THE CHIEF executive of Huddersfield's two primary care trusts recently described local midwives as a "disgrace" for daring to oppose plans to centralise consultant-led maternity services from Huddersfield to Halifax!
The "disgrace" is that he and the chief executive of the Calderdale and Huddersfield trust earned over £900,000 in the last year between them - enough to employ around 34 midwives for a year. Their combined salaries for five years would pay off the financial deficit that exists across the local health economy.
The so-called consultation meetings the trust bosses have called over the past weeks have been packed with people furious at what they see as a done deal. Our 'Save our NHS' campaign has been inundated by people wanting to get active.
Last Saturday over 1,000 people took part in our ballot, over 99% opposed the plans to transfer maternity, children's and surgical services out of Huddersfield. 98% also said they opposed privatisation and would prefer a publicly funded NHS.
One pensioner, who had never done anything like this before, has single-handedly collected over 1,000 signatures on petitions. Another told us how, in the nineteenth century, mill workers paid a penny of their ninepence weekly wage towards the building of the Huddersfield Royal Infirmary.
They have no intention of letting unelected managers take our hard-won services away now. Across the board, health workers and public are showing their determination to fight. Save our NHS posters and petitions have been circulated to every department of the hospital where, in some cases, staff don't know if they will have jobs under the proposals.
We are calling upon the council to call a referendum to get a true picture of public opinion and a demonstration is planned for early December.
End privatisation. Bring all healthcare into one nationally planned and properly financed, publicly-owned service.
Nationalise the pharmaceutical industry, the pharmacy chains and medical supply industry and integrate them into a democratically controlled NHS.
Abandon PFI, no more profiteering by building companies and banks.
Fund new hospital building programmes with public money, using direct labour.
Genuine democratic control of the NHS, involving the trade unions, patients, carers, and elected representatives. Senior managers should be accountable to elected bodies.
A minimum of £8 per hour and a 35-hour week for all health workers.
Free and accessible dental care for all. Abolish prescription charges.
Fight for a socialist society where poverty and inequality - the biggest killers and the greatest causes of ill-health - could become problems of the past.
NEW LABOUR Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt says she won't 'bail out' NHS hospitals that are in debt. In fact she is demanding £700 million worth of cuts this winter.
Outrageously Hewitt calls Karl Marx in her defence, saying: "I don't know whether Marx ever said waste is theft from the working class but he should have done."
She blames hospitals for keeping patients in hospital for too long - it seems 'bed blockers' cause all the problems. After government-inspired cuts have closed or privatised council-run care homes, New Labour want cash-strapped social services departments and an increasingly bankrupt NHS to squabble over who looks after released patients.
But, as our reports below show, campaigns across Britain are fighting for a real solution to the NHS's crisis.
THE CAMPAIGN to re-open the Cardiff Royal Infirmary (CRI) moves up a gear with a mass lobby of the Welsh Assembly on 30 November.
CRISIS's campaigning work gained a big victory with the decision not to sell off the CRI land. But now Cardiff Local Health Board is discussing what new facilities should be situated there and for us only one facility is acceptable - the hospital we were promised in 1996!
We won £5 million from the Welsh Assembly to fund new facilities at the CRI site, so the land doesn't have to be sold. But now we have to fight to demand a hospital at CRI.
It's down to the Assembly to demand a hospital and an end to the huge waiting times and waiting lists that afflict the NHS in Wales. We will hand in the 70,000 signature petition for a new CRI.
We'll have a chance to see the new £60 million debating chamber the Assembly built itself while working-class people all over Wales demand new hospitals.
The lobby begins at 12 noon on Thursday 30 November at National Assembly building, Cardiff Bay. Minibus transport available from St. German's Church Hall at 11.30 am.
OVER THIS summer Lincolnshire people have watched the local NHS trust try to plug a £8 million budget deficit. There are plans to close five hospital wards and cut back on frontline services like ambulances and put more responsibility onto the voluntary sector.
On 1 October around 1,500 people demonstrated against the planned closure of the accident and emergency ward in Grantham. When a senior nurse at Grantham complained about the effect the cuts were having - he was suspended!
On 19 November over 100 people protested against the closure of a ward at Skegness hospital. On 26 November, people will gather at Lincoln County Hospital in a demonstration against the cuts organised by UNISON and other public-sector unions.
