection of David Blunkett from the government, this time leaving the Department of Work and Pensions. He tried once more to desperately cling to a minister's influence: a salary in telephone numbers, the plush ministerial limousines and rubbing shoulders with the rich London glitterati.
However, the stench arising from his recent acquisition of shares in a DNA company was too much even for the remote and disconnected New Labour MPs.
The real scandal is not just that Blunkett kept the details of his financial skulduggery from a parliamentary committee but that he engaged in it in the first place, which if it had remained undetected would have resulted in his shares appreciating to a figure variously estimated between £250,000 and £500,000!
Moreover, it is just one of the many examples of the sleazy, get-rich quick mentality which governs the outlook of New Labour's luminaries, beginning with Blair himself and his £1.6 million mansion acquired for his 'retirement'.
Many Labour leaders, from Ramsay MacDonald onwards, have rubbed shoulders with rich socialites.
They have had one foot in the camp of big business and have financially benefited from this, while purporting to represent working-class people. But never before have alleged 'Labour' leaders flaunted their acquired wealth like this New Labour gang.
They act in the same brazen manner as their rich benefactors; Blunkett not only dabbled in shares, he also accepted free membership of Annabel's night club in Berkeley Square!
Howard's jibe at Blair - first used by Norman Lamont against Tory Prime Minister John Major - was wide of the mark in one respect.
No government - particularly a Labour government - has real power which is concentrated in the levers of economic ownership and control of industry and the economy by the capitalists. Governments are made, if they obey the market, or broken if they don't, by this power.
In the case of the Blair government, it has been more subservient to the bosses than any other nominal 'Labour' government in history. It is an unalloyed big business government with not a scintilla of 'socialism' in the outlook of Blair.
On Iraq, on the latest proposals on academy schools - where the door has been opened to ownership by big business or religious zealots - on invalidity benefit, where he proposed to Blunkett that £20 a week should be slashed from claimants (40% of whom have mental health problems) Blair received the approval of the Tories.
If Cameron succeeds in his Tory leadership bid, the political choice for the time being for the British people will be between Tony Blair and 'Tory Blair'.
To all intents and purposes this government is an undeclared 'national government' with Blair unable to fully rely 'on his own side' in parliamentary votes.
His formal majority of 66 did not prevent a near defeat with a majority of just one on a clause in the so-called 'terror' bill. On this occasion, not only was his own side against but so is a body of the establishment, including the judges who considered the measure unworkable and counterproductive.
The same goes for Clarke's proposal to intern suspected terrorists without trial for 90 days. Incredibly, these police state-type measures were supported by Clarke on the grounds that they must be right because the police wanted these powers. It indicates how much the Blairites are in the pockets of the unelected police chiefs.
But Howard was correct in one sense: Blair has seen his authority drain away and has lost a stable majority in his cabinet. He is forced to rely on people like Hazel Blears (outside the Cabinet), a Blairite android, and John Hutton, newly appointed in Blunkett's place to carry out his dirty work. One ex-minister, Hutton's 'colleague' in the Parliamentary Labour Party, commented to the Financial Times: "I don't think [Hutton] has ever had an original thought of his own."
Blair's government has the unmistakeable odour of the 'last days of the Reich', with only a cabal in the Downing Street bunker now supporting him. So terrified are Labour MPs at the prospect of electoral wipe-out that many of them are in a mutinous mood, ready to kick Blair's proposals into the long grass.
The education white paper, the slashing of invalidity benefit, the meltdown and further privatisation of the NHS could all be partially defeated or withdrawn. There is even the suggestion that the equivalent of the Tories' 'men in grey suits' (the 1922 Committee), made up of trade union leaders and MPs, could approach Blair to ask him to 'take an early bath'.
However, dictators - even elected ones - sometimes have a penchant for clinging on to power when the basis for it has evaporated.
Blair wants to further savage public services in the interests of the privileged and wealthy, to privatise more industries and to stubbornly resist calls for the lifting of the ban on secondary trade union action imposed by Thatcher. This is his 'legacy', to do further major service to those he represents, big business. Any number of political scenarios are therefore possible.
The double whammy of Blunkett's resignation and near defeat on the terror bill could be the 'tipping point' for his early demise, precipitated by a majority against him in the Commons. However, he has stated that he will not go for a confidence vote if the '90-day' proposal is defeated.
He could stagger on, inflicting further savage attacks on the majority of working-class people. Only one thing is certain: he will vacate the political arena at a certain stage and probably be replaced by Brown.
But the hope that the chancellor will ride to the rescue is completely misplaced. 'Mr PFI' (Private Finance Initiative) is wedded fundamentally to Blair's New Labour project, of which he was an original co-author.
Steve Richards, political correspondent of The Independent, informs us that, at a cabinet meeting following Blunkett's resignation, Brown denounced the 'forces of conservatism', those opposed to public sector 'reform' (read further privatisation). He also opposed 'generous' increases in public sector pay.
And, as we show elsewhere, the wheels are coming off Brown's economic chariot as a gaping hole in the budget exists, which can only be plugged by savage cuts in public expenditure, by tax increases impacting primarily on working-class people or a mixture of both.
He set his face against the lifting of the ban on secondary action at the TUC. He will not support further 'democratisation' of the Labour Party.
Tony Benn, in a Guardian article, said of Blair: "His real legacy could be the destruction of the Labour Party itself, for that could well be how history will see it." He is right, but his argument applies equally to Brown.
To look for solutions within this discredited, capitalist party is futile. It is therefore urgent to take action to create now the basis for a new mass workers' party.
The RMT conference in early 2006 should be supported by all those who want to see a new optimistic road open up for the labour movement and the working class.
Together with the conference that the Socialist Party hopes to initiate in March next year, this could be a turning point in the political fightback that could provide an invaluable political weapon for the working class.
The UN brings together 191 countries in allegedly shared aims: ‘to maintain international security, to develop friendly relations between nations, to co-operate in solving problems and promote human rights’.
In June 1945 representatives of 50 countries met to draw up a United Nations charter. The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, with 51 member states.
The major powers wanted a controlled form of international co-operation in order to ensure their world dominance, while at the same time avoiding the scale of destruction of property, wealth and lives brought about by world wars.
The ill-starred forerunner of the UN was the League of Nations, established in 1919, which failed to prevent World War Two.
Many people, including those on the left such as Tony Benn, see the UN as an independent body rising above the interests of different nations. Some raised, for example, a UN intervention as an alternative to US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Although, in the early years, the UN forums were dominated by the ‘cold war’ clash of interests between the Soviet Union and the United States, from its inception the UN has been a tool of imperialism. The right to own, trade and dispose of property (ie capital) freely is actually enshrined in the charter on human rights.