Meanwhile we're watching Lincolnshire County Council cut back on education by merging local primary schools on the grounds that class sizes are too small!
Throughout the summer, Socialist Party members have been raising the issue of NHS cuts, demanding an end to privatisation, a massive increase in health service funding and the rebuilding of the NHS under democratic workers' control.
We will again be at Saturday's demonstration, explaining the need for a decent, democratically run health service.
LAST WEEK the socialist reported on the launch of the Campaign for a New Workers' Party. The campaign is appealing for trade unionists, community campaigners, environmentalists and others to come together in support of the 'declaration for a new workers' party'. The declaration states:
The campaign is asking for all those who sign the declaration not just to leave their support at that level but to go further, organising to build support for it in their trade union, organisation or local town. If you would like to read the full version of the declaration, to sign up to the declaration, to get copies of the declaration or other publicity material, or to invite a speaker from the campaign to speak at a meeting contact [email protected].
Supporters of the campaign (all in a personal capacity) to date include:
Janice Godrich PCS President, Chris Baugh PCS Assistant General Secretary, Marion Lloyd PCS NEC, Rob Williams PCS NEC, Mark Baker PCS NEC, Jane Aitchison PCS DWP President, Sevi Yesidalli PCS NEC, John McInally PCS NEC, Danny Williamson PCS NEC, Kevin Greenway PCS NEC, Diane Shepherd UNISON NEC, Glenn Kelly UNISON NEC, Jean Thorpe UNISON NEC, Raph Parkinson UNISON NEC, Roger Bannister UNISON NEC, Andrew Price NATFHE NEC, Bernard Roome CWU NEC, Gary Jones CWU NEC, Linda Taaffe NUT NEC, Robbie Segal USDAW NEC, Molly Cooper NUJ NEC, Jim Barbour FBU NEC, Dave Nellist Coventry Socialist Party Councillor, Karen Mackay Coventry Socialist Party Councillor, Ian Page Lewisham Socialist Party Councillor, Chris Flood Lewisham Socialist Party Councillor.
OVER 120 delegates attended last week's UNISON London Region Health training day, with new delegates not previously involved at regional level. Full-time officers introduced the subjects - organising and building the union, Agenda for Change, pensions, nursing strategy etc., followed by debate from the floor.
The threat to privatise primary care services, including the jobs of district and school nurses and therapists, was rightly seen as one of the most serious attacks ever on health with the opening up of services to profiteering along the American model.
The platform speakers spoke of their disappointment and shock at the New Labour government's attacks and of the "good" or "bad elements" in the parliamentary party.
They replied to one delegate's question as to why we have an Affiliated and a General Political Fund that it was members' 'democratic right' to pay into the Labour Party. A black female delegate asked how on earth was it that our services were being taken apart before our eyes. The union bureaucrats were totally unable to draw the correct conclusions from their own analysis.
But the contribution that got the biggest applause came from Socialist Party member and Waltham Forest delegate Len Hockey. He argued that, in the face of such attacks by this government, it was now surely time to have a debate across the entire union on why £3 million a year of members' money was handed over to New Labour.
He said that, even on a value for money basis, there was no case whatsoever for it continuing and that such resources would be better employed at the sharp end and in championing the membership's interests.
WORKERS IN Britain are told that there's a pensions' crisis, that we're living too long or not saving enough for our retirement. The government actuary - the person who predicts how long we're likely to live on average - says he no longer assumes there's a limit to life expectancy. He's hinting at immortality for all of us.
This good news that we're living longer seems bad news for government and private company pension fund actuaries. The government is considering pension reform in 2006 based on the Turner Pensions Commission's report.
Adair Turner, the government and the bosses say 'tough choices' are ahead on pensions. This is code, meaning we face working longer, saving more or paying more tax or possibly all three. Last week's leaks to the Financial Times confirmed exactly that.
As 60-year-old BERYL RUSSELL from Windsor said, on the BBC's website after Turner's plans were leaked: "The plan to raise the state pension age stinks because low-paid workers do not live as long as the upper crust. Labourers generally do not live much beyond 65".