Capitalism was restored in the Soviet Union 15 years ago and China is now increasingly a capitalist system.
The UN is now dominated by the only world superpower, the United States, and thus also by the interests of the multinational companies that it represents. The US will use the UN where useful and ignore it where necessary. Where the UN frustrates the US, for example voting against war in Iraq, they simply circumvent it.
There have been more wars in the world since the founding of the UN than ever in previous history. Most parts of the world have been riven by war – Africa, the Middle East, Asia and even Europe (former Yugoslavia).
The UN’s weakness is illustrated by the fact that it has passed more than 50 resolutions against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and yet the US veto on the security council means they are never acted on. Secretary-general Kofi Annan was awarded the Nobel peace prize just before 9/11. Since then, the UN has failed to prevent war on Afghanistan and Iraq.
The UN is currently engaged in 15 peace-keeping operations around the world. But it is famous for disastrous operations, such as in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, where thousands were slaughtered while UN peace-keeping troops stood by.
A commitment to human rights was essential following the atrocities of World War Two. The Declaration on human rights (1948) enshrines the right to life, liberty, and freedom of movement, freedom of opinion and expression, and so on. It forbids torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. It upholds the “inherent right of all people to enjoy and utilise fully and freely their natural wealth and resources.”
Yet half the world’s 6 billion population are poor, and over one billion live on less than $1 a day. There are around 15 million refugees and a further 20 million “displaced persons” (refugees within their own country). Freedom of movement is denied the hundreds of thousands of people deported from countries all over the world.
According to The Independent, there is barely any part of the world where there is not extreme abuse of human rights, from mistreatment by the police to extra-judicial executions.
US torture and inhuman treatment at Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay have been exposed. Recently it has been shown how the CIA kidnaps ‘terrorist’ suspects and sends them to countries like Syria and Egypt to be tortured. And yet the US simply refuses to agree to an International Court and so avoids any action against it.
The Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), like many other pious UN ‘declarations’, stands against the abuse and exploitation of children and for resources to be devoted to the education and welfare.
Yet 80% of the world’s refugees and displaced people are women and children. There are 300,000 child prostitutes in the US alone – the richest country in the world. There are around 300,000 child soldiers, a third of whom are in Africa.
The UN claims that humanitarian relief is one of its major functions. Just this year shows what a sham that is!
A new UN emergency fund was established this summer to respond to natural disasters. A total was envisaged of £280 million a year. But just days after this fund was agreed, 1,000s were killed or made homeless by the failures of the US government to prepare for or respond to Hurricane Katrina. This new approach has now been put to the test in the earthquake in Pakistan and Kashmir, where the death toll is higher than necessary because of the appalling rescue and relief effort. Only £90 million has been pledged of the £320 million the UN says is needed.
Essentially the UN is a capitalist institution. No matter the protestations of the smaller powers who try to assert their authority, the success or failure of the UN depends on the interests of the major imperialist powers and the greedy multinational companies they represent.
This is shown by the weaknesses of overtly benevolent organisations such as the World Health Organisation, part of the UN, whose programmes include the provision of essential drugs. It has failed to fight the profit-seeking greed of the multinational drug companies when it comes to providing drugs to the 40 million people in the world living with HIV and AIDS.
The UN’s ‘autonomous organisations’ also include the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), both of which are directly responsible for a third of the debts of the world’s poorest countries, and insist on economic programmes which have led to large-scale privatisation, slashing of public spending and the enforced opening up of markets to multinational vultures.
And the UN is not immune from the methods of capitalism’s underbelly as the recent scandal involving the UNs Oil-for-Food Programme to Iraq shows. More than 2,200 companies were involved in the programme who illegally paid $1.8 billion to Saddam Hussein’s regime in kickbacks. Now there are new allegations of malpractice in the awarding of UN contracts relating to the company Compass.
In September, leaders of 150 countries took part in a summit to mark 60 years. The summit was originally called to measure progress on the ‘millennium goals’, the pledges made five years ago to tackle world poverty. But instead the main issues were the so-called war on terror and the rejection of attempts by smaller powers to expand membership of the UN security council.
The leaders of India and South Africa called for reform of the UN Security Council to address “the gross imbalance of power”. South African president Thabo Mbeki criticised “rich and powerful nations” for blocking reform. But therein lies the rub. The “rich and powerful nations” – essentially the US backed up by Britain and the rest – have no intention of losing their grip.
Voices were raised in protest at the failures on such fundamental issues as world poverty, nuclear weapons and the environment. But in fact goals on all these issues were watered down. It was only after hard lobbying that the US agreed that the millennium development goals would even be mentioned in the final declaration.
Nonetheless, the UN proclaims that it is “working to make the world a better place”. Kofi Annan calls for reform of the UN and says: “The lives of millions and the hopes of billions rest upon leaders’ pledges to fight poverty, disease and inequality”.
But these hopes won’t be addressed by reforming the UN. Capitalist interests inevitably mean the exploitation of billions for the profits of the few. The breakdown of ‘friendly relations’ and their replacement by trade wars or real wars is equally inevitable in the pursuit of profit, power and prestige.
The “lives of millions and the hopes of billions” can only ever really be solved when those millions and billions take their destinies into their own hands.
Socialists are in favour of international co-operation – the sharing of resources, technology and expertise on a scale inconceivable under this present system. This is impossible unless the world’s wealth and resources are owned and controlled democratically by the majority in society.
On that basis we can truly unite nations in the pursuit of security, freedom and the full enjoyment life for all.
NOT YET but we may be heading for one. Recent headline stories such as the prospect of a three-day week for industry due to energy shortages this winter, a downturn in the retail sector and the high price of oil all point to trouble in the economy. In fact some sectors of the economy such as manufacturing are already in recession and economic conditions in some regions are worse than others.
The Economist recently compared two speeches made by Bank of England governor Mervyn King: “In his first speech after becoming governor … in 2003, Mervyn King dubbed the period since 1992 as the nice – non-inflationary consistently expansionary – decade. In a speech on 11 October, he said it was unlikely that the next ten years would be so pleasant.”
Economic growth has slowed to 1.5% – the lowest since the recession of the early nineties and inflation is rising. The main reasons cited in the press’s financial pages are high oil prices, weak demand in the Euro countries, the slowdown in the housing market and a fall in consumer spending. But there are also other deep underlying problems for the British economy.
There are regional differences within the economy. Areas within Scotland, Wales and the north were actually in recession during the first Labour government according to recent OECD figures and the London economy has slowed sharply since the beginning of 2005 resulting in its slowest growth rate for over two years.
Nevertheless, the economy as a whole could slide into recession especially if problems in the US and world economy escalate.
ACCORDING TO Gordon Brown – yes. He’s desperate to blame bad economic figures on circumstances in the global market, not on his handling of the economy. It’s true that the price of oil - the highest in real terms for 25 years – is increasing the cost of production and distribution as well as eating into consumers’ spending power.
The rapid increase in oil costs is mainly attributable to world events (the Iraq war, surging demand, falling supply, the US hurricanes and a lack of investment).
However there are underlying problems with Britain’s economy, some dating back many years. The continued shrinking of manufacturing industry, record trade deficits, low productivity, lack of adequate investment and the credit/spending boom are just some.
THE CONSUMER boom was financed by credit. In effect we were encouraged to take out loans and run up credit card debts to buy consumer goods; many homeowners took out large loans based on the inflated value of their homes. Household debts, including mortgages, now total over £1 trillion.
Now house price growth has fallen and consumers worry about their huge debts, many are trying to pay off their debts or save money. The increase in utility bills is yet another reason why people are spending less. Credit really means spending tomorrow’s wages for today’s consumables.
As Marx explained, workers cannot collectively buy everything they produce. Under capitalism a worker only receives part of the wealth they create, the rest being profit for the boss.
This is one of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. The bosses try to overcome this by ploughing back the surplus into industry but cannot overcome these contradictions.
Saving is on the increase, credit card repayments are up and borrowing down. The ‘savings ratio’ (ie the proportion of your earnings after tax that isn’t spent) has increased from 4.1% at the end of 2004 to 5% now. Inevitably there is always a limit to how much people can borrow before deciding it’s time to try to pay off some of their debts.
THIS YEAR has seen the expected slowdown in the housing market with prices remaining stagnant during 2005. House prices doubled between 1999 and 2004 encouraging homeowners to borrow money which was secured against the increasing value of their property. This fed into extra consumer spending.
However, increased monthly mortgage payments (caused by higher interest rates) and the slowdown in the housing market forced homeowners to reduce their spending. Increasing numbers find it impossible to buy their own home – almost one in four first-time buyers has to borrow money from family or friends to pay for the deposit. An average first-time buyer now needs a deposit of £17,000 (up from £5,000 in 1996).
House-building rates have dropped by more than 50% over last 30 years, so demand will continue to outpace supply which could keep prices higher. Nevertheless, a crash in the housing market is not ruled out as house prices are still overvalued so the housing market may not get away with just a slowdown. Even the recent very small rise in house prices is unlikely to persuade many homeowners to resume their spending habits.
BASICALLY, THAT’S to encourage us to spend more! Consumer spending facilitated by rising house prices has accounted for two-thirds of the economy and has been a major contributing factor to the ten-year upswing in the economy.
Retail growth, having outstripped economic growth in past years, is now coming to an end. A CBI survey shows sales volumes falling at their fastest rate for 22 years - September was the seventh successive month of falling sales. Retail sectors worst hit are those linked to buying homes such as furniture, carpets and white goods.
A Financial Times editorial (21.10.05) said retailers will have to “restructure in response to ….more normal levels of consumption”. So the consumer boom years are over. Shop workers will have to pay the price while the bosses bunker down with their profits till better times.
Stores are already closing, workers being sacked and conditions being attacked. Kingfisher (which includes B&Q) are cutting jobs and closing stores, MFI has given a profit warning and some major retailers like Alders and Allsports have already collapsed.
Morrison’s, who acquired Safeway last year for £3.35 billion, have given five profit warnings in the last 18 months. Although stores will close and workers will lose their jobs Sir Ken Morrison describes the company’s misfortunes as just ‘a learning process’. The bosses may moan about low sales and lower profits but, unlike their workforce, their income and conditions in most cases will not suffer.
RISING INFLATION is usually associated with an overheated economy and not a slowdown in growth. If this continues then the economy could be moving into a period of ‘stagflation’. Inflation is a general rise in prices and the Bank of England’s remit is to keep it at 2%. Inflation has been fairly low for the past period but prices are now certainly going up. Inflation is now overshooting the 2% target, rising from 1.1% last year to 2.5% now.
The level of output is close to capacity which limits supply and can lead to more price increases of goods. Globalisation has tended to keep inflation low with cheap immigrant labour, cheap imports and outsourcing jobs to low-wage economies. A big impact on the British economy has been the so-called ‘China shock’. This refers to the huge demand from China for energy, a factor in the oil price rising and staying high. At the same time cheap imports from China have kept inflation low.
It does cross the bosses’ minds that workers might insist on higher wages as higher-priced goods reduce our real income. However, they comfort themselves with the belief that the unions are weak and emasculated by the anti-trade union laws brought in by Thatcher and continued under Blair. They are even complaining about the increase in the minimum wage by 20p an hour!
Of course if workers’ spending power continues to decline then they will buy less goods and the economy will slow down even further.
YES AND it’s getting worse. If manufacturing industry keeps declining at its current rate it will disappear in Britain by 2029! Manufacturing growth is down 1.7% this year and according to Michael Harrison (The Independent) is in ‘technical recession’. 50,000 more skilled engineering jobs will go this year. Scottish Power have announced that 450 UK jobs will go following the disposal of US electricity company Pacific Corp.
The Office of National Statistics (ONS) showed last month that factory gate prices rose above expectations mostly due to the 17.4% rise in the cost of petroleum products between August and September. So manufacturing industry cannot make up for the slowdown in the retail sector.
Britain’s spare energy capacity is critically low as North Sea Gas and Oil supplies are drying up and there are not enough storage tanks. In fact there are only eleven days of spare gas capacity which could mean power cuts if predictions of a cold winter are true.
Any recovery in manufacturing is highly dependent on exporting to other countries but problems exist within the world economy too. The US economy which has been the motor for world growth has its own problems; their economy is still dependent on consumer debt and is also experiencing over-capacity and declining profitability. Worsening problems for the world’s largest economy could trigger a worldwide recession. That would have a huge impact on Britain’s economy.
PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES how much is produced by each worker in relation to how much the capitalist spends on production. Labour is usually more productive if the capitalist invests in modern, efficient machinery. Despite boasts from big business and Labour that Britain’s ‘flexible markets’ (read low wages and worse working conditions) have pushed the economy above its rivals, the GDP per capita of the UK is not much better than the other OECD countries.