Turner's Commission looks likely to recommend raising the state pension age to 67 from 2020 and then rise in line with expected increases in longevity and introducing a new national pensions saving plan - probably modelled on New Zealand's system.
A poll in The Guardian says that a clear majority oppose these plans, but the proposals don't go far enough for some employers - the bosses' CBI hint at raising the retirement age to 70.
At this year's TUC, National Union of Teachers delegate and Socialist Party member Linda Taaffe challenged Turner's assumptions on affordability: "He says taxes might have to rise to cope with pensions demands but... accountancy firms are such specialists in avoiding tax that £100 billion has been lost to the Treasury by accountancy firms getting around the so-called laws..."
She asked Turner: "What laws are you going to introduce to make sure the rich are taxed as much as they possibly can be?" Turner's reply implied that the Treasury would rap him over the knuckles if he tried to tackle tax evasion. Not that Turner, a former CBI head, is likely to try to tax the rich more!
BOTH EMPLOYERS and government want to make us work until we drop. But the government's argument that an ageing population is an unsustainable burden to the public purse is a deceit.
Turner and Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson forget the tens of billions handed out in cuts in corporation tax and other handouts to big business in recent years. They also ignore the 'blank cheque' written to cover the invasion and occupation of Iraq - costing over £7 billion at the last count - whilst calculating whether or not the country can 'afford' decent pensions.
A report last January showed that the size of someone's pension can determine their life expectancy. People on pensions below £4,500 a year are likely to die earlier than those with pensions of over £13,000 a year.
Making workers work longer will increase health inequality, which New Labour's policies have already widened. Now the bosses and the government could send more workers to an early grave if they get away with cutting pension entitlements even further.
Many workers will see resisting the attacks on pensions as a matter of life and death. Working-class people must defeat these attacks through co-ordinated and united, mass strike action.
RAPID CLIMATE change, caused by pumping 'greenhouse gases' into the atmosphere resulting in global warming, is one of the greatest threats to our environment.
Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are likely to lead to increases in global average temperatures of between 1.5C and 5.8C this century. The effects of this climate change will be catastrophic.
Ahead of the forthcoming United Nations Montreal conference on climate change, environmental scientists have published their findings in the journal Nature.
They predict that there will be a increase in both flooding (especially coastal sea surges) and in droughts. The availability of clean water will decline (Peru has already suffered a 25% reduction in water supplies over the past 30 years), infectious diseases and respiratory illnesses will increase.
The World Health Organisation estimates that climate change is already causing about 5 million extra cases of severe illness a year and more than 150,000 extra deaths.
Fish stocks, already strained to the limit through overfishing and pollution, are likely to dwindle further as temperatures rise and oxygen levels in seas and rivers decline.
The scientists also concluded that the countries most likely to be affected by global warming were the least able to combat its effects, whereas those (rich) countries who contribute most to climate change (eg the USA) are those that suffer the least.
The main culprits in producing greenhouse gases are the large Western energy giants and the big industrial, agro-chemical multinationals. Companies like ExxonMobil - who backed George Bush in his refusal to sign the weak Kyoto protocols on restricting greenhouse gases - have actually increased their emissions.
Tony Blair, who is also beholden to the interests of big business, writing in The Independent (10/11/05), admits that carbon dioxide emissions in the UK since signing up to Kyoto have actually increased. However, in his trademark sanctimonious style he berates us all for climate change.
But we're not equally responsible. What Blair fails to point out, for example, is that the greenhouse gases caused by the burning of oil flare-offs in Nigeria by just one Western oil company is greater than that caused by the production of all the electricity used in every household in Britain!
To leave the issue at the level of recycling one's personal rubbish etc., lets the real culprits off the hook.
Blair's 'market-led' prescription to solve environmental problems has already failed and will continue to do so. Capitalism with its national based, profit driven system of industrial production is unsustainable. In fact, Blair inadvertently stumbles onto this when he writes: "No single country is able to tackle climate change. All major countries need to act, if we are to tackle it effectively."
But this is utopian on the basis of capitalism. For it to come about requires socialist governments co-operating internationally, and democratically agreeing a plan of production. That is why to save the planet from environmental catastrophe we need to build the forces of socialism throughout the world to challenge capitalism.
Saturday 3 December.