The OECD has pointed to low productivity in Britain as a key reason for the downturn in the economy which grew at its slowest rate for 14 years in the second quarter of 2005. The main problems are the lack of investment in transport infrastructure, insufficient skilled workers and not investing enough on research and developing new products.
Big business has accrued profits by cutting labour costs and not investing, now the chickens are coming home to roost. So, as Blair and Brown lecture Europe on the benefits of more flexible labour markets they cannot boast about improvements in UK productivity.
However, capitalism will continue to force countries with high productivity to cut costs in order to compete in the global market.
MERVYN KING, Governor of the Bank of England, recently announced that: “The business cycle has not been abolished, although monetary policy can affect its amplitude.” To try to counteract the slowdown in the housing market and worried about signs of economic slowdown in general, the Bank of England cut interest rates in August for the first time for two years - they have remained at 4.5% for the past few months. This followed five interest rate rises between November 2003 and August 2004.
The capitalists wanted to cool the housing boom but they are divided on whether interest rates should go up or down. Interest rate cuts would make borrowing cheaper and could encourage consumers to spend more as well as helping manufacturing industry and boosting Brown’s public purse, which has been emptying out. The British Chamber of Commerce wants another cut, describing manufacturing conditions as ‘disturbing and alarming.’
However, rising inflation makes borrowing and investment for businesses and consumers more unpredictable which impacts on production and spending. This could persuade the Bank of England to increase interest rates. Either way they cannot fundamentally affect the underlying problems of the economy.
THIS REFERS to Brown’s joke about past chancellors – …‘those who fail and those who get out in time’ but Brown’s problem is that the job at No.10 has not yet become vacant. After years of boasting that the British economy had been unshackled from boom and bust cycles and defying the problems hitting other economies, the economic facts prove otherwise.
Brown now admits that growth is slower than the 3% to 3.5% predicted in the budget. GDP (gross domestic product) growth in 2005 will be just 1.6%. The OECD has confirmed a £10 billion hole in the public finances and chastises Brown for not building up a surplus when government income was healthier. This would only have been possible by Brown cutting back public spending.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) recently showed that Brown fiddled the figures to make the public finances appear healthier. In order to reduce government debt figures it was decided that, when private companies borrow money under the private finance initiative (PFI), this is not government debt. This accounts for £24 billion.
Then again Network Rail’s bailout wasn’t included in government spending by classifying Network Rail as a private company. Moving Family Credit from the benefit system to taxation also reduced government expenditure as it became a ‘negative tax’, not a state payment as previously.
Brown also invented new rules which limited borrowing over the whole ‘economic cycle’. When borrowing reached his limits he simply moved the goalposts by shifting the start date of the latest economic cycle by two years. During the first half of 2005/06 public-sector net borrowing rose to £22.9 billion.
The OECD, IMF and European commission all question Brown’s arithmetic and some claim that Brown distorted the figures to avoid tax rises before the election. Brown’s only options are to increase borrowing, raise taxes or cut spending or a combination of them all. The OECD advises Brown that to close the gap there must be less spending on the NHS.
Stephen Lewis of Monument Securities cruelly reflects that: “In retrospect, the Brown ‘economic miracle’ is likely to appear to have been little more than a housing bubble”.
MOST OF course cope very well as they cut labour costs rather than reduce their profits.
Roche, the Swiss pharmaceutical company, are profiting from increased rates of cancer and the bird flu threat as they predict that the full year sales of tamiflu should reach Sfr1-2 billion.
Bosses here are furious about the recent pensions deal as they are demanding to pay less in taxes. Ruth Lea of the Thatcherite Centre for Policy Studies argues that business taxes are too high and there is too much business legislation especially “since the floodgates opened on spending in 2000.”
Yet, privatised gas and electricity providers chastise the government for not spending enough public money on building new storage plants.
Some companies don’t need lower taxes - they barely pay any! Take British American Tobacco, a UK-listed cigarette company who made £9 billion profit in the last five years and at the same time paid only £13 million in Corporation Tax. That’s a tax rate of less than 2%!
Digby Jones of the CBI complains of unfair competition compared to France and Germany where there are price caps on fuel. Bankers and traders look forward to big bonuses this Christmas - some at Goldmans Sachs will get bonuses of £5 or £10 million - the average for the City is $420,000.
ORDINARY WORKING-class people always end up paying the largest price when the economy slows down. BAA employees have just been told that 700 airport jobs will have to go, even though profits for the first half of this year are £366 million.
The very mechanisms within capitalism create never-ending booms and slumps. The capitalist economy cannot provide jobs and decent conditions for everyone in a period of upswing but it reveals all its contradictions and inadequacies when the economy slows.
The production of food, energy, medicine and other goods cannot be left in the hands of those that produce for profit and not the needs of humanity. A socialist economy would democratically plan the production and distribution of goods and services to meet the needs of all without destroying our environment.
Those who create the massive wealth in the economy, the working class, will need to struggle against the bosses and this government to defend and improve their conditions and fight for a socialist society.
November
2 reports from Seattle, Twin Cities, Tacoma, Boston
(Pictures selected at random from sources credited in this article)
On November 2nd thousands of students from across the country walked out of class and onto the streets to protest Bush's war in Iraq and military recruitment in their schools.
In August the call went out from Youth Against War and Racism chapters across the country to mobilize for student walkouts and protests on November 2nd. We wanted to mark the anniversary of Bush's reelection with protests demanding an immediate end to the war in Iraq, an end to military recruitment in our schools, and money for education and jobs, not war.
Last summer YAWR existed in just a few schools in four cities – Seattle, Tacoma, Boston, and the Twin Cities. But students and anti-war groups in at least a dozen cities and six states answered YAWR's call to action on November 2nd.
Reports from across the country indicate extremely lively and inspired protests of mainly high school students, many of whom were participating in their first demonstration. More than ordinary anti-war protests, the student walkouts seem to have made an especially strong political impact, bringing new youth into action and shaking up local schools and communities. The excellent media coverage in many areas gives an indication of the impact YAWR has made.
Below are summarized accounts taken from the reports several areas have sent in about their actions.
At
10:30 AM on November 2nd students from over 40 area high schools, middle
schools, and colleges walked out of class. By 12:30 AM upwards of 2000
youth had gathered at the University of Minnesota for a lively and
radical rally, exceeding the expectations of the organizers (Socialist
Alternative, Anti-War Organizing League, and Youth Against War and
Racism).
High school speakers led off the demonstration, recounting the growing crisis in public education and the need to redirect war money to education, and demanding an end to military recruitment in their schools. Other speakers included a representative from the U of M clerical workers, the Coalition for Equal Access to Education, Socialist Alternative, AWOL, and others.
A lively march followed, winding through campus, taking over streets, and culminating in a combative rally in front of a military recruitment station, blocking the nearby major intersection for 30 minutes of spirited chants. Despite the lack of a permit for taking the streets, the police stood aside the entire march.
The walkout was the top story on all TV and radio news that evening, and was at the top of the local sections of newspapers the next day.
Media and pictures
http://www.kare11.com/player.aspx?aid=19994&bw=
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5704363.html
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/aloespejel/album?. dir=/b24b&.src=ph&.tok=phJBA4DBk4v_2jy1
On the anniversary of Bush's "re-election," over 1,000 students walked out from about 50 Seattle-area schools and took to the streets to protest the Iraq war and military recruiters in our schools. After walking out of school, wave after wave of students and young people poured into Westlake center from across the Puget Sound.
Carrie
Hathorn kicked off the rally with an enthusiastic round of school
shout-outs -- a call and response between Carrie shouting out schools
and each school roaring back. Next the Blue Scholars took the stage and
rocked the mic with political hip hop grooves. High school speakers,
spoken word, and endorsing organization representatives spoke
Our youthful energy was unstoppable as we marched from Westlake to the Capitol Hill Arts Center (CHAC). We filled nearly three street blocks waving signs and chanting against military recruiters in our schools and against Bush' war. Once we reached the CHAC some students spontaneously sat down in the street. Fortunately, no arrests were made during the march or at our final destination.
Our walkout got a ton of media coverage that will inspire others to get involved in the antiwar movement and join Youth Against War and Racism. We made the front page of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Seattle Times local section.
Check out some pictures here:
http://www.internetking.com.mx/youth-anti-war-protest/
Students from over a dozen high schools and colleges in the Boston area walked out and joined a citywide protest against the war and military recruitment on Boston Common. Over 250 students gathered on the Common to hear youth speakers, many speaking before a crowd for their first time. The response to the call for walkouts was tremendous. Over 200 students alone walked out at Quincy High School, and 75 at the Academy of the Pacific Rim. Students came from the suburbs as well, and from as far away as New Hampshire.
The
event was really inspiring. The crowd was almost entirely
young people. For many students it was their first or second protest
ever. Much of the crowd was high school students, who had
heard about the walkout through our leafletting or banner tour, at
October 29th, or even some who had seen our stickers in the T and went
to the YAWR website. The rally was a really good time, with spoken word
by Optimus from the Foundation and this guy from Audible Mainframe
(which was great!).
It was really awesome because many people felt free to come up and speak their mind, and did an excellent job. There was also a really energetic march from the Common to the military recruiting station across the street, to the State House, and back to the bandstand on the Common.
The most urgent task now is to organize a solidarity campaign with all those students who face disciplinary action. There are many students who are facing suspension.
With Fort Lewis position next door, Tacoma is a military town without
a strong anti-war tradition in recent years. On November 2nd the first
student organized anti-war 
protest
since the Vietnam era brought 100 people into the streets to protest the
Tacoma Mall military recruitment station.
A right-wing talk radio station called for a counter-demonstration and managed to mobilize 30 pro-war groupies who came to squelch the demonstration, but managed to do little more than wave flags and come up with a clever chant--USA, USA, USA, USA....
The students were undaunted and replied with a chant of their own: Support the Troops, Bring Them Home NOW!!!
Although this was a first protest for Youth Against War and Racism (YAWR) in Tacoma, this was a spirited contingent of youth that grew in confidence as the demo went on. More chants came forth and were enthusiastically taken up by the protesters.
After 45 minutes, it was time to march. A contingent of students left the pro-war Ra-Ra squad standing in the rain. Passing drivers frequently honked in support and gave the thumbs up sign. This response accurately reflected an American public that is mostly against the war. But it took the youth of Tacoma to break the silence of conformity and vigorously make this anti-war sentiment publicly visible.
The students--now "accompanied" by police--marched back to the Mall and a new chant went out as we moved through the strip malls--While You're Shopping, Bombs are Dropping! Heads turned to hear what Tacoma's youth of today had to say. After that rebuke to America's complacency, the youth returned the central focus--1,2,3,4, We Don't Want Your Racist War!
The demo didn't end with a defeated whimper, as do many of a tired peace movement, but with a roar. Tacoma's youth has found its voice.
Tacoma News Tribune story with good picture
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/ 5304174p-4809122c.html
Days of riots across France have profoundly shaken the French establishment and the political elite. An outpouring of unstoppable rage has crisscrossed France for eleven days in a row, in the course of which cars, police stations and banks were set on fire in poor districts in cities and towns.
Last weekend, Jacques Chirac, the French President, called for the restoration of public order. His call, like other appeals from the political establishment, seems to have had no calming effect, whatsoever. Since 27 October, 34 police men have been injured, almost 4700 vehicles destroyed and 1,200 people arrested.
The French and international media have paid a lot of attention to the developments in France. Unfortunately, most of these outlets play a role, conscious or unconscious, in obscuring the facts that initiated the outbreak of violence.
There is conclusive evidence that the police are directly responsible for the deaths of two teenagers in Clichy-sous-Bois. The police hunted down three teenagers when they ran away from a police identity check on the night of 27 October. In a desperate bid to escape the police, the three teenagers, Muttin, Bouna and Zyed, climbed over the wall of an electricity sub-station. Two of them, Bouna Traore and Zyed Benna, got stuck in the generator. Only Muttin got out, but suffering severe burns on one side of his body. Later that evening, when he and other locals went back to the power station, they found the other two teenagers dead.
Police checks are a daily occurance in the poorest districts of the greater French cities, and are part of an ongoing campaign of intimidation, often accompanied with racism, by the special police forces, the CRS. Ali Meziane, a local councillor in Clichy-sous-Bois, recently commented on the three teenagers deaths, "You have to ask the question, why the police hunted them down, driving them into a wall. And the police never contacted EDF [the electricity company] to inform them of what had happened".
On the morning after the death of the two youths, the French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, a rival of the present Prime Minister Villepin in the race to become the candidate for the right wing in the 2007 presidential elections, declared that the teenagers were fleeing because they were involved in a burglary and that the police could not be held responsible. Even when it became clear that the three youths had nothing to do with a burglary the Interior Minister refused to withdraw his comments.
The deaths sparked a day of rioting in Clichy, which was followed by several more days of violence in the area. When the CRS the riot police went into another borough of Clichy, on Sunday 30 October, they succeed in starting violence in an area previously untouched by the riots. The CRS fired tear gas canisters in the direction of the mosque, when prayers were taking place, and one of the canisters exploded inside the mosque.