Assemble 12noon at Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2. (Holborn Tube)
(called by Campaign against Climate Change)
Supported by the socialist youth organisation International Socialist Resistance (ISR), Socialist Students and the Socialist Party
DEMOS, AN 'independent think tank', suggests: "Women have come a long way in the last two decades." They cite Britain having its first woman prime minister, the appointment of the first woman chief executive of a FTSE top hundred company, alongside "the steady advances" made by working women.
The implementation of the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts in 1975 have brought about some progress. In 2003, for the first time ever, more women than men qualified as barristers.
Recent recruitment figures for female trainee solicitors and female medical students outnumber their male counterparts by almost two to one. More women than men are now winning places on the civil service fast-track promotion programme.
But, are these 'steady advances' illustrations of women being on the threshold of what some feminists call a 'genderquake'? Most women would agree it is too soon to be breaking out the bubbly. Women now make up more than half of the workforce and are undoubtedly an essential part of the economy. Yet thirty years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act women earn on average nearly 20% less than men
According to the Fawcett Society, a lifetime of the gender pay gap can cost a mid-skilled, childless woman a whopping £250,000. The report goes on to explain that almost 50% of women have a gross individual income of less than £100 a week, compared to just over 20% of men.
Women frequently hide their poverty, often denying themselves food in order to ensure their families are protected. Many of these women are likely to experience unrelenting poverty. 22% of women, compared to 14% of men, have persistently low incomes. Living in persistent poverty has a cumulative effect, denying women the prospect of building up savings, even necessities such as decent clothing and household goods.
Whilst it is true that a layer of more educated, middle-class women have benefited from economic and social change - though even they can hit a 'glass ceiling' - the majority of working-class women find they are 'stuck to the floor of low pay'. Traditional women's jobs, known as the four C's, cleaning, caring, catering and cash registers are notoriously low paid.
Because certain work is segregated on gender lines, it has been possible for employers to pay women lower wages. In order to try and cut across this anomaly, an amendment to the Equal Pay Acts in 1983 stated that women should receive equal pay for work of equal value. From the onset bosses whinged that any pay surveys or gender audits should not be compulsory.
New Labour professes to be committed to promoting equal pay for work of equal value across the gender divide. However, the government's own figures show female civil servants earn 25% less than their male counterparts. In 2003 the civil service conducted an equal pay review, but the outcome of this review was the widening of the pay gap! In 2003 the average pay for female civil servants was 78.1% of male civil servants, by last year their average pay had decreased to 75%.
What chance do women in the private sector have if the government's own workforce is seeing growing inequality? The Socialist Party demands that all gender pay audits are undertaken in conjunction with trade unions.
IN 2001, eighteen years after the 1983 amendment to the Equal Pay Act, The Guardian reported that domestic cleaners working in a Carlisle hospital were paid £7,505 a year for a 39-hour week. In the main this work entailed cleaning floors. In the same hospital other cleaners who washed walls were paid £9,995 for a 37-hour week. The lower paid work was done by women, and the higher paid jobs by men.
Earlier this year UNISON took the Cumbria NHS Trust to court and a settlement was struck. Alongside domestic cleaners, women who were working in jobs such as nursing, clerical assistants, sewing machinists and telephonists will be substantially compensated for years of inequality.
Their legal case was based on the fact that despite the tasks they performed being different to their male colleagues; the work was of equal value.
As socialists we welcome legal victories such as these. However, we also highlight the importance of linking the issue of equal pay to the broader class issue of low pay. For example, local councils who have been taken to court over equal pay claims have threatened to lower the wages of their male employees.
The director of negotiations for the Employers' Organisations for Local Government stated that to "secure equality" you can "reduce the men's pay down to the women's pay." (Guardian 19 July 2004)
Capitalism has no qualms regarding sharing the misery of low pay across the gender divide. In order to counter this, trade unions must be prepared to take industrial action alongside legal action.
Women are also faced with the problem of having to bear the brunt of family responsibilities. Traditionally capitalism has defined a woman's role as within the family home; doing the housework and bringing up the next generation of workers. In various respects things have moved on. Whereas in 1981 only 24% of women returned to work within one year of having a child, by 2001 that figure had increased to 67%.
However, stepping out of the labour market, even for a short period, means that many women face lower wages and job prospects when they return.