Over the past week, riots spread from the outskirts of Paris to other cities, such as Lille, Evreux, Rouen, Strasbourg, Rennes, Nantes, Toulouse, Marseille, Cannes and Nice. In total, 300 cities have been hit by rioting. These different areas all have poorer boroughs like Clichy-sous-Bois. These are modern-day ghettos, where half of the inhabitants are under 20 years old, unemployment is above 40%, and identity checks and police harassment occur daily. These are places in which the poorest ‘subjects of the Republic’ are crowded into ghettos and suffer unemployment, racism, poverty, and dependence on government grants and family benefits. The authorities try to hold the residents of these areas in check by the strong arm of the police.
While big companies in France, as elsewhere in Europe, have announced record profits over the last few years, the working people and poor of France have paid for it with greater work ‘flexibility’, cuts in public services and more unemployment. Official unemployment stands at over 10%, youth unemployment (under 25 years) stands at 23%, and for French-born young people of Arab descent the figure is at least 27%. Is it any wonder one of the rioters in Aulnay-sous-Bois recently said to journalists, "Jobs? There are a few at the airport and at the Citroën plant, but it’s not even worth trying if your name is Mohammed or Abdelaoui"
Generally speaking, the young people involved in the riots have not expressed a clear set of political demands. That does not mean that there the riots have no political character. From the beginning of the street fighting, one of the most common sentiments made in all the cities affected is that the arch-right wing Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, must immediately resign. Sarkozy is the most verbal representative of the neo-liberal right wing in France. He likes to grandstand on ‘law and order’. His comments over the last days included calling the rioters "vermin" and "scum", blaming the violence on "agent provocateurs", and claiming the riots are organised by "drug barons", or "Islamist radicals". Two days before the riots started, on October 25, Sarkozy called for "crime ridden neighbourhoods to be cleaned out with Kärcher" - a high powered industrial hose - and described youths who protested against his visit to the Parisian suburb of Argenteuil as "gangrene" and "rabble". Sarkozy tries to promote the image that a coming together of ‘out of control youth’, ‘criminal elements’ and ‘Islamists’ have taken over the poorest suburbs.
Some of these sentiments are echoed by the right wing press in European countries like Britain. Jumping on the ‘war against terror’ bandwagon, the media use what is happened in France to further their unending attempts to sponsor prejudice against Muslims and to promote racism, by suggesting that what is taking place in France is in some way connected with Al Qeada terrorism.
Although a very high number of people living in the poorest French neighbourhoods are from Arab, African or Caribbean descent, this does not mean events in France can be reduced to riots fuelled by ethnic or religious divisions. Indeed, on the estates, amongst the disaffected youth, there is a great feeling of unity against the police and the political bosses of the police. These youth react against being treated like second class citizens, being constant victims of state and every day racism, and see no future for themselves.
The division between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ in French society is very deep. When Gérard Gaudron, the right wing mayor of Aulnay-sous-Bois, organised a local march to appeal for calm, he succeeded in driving a wedge between the inhabitants of the more affluent neighbourhoods and those who live in the poor boroughs, by blaring out the ‘Marseillaise’, the French national anthem, through speakers, at the start of the demonstration. The inhabitants of the poorer neighbourhoods, among them many immigrants or people descended from immigrants, regarded the mayor’s actions, correctly, as an insult. "This sends [out] the message that all the rioters are immigrants", said Ben Amar, a local resident, adding "Who has built the metro, who has dug the channel tunnel? We did. For us, the immigrants, those who are strange to us, are those in government".
One of the youth that took part in the riots in Aulnay-sous-Bois, in the Parisian district of Seine-Saint-Denis, expressed the same opinions to journalists when he was asked how he felt about being French. "I am part of Mille-Mille [a housing estate in Aulnay] and Seine-Saint-Denis, but I am not part of Sarkozy’s France, or even the France of our local mayor whom we never see."
This points, on the one hand, to deepening of class divisions in France society, while, on the other hand, to a cry of desperation, a feeling of helplessness in the most downtrodden city areas, when faced when the onslaught of neo-liberal attacks and cuts in education, social provisions and public services.
The Chirac government is determined not to bend under the pressure of recent workers’ industrial action, including strikes, but to push on with its programme of cutting government spending, privatising public services, and promoting ‘flexibility’ in the labour market.
Of course, to riot, to burn and to destroy what is left of local infrastructure is not a solution. Local inhabitants in the poorest areas are the first victims of the capitalist system and the policies of the government and should not be made to suffer even more. The same goes for the bus drivers and emergency services people, including ambulance staff and the fire fighters, caught up in the rioting.
It is not by burning cars, shops or banks that Sarkozy and the government’s policies will be stopped. Riots are acts of desperations and destruction that hit working class areas the hardest and are anything but an effective struggle against Sarkozy and neo-liberalism. On the contrary, the riots are used by Sarkozy and the government to increase repression, including curfews in some areas, and to try to introduce more repressive legislation.
Working class people and youth need a collective and organised political response to the policies of Sarkozy, to police repression and discrimination, and to the main political parties, at both national and local government levels. The UMP (President Chirac’s governing party) led coalition government is carrying out the worst social devastation in post WW2 France. These attacks on working conditions, living standards and the welfare state were started by ‘Gauche Plurielle’ government of the PS (Socialist Party), the PCF (Communist Party) and the Greens. To halt this devastation, working people need to rely on their collective strength and independent organisation.
The French working class has organised tremendous battles to try and halt this brutal bosses’ offensive. However it is clear this battle cannot be won on the industrial front alone. It also needs a political response; the formation of a fighting party of the working class, defending the interests of the poor and downtrodden against capitalism, and which struggles for a democratic, socialist society.
On 27 October, two young people from Clichy, one 15 year old and one 17 year old, were electrocuted and died after fleeing into an electricity sub-station. They were on their way home after a football game but ran into a police identity control.
Like so many have witnessed before, this is one of the only ‘rights’ you have when you live in one of the poorest neighbourhoods: identity checks when the police come to where you live.
This drama took place just when Interior Minster Sarkozy intensified a campaign of insults against the young people who live in these estates, calling them names like "scum", "rabble" and appealing for the estates to "be cleaned with a Kärcher" (a high powered hose).
That the majority of the events [riots] over the last few days took place in impoverished estates, like Seine-Saint-Denis, Yvelinnes etc) is not a coincidence.
Sarkozy and Villepin [French Prime Minister] have abandoned these places and increased racist and discriminatory measures.
They are responsible for the high level of unemployment, for the lack of decent housing, for the closure of local post offices or local bus routes, for the ever increasing cost of living. The anger the inhabitants of these districts feel is normal and justified. It is anger against the system that creates misery, exclusion and violence.
What Sarkozy and Villepin want is a society where the rich and the bosses can continue to conspire to fill their coffers, while the workers and youth slave to survive. It is precisely to seek acceptance of their ultra-liberal policies that they [the government] implement anti-youth, racist and repressive policies.
Their aim it to divide us and in doing so be able to exploit us more.
But workers and inhabitants of the poorest neighbourhoods cannot be targets of the violence. They are just as much victims of this system and the policies of the government.
The same goes for the fire fighters or emergency services staff.
It is not by burning cars and workplaces that an efficient fight against the Sarkozy government and the police force is possible.
This will reinforce racist and reactionary ideas. This will be used a pretext by the government to increase repression.
The real responsibility lies with the government and the system this government defends. To confront this we need a collective and organised response.
It is the task of the inhabitants of the poor boroughs to organise themselves with a view to re-establish calm, organising borough meetings, where everyone can express themselves [and] by organising demonstrations against the provocations of the police.
What we need is real employment, decent housing and free and good public services. Evidently this is not the policy of the present government.
They are privatising our public services, they send in the CRS (riot police) against the inhabitants of neighbourhoods or against striking workers to defend the profits of the bosses.
These are the policies of capitalism, a system that obeys only one law - the law of profit.
When the government has succeeded to implementing its policies it is only because the collective struggle of the workers has not been big and determined enough. We have to take to the streets to show that those who oppose these policies are more numerous.
We need a party of struggle. A party for workers and youth that would allow us to launch an effective struggle against capitalism, against the misery, racism and exclusion capitalism brings.
Gauche révolutionnaire (CWI) fights for the construction of such a party.
We fight to end capitalism and replace it with genuine socialism: a society where the economy will be under democratic control of workers to satisfy the needs of everyone and not the profits of a few.
I WENT to Colombia in July this year with a trade union delegation to assess the political situation and discover what life is like for ordinary Colombians. Of particular interest to me was the visit we made to the Universidad Nacional de Colombia in Bogota to hear testimonies from those students who have been affected by repressive government policies and paramilitary violence.
I wanted to see how the lives of students in Colombia differed from my own life as a student. We learned that not only is it an extreme challenge to even become a student in Colombia, but also that simply being one can amount to putting your own life at risk.
Poverty and a lack of assistance from the state means that very few Colombians manage to get to university in the first place. 70% of education is private, and there are 900 private higher education institutions compared to 32 public ones.
Since President ¡lvaro Uribe came to power in 2002 he has cut the education budget in order to pump more capital into the military. Many professors now work part-time and library and welfare services have suffered.
Six public universities are in financial crisis, for example the one at Cartagena. Uribe has also tried to curb the autonomy of universities by prescribing which courses are taught. Enrolment fees are now 2-3 million pesos a year (around $1,000) which is too much for most Colombians.
The government’s objective is to attempt to prevent analytical thinking as this will prevent criticism of the government. For example, a professor who researched the repercussions of Plan Colombia (the programme agreed with the US ostensibly as a counter-narcotics strategy which has resulted in the loss of 30% of the Colombian Amazon rainforest) was assassinated by paramilitaries who have yet to be punished for their crimes.
In Colombia, anyone who thinks differently to the government or contradicts them is seen as a threat and those who are perceived to be becoming politically active at university run the risk of forcible displacement.
The result of this is that students cannot lead what we would regard as a normal student life. Many are wary simply to hang around with friends or go out for a drink. Often if there is even the slightest suspicion that someone is stirring up anti-government fervour they will receive death threats.
Many students start to become politically active after they have become the victims of government violence or displacements. Because of the continual threat posed to students in Colombia by the AUC (the largest paramilitary organisation) the students’ union of the Universidad Nacional has to offer aid to displaced students. They put them in touch with people willing to have their homes used as a refuge.
A Human Rights Commission has been set up by the students’ union to help people to flee death threats or to settle back into student life after having to relocate. Colombia is the only country in the world where these Human Rights departments are required.
The Students’ Union believes that the student struggle should complement the broader social struggle, which is why they collaborate with the CUT (the Confederation of Trade Unions) and try to maintain links between agricultural unions, take part in national strikes, attempt to reach people in poor districts etc.
They believe that “education produces freedom” and are therefore determined to help student activists to remain in education and “work like a virus to change the system from the inside”.
Although students in our own country do not face death threats and displacement for becoming politically involved, there are parallels between the educational policies of the Uribe government and that of our own.
The introduction of top-up fees means many working-class students are discouraged from continuing their education at university level, which is also the case in Colombia. Increasing privatisation of educational institutions in this country means that big business is able to have a greater influence on what is taught, and so educational autonomy is slowly diminishing, much as it is in Colombia.
The Labour Party shows little sympathy for the plight of the working class, actively trying to exclude them from increasing their knowledge. “Education produces freedom” by alerting people to their own exploitation and teaching them how to challenge the system that binds them.
RIGHT-WING President Alvaro Uribe, since his election in 2002, has pursued a ‘neo-liberal’ agenda and maintains close economic and military ties with the US.
Colombia is one of the most violent places on earth. Every year over 25,000 people are murdered out of a population of 42 million An estimated 2,000-3,000 people are kidnapped each year. In the last 12 years more than 2,500 trade union activists have been executed and thousands more tortured and beaten by death squads such as the AUC (Self Defence Forces of Colombia) which are linked to the armed forces. During the last decade, more than one million people have been ‘displaced’ by the civil war.
Like the rest of South America, Colombia’s governments in the 1990s introduced a ‘neo-liberal’ economic programme of privatisations, cuts in public services, lower corporate taxes, and opening up the economy to foreign capital. As a result there was a sharp decline in living standards with 55% of the population living below the poverty line and unemployment officially standing at around 20%.
BUS WORKERS, trade unionists and members of the public have reacted with shock, disbelief and anger at Andy Beadle’s summary dismissal as a driver at Peckham bus garage.
Andy, the democratically elected Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU) rep at the garage, was sacked for representing his members’ views over recent pay deal negotiations.
Drivers at Peckham garage showed their determination to support Andy at an emergency TGWU branch meeting, held at the garage gates as Andy was barred from entering.
The 20 bus workers who turned up unanimously backed a motion calling for the union to start a ballot for strike action in support of Andy’s re-instatement.
The level of support for Andy’s campaign in Peckham garage is also shown by Andy selling at least 20 copies of last week’s the socialist to drivers there.