According to the Equal Opportunities Commission, (EOC) only 47% of women return to the same employer after maternity leave.
Of those who do, one in five go back to a lower grade. Emerging research by the EOC suggests around 20% of women face dismissal or financial loss as a result of their pregnancy.
Another problem facing women is the lack of help available from local authorities. When New Labour was first elected in 1997 Gordon Brown promised to adhere to the Tory's budget for the first three years of office. In order to achieve this 'promise' Blair and Brown embraced privatisation.
Creeping privatisation of local services has meant women are also increasingly having to pay increased charges for nursery provision and having to care for elderly or sick relatives.
IN ORDER that women can try to juggle their work and family responsibilities many choose flexible work patterns such as part-time work. Capitalism depicts this trend as being mutually beneficial, however the reality is usually far from ideal.
In 2003 the predominantly female British Airways check-out staff walked out of Heathrow, having been threatened with changes in their shift patterns and split shifts. These changes were to be forced through without any consultation with trade unions, and would have made organising childcare impossible.
The 42% of working women who 'choose' to work part-time in order to maintain a work/life balance pay the price financially.
According to the Women and Work Commission women working part time on average earn 33.7% less than women in full-time employment.
Almost one in four part-time women workers are sales assistants, cleaners, or care assistants. All these jobs are undervalued and underpaid.
Last September The Guardian reported that 43% of all working women earned less than £5 an hour. The recent paltry increase in the minimum wage will have done little to seriously alleviate their living conditions.
We call on unions to fight for their current minimum wage demands as a stepping stone towards £8/hour. Such an increase would have an immediate impact on improving the living standards of the lowest-paid workers and closing the agenda pay gap. We also campaign for free, flexible, publicly funded childcare for everyone who wants it.
As socialists we do not see men as the source of women's inequality. Working-class men are also struggling to survive under capitalism.
Conversely some women are doing very well. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research there are around 25% more women millionaires aged 18 to 24 than men. No doubt in order to generate profit, such business women will be equally happy exploiting both male and female workers.
The EOC, the regulating body for the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, suggests: "While there is never an excuse for law breaking, existing legislation is not stopping discrimination".
Socialists and working-class women stuck in dead-end jobs can see that as a tool against inequality the EOC has proven itself as much use as a chocolate chisel.
Thirty years after the introduction of Acts that were to end discrimination, we don't just need new legislation, we need an alternative that will tackle the fundamental causes of inequality and discrimination which are rooted in the capitalist system.
Socialism would entail taking economic control away from the capitalist class and replacing it with democratic public ownership under workers' control.
This would enable society to be democratically organised to meet people's needs rather than maximising profits.
Resources would be freed up in order that all workers, both male and female, could receive a living wage. Childcare would no longer solely be the responsibility of individual women, or even families, but of society as a whole.
Based on economic cooperation and equality, socialism would lay the basis for the ending of all forms of inequality and discrimination.
A TUC report, Young at Heart? details how the entrenched pay gap between men and women affects young people from their very first day at work. From the outset people as young as 16 are going for occupations along gender lines.
For example, the public sector accounts for more than 10% of the employment of young women, against only 4% of young men. Conversely, 10% of young men are employed in construction, compared to just 1% of young women (figures are based on 16-17 year olds not in full-time education).
A female teenager, in her very first job, will on average earn 16% less than her male counterparts, blowing apart the myth that women taking time out to have children is the only cause of lower pay. Even women who have been to university will on average be earning 15% less within five years of their graduation.
Segregation begins in school where girls are still not given enough encouragement to try non-traditional work. The EOC's report, Unlocking the Potential, points out that many female school students are given work experience placements in childcare, even though they do not want to work in childcare! Furthermore, at least 36% of young women would have preferred to try a work placement which was in work usually regarded as 'men's work'.
For many women, a lifetime of low pay exposes them to poverty in old age. According to the government's own figures, the gap between retired men and women is an abyss, with women receiving an income of only 37% of that of equivalent men.
In a joint campaign, Age Concern and The Fawcett Society warn that the pension system is "littered with obstacles for women". Whilst 78% of newly retired men have a full basic pension, only 16% of women do. Almost a quarter of female single pensioners live in poverty, and twice as many older women than men are dependent on the means-tested minimum income guarantee.