One driver, Peter Dunn (who’s been working six years at Peckham and 17 years in total on the buses) said: “When Andy was negotiating for us he acted in our best interests, as a result he called for a ‘no’ vote and then he was sacked... we should be having several days of strike action to get his job back”.
Another, Danny, said: “I reckon Andy acted for the best, we wanted a decent pay rise... he is not a yes-man, that’s why the company doesn’t want him. He stands for no nonsense ...the trade union should fight for him all the way.”
More and more bus workers are getting angry over their conditions and pay. Andy’s sacking is a management attempt to remove those reps who are leading the opposition to their attacks.
This is an outright management attack on fundamental trade union rights. They cannot be allowed to get away with this.
Bus workers and workers generally must fully support the campaign for Andy’s unconditional re-instatement. In Peter Dunn’s words, which echo what must be many bus workers’ feelings: “If he (Andy) goes then they can do what they like with us”.
The mood amongst bus drivers is overwhelmingly supportive. This reflects their anger not only at Andy’s sacking but also at the poor pay deals they are being offered and the way that sections of the union regionally are trying to force through these deals.
Send your protests to Peckham garage: 020 7639 1326. London Central buses: 020 8646 1747, fax: 020 8640 2317. [email protected]
Send messages of support to: [email protected]
ANDY’S SACKING is getting known throughout London bus garages.
Campaigners, including Socialist Party members, have taken leaflets around garages throughout London from Merton, Stockwell and South Croydon in South London to Tottenham, Hackney and Walthamstow in North and East London and handing them out to drivers at bus stops.
Drivers in Tottenham, North London, had already heard about Andy’s sacking and are very supportive.
Socialist Party members have also been raising Andy’s campaign amongst the community as a whole. One South London UNISON branch has offered Andy the use of their facilities to help in the campaign for his re-instatement. At Saturday’s stall in Peckham, South London, many trade unionists including a retired print worker and a college lecturer member of NATFHE, were appalled that Central bus managers had been allowed to get away with this attack on basic trade union rights.
THE LEARNING and Skills Council (LSC) is planning to slash 1,300 jobs. Of these 550 will be in Coventry.
Coventry has haemorrhaged manufacturing jobs in the past two years with the closure of Massey Ferguson and Jaguar and 800 job losses at Peugeot. It is also horribly ironic that the department responsible for helping retrain and re-skill former industrial workers is now cutting its own staff.
These job losses tie in with the other massive civil service cuts driven by the Gershon report. Face-to-face contact with clients at benefit offices is being unsuccessfully replaced by call centres. In Coventry, claimants needing cash urgently are being turned away from local benefit offices. But it can take two weeks to get through by phone. Adult and community education services are also being cut.
Blair's government says it's put education and training at the top of its agenda. But employers have not. Qualifications like the NVQ are mainly based on what bosses want. They may provide skills for the job in hand but not other, wider skills.
LSC staff have attempted to scrutinise and influence training and education provided by colleges and other organisations. The cuts will mean that this scrutiny becomes more and more "light touch". Those proposing these cuts want these institutions left to their own devices.
A recent LSC report covering Individual Learning Accounts showed fraud - cash being claimed for non-existent learners involving false addresses - as "common". This and increasingly poor provision for the poorest and least-skilled in society will worsen if these cuts go through.
There has been no preparation for the effects of this review. Management prefer a short-term approach. They are spending lots on expensive agency and temporary staff and prefer to spend £70 million on consultants rather than really consulting their own staff.
Staff are taking action and fighting back, linking up with civil service union PCS members in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue to fight to keep civil service jobs. Blair seems hell bent on "going nuclear" with our public services and needs to be stopped.
Coventry Council House, Coventry, Saturday 12 November, 10.30am.
Assemble opposite Coventry Council House. 11.00am: Meeting at Methodist Central Hall.
MANAGERS HAVE effectively derecognised Mark Cliffe, TGWU senior steward at Morrisons' Gadbrooke Park distribution centre, Cheshire. This is an attack on the union and the right of free trade unionism.
Mark and the other stewards at Gadbrooke Park have a strong record of fighting and winning for the members - including significant pay rises and the ending of a no-strike agreement. Meanwhile the Morrisons' board has through its own incompetence thrown the company into crisis - which they want the workforce to pay for.
Morrisons aim to undermine the union. While admitting that there is "no case to answer" on the bogus charges Mark faces, managers nonetheless gave Mark a written warning. This prevents Mark standing for re-election as senior steward in the union elections this month. The same trick has been pulled on another rep at the same site, currently also fighting his case.
Mark says: "Workers choosing who they want as their stewards is a union matter and the company should stay out of it. We don't pick their team and they shouldn't pick ours. Morrisons can't afford a dispute - share prices are rock-bottom, and having a bad Christmas wouldn't be good for the company!"
The company has recently increased staff canteen prices by 28%. The staff canteen cash cards can only be credited by £1 or £5 and don't give change. Staff buying a £1.01 meal are paying £5, so they're going without.
AROUND 50 people lobbied the second stage of the disciplinary hearing for Sefton UNISON activists Nigel Flanagan and Paul Summers on 1 November. Many of the people on the lobby were "key group" strikers, called out on strike on behalf of the branch as a whole.
They heard speakers that included UNISON NEC and Socialist Party member Roger Bannister. He referred to the occasions when he had faced dismissal as a result of union activities, but had held onto his job as a result of the determination of his members in the neighbouring Knowsley Branch.
The two branch officers faced trumped-up charges relating to a peaceful protest against the opening of a shop to promote the privatisation of Sefton's council housing by a transfer of all housing stock.
A hung council, with no overall political control, Sefton is currently run on the basis of a deal between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, under which a right-wing political agenda is pursued, and key council positions are shared out amongst the two parties.
Tenants voted against the housing transfer, and this has undoubtedly infuriated councillors. The council leader is Labour's Dave Martin, who has faced opposition at the polls from the Socialist Party's Peter Glover.
This attack on the trade union further calls into question the relationship between UNISON and the Labour Party. UNISON members in Sefton are bound to wonder why UNISON is giving £ millions to a party that privatises public assets and victimises trade unionists. The protest in question is recorded on closed circuit television, which clearly indicates that no misconduct took place, as do the notebook entries of the two police officers on duty at the time.
No decision was made on 1 November, but the sackings were announced three days later. UNISON nationally has pledged £75,000 to relieve hardship of strikers in Sefton, and the branch has called a members' meeting on 8 November to consider the next stage of the campaign.
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/4725