THE LATE sixties and early seventies saw the emergence of working-class women taking militant action for equal pay and against sex discrimination. The strike by women sewing machinists at Ford's Dagenham plant in June 1968 played a crucial role in women's battle for equal pay.
Ford management had refused to acknowledge the skilled nature of the machinists, regarding it as 'women's work'. The women demanded that they should be re-graded and given parity with skilled men. Their victory, although only partial, raised their pay to 92% of the men's rate. This inspired many women struggling for equal pay.
Many trade unions consequently paid lip service to the fight for equal pay in their recruitment campaigns, and women streamed in as new members. However, trade union officials who were dragging their feet over the issue of equal pay increasingly exasperated women organised in trade unions.
The Labour government placed the Equal Pay Act on the statute book in May 1970. Any women who thought this Act would result in equal pay quickly had their hopes dashed, as bosses were given five years to comply with the law. Employers used this time to try and scupper the implementation of equal pay.
Books, such as The Employers' Guide to Equal Pay, were made available to bosses giving them handy tips on how to get around the Act. Consequently, men would be given titles such as 'trainee manager', whereas women doing the same job would be known by the more modest label of 'assistant'.
As more working-class women were drawn into the battle for equal pay, many realised that in order to improve their living standards and working conditions it would be necessary to have more than Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts.
Then, even more than now, discrimination against women was woven into the very fabric of capitalist society. This was an era in which women couldn't even have a hysterectomy without her husband's consent, and couldn't sign a hire purchase agreement unless she had a male guarantor.
For women to achieve equal pay it would be necessary to use legislation as a weapon in their battle. However, the main thrust of the struggle would need to be increased militancy in the workplace, linked to the struggle for socialism.
For further reading see: Women Workers and The Trade Unions by Sarah Boston. (Unfortunately out of print but may be available in libraries.)
Socialist Party Women's Pack: Fighting for Women - Rights and Socialism. £2.50
One Hand Tied Behind Us: Worker Suffragettes Movement, by Jill Liddington and Jill Norton £10.95
Women and the Family, by Leon Trotsky £8.00
The Emancipation of Women - from Lenin's Writings. Preface by Krupskaya and Appendix by Clara Zetkin. £6.95
The Rising of the Women (USA Class struggles 1880-1917) by Meredith Tax (Bargain) £7.00
Please add 10% for post and packing.
Available from:
Socialist Books, PO Box 24697, London, E11 1YD
or phone 020 8988 8789
email: [email protected]
AROUND 500 people joined the demonstration called in Manchester by unions and asylum support groups. The rally was in support of people facing deportation - like Eucharia and Timeyi, a mother and her six-year-old son threatened with deportation by the Home Office to Nigeria where they are in danger of rape, torture and murder.
People also came in support of Mansoor Hassan, an investigative journalist who fled from Pakistan after he was beaten up, shot at and his family were subject to barbiturate poisoning. This was all because he exposed government corruption, politicians' complicity with honour killings, and illegal drugs-dealing.
Asylum seekers from Cameroon, Congo, Nigeria and Pakistan came on the demo, which as one member Rob commented "seemed to get bigger as it went along. It was a good turnout."
On 25 November and 23 December we will be demonstrating in support of Mansoor and family outside Dallas Court detention centre in Salford. Come along, join the protests!
John Le Carré's novel The Constant Gardener is a devastating attack on the role of the pharmaceutical multinational companies and their ruthless cynical exploitation of Africa. Like his more recent book, Absolute Friends, it reveals a Le Carré who has become increasingly enraged by the excesses of capitalism during the 1990s, especially the Iraq war.
Both these novels are by far the best works he has produced since the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in the former USSR and Eastern Europe - which were the background to his excellent thrillers about the secret services and such celebrated characters as George Smiley in Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy.
The film, The Constant Gardener, directed by Fernando Meirelles, is in marked contrast to his previous work, City of God. However, it does only credit to the novel and is a powerful depiction of the real role of the major drug companies.
The story is of a plot to expose the Three Bs and KHC drug companies. A major TB epidemic is anticipated and a new miracle cure, Dypraxa, stands to make these companies billions of pounds once the epidemic hits. However, the drug needs to be tested. A delay of three years to allow for modifications to the drug would cost too much. So the drugs are simply tested out on HIV positive Africans. The result is speedier death at the hands of Three Bs - a calculated mass murder. As one African doctor put it in the film: "This is how the world fucks Africa".
The central plot deals with the exposure of the scandal by Tessa Quayle (played by Rachael Weisz) and her diplomat husband, Justin (played by Ralph Fiennes) who works for the Foreign Office at the High Commission in Kenya. She is determined to expose what is happening. He begins life as the 'fluffy', impeccable diplomat unaware of what his wife is up to. They meet at a conference early in the film, where she makes an impassioned attack on the Iraq war.
Her murder, along with that of Arnold, an African doctor, shatters Justin's world and exposes him to the brutal ruthlessness of the pharmaceutical giants and their drive for profit. The official version put to Justin is that Tessa and Arnold were having an affair and were murdered when away for a weekend. However, he becomes aware that in fact Arnold was gay and his suspicion is aroused. Justin is driven to unearth the murder and cover-up which involves the drug companies, the Kenyan government and the British state.
Sir Bernard Pellegrin, of the Foreign and Commonwealth office, played by Bill Nighy, gives a masterly portrayal of a representative of the English ruling class. The understatement of language and impeccable politeness is a velvet glove that covers a cold steel fist that is used to defend class and 'national' interests.
The film is not without its humour as Tessa embarrasses assorted diplomats and government officials at official receptions and parties. But its central theme is the drive for profit by the drug companies. "They are no better than the arms industry", complains Ghita, one of Tessa's friends.
The film differs from the book in some ways. Justin's detective work is shortened, as is his travel. The film is seen more through the eyes of Kenya than the British diplomatic service.
However, Mierelles has directed a powerful film which although providing no solutions, firmly puts the drug companies and the British diplomatic service in the dock and is well worth going to see.
The actors succeed in bringing Le Carré's characters to life. The filming, on location in Kenya, reveals some spectacular shots. If anybody thinks that the story is a bit far-fetched, they could consider John Le Carré's comments about his novel: "As my journey through the pharmaceutical jungle progressed, I came to realise that, by comparison with the reality, my story was as tame as a holiday postcard".
What we think
SIXTY PERCENT of Americans now think that the 'blood shed' in Iraq is not worth it. The brunt of the 'bloodshed' has of course been borne by the peoples of Iraq, around 100,000 of whom have been killed since the invasion.
The true scale of the brutal destruction of Falluja, comparable with the Russian troops' flattening of Grozny in Chechnya, is only now being revealed. The US military have been forced to admit that they used white phosphorus against 'military combatants' in Falluja, but deny that it is a chemical weapon or that it was used against civilians.
In fact the US military's own 'Battle Book' states that is against the law to use white phosphorus against personnel, whether military or civilian, and the UN conventions clearly describe as a chemical weapon if it used in this way.
This is only the latest layer of lies about what happened in Falluja - the US military continues to insist that only around 500 civilians remained in the city. By contrast The Guardian and other media sources estimate that there were 30,000-50,000.
Before the attack took place all 'men of fighting age' were prevented from leaving by the US military. There can be no doubt that the thousands who died during the flattening of the city, using chemical and other weapons, were mainly civilians.
These latest revelations can only increase anger at the daily brutality of the occupation in Iraq and worldwide. Especially as one of the main charges levelled against Saddam is his regime's use of chemical weapons (no matter that the British and US governments sold them to him).
In the countries of 'the coalition' the deaths of coalition soldiers 'for no good cause' is fuelling opposition to the occupation. This is particularly true in the US. More than two thousand US troops have died and over 30,000 have been injured over the last two years. There are towns where everyone knows someone who has lost a family member to Iraq. Like Columbus, Ohio, where the Lima Company is based. Almost half the company have been killed or injured, their highest losses since the Second World War.
THE PRESSURE is mounting on the Bush regime to withdraw the troops. Two former US Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, in an unprecedented breaking of unwritten diplomatic law, have publicly attacked a sitting President for taking the US to war, while the war is still taking place.
Democratic Congressman John Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who supported the invasion and has close ties to the US military, summed up the growing opposition to the occupation when he declared that troops should withdraw in within six months as he was "absolutely convinced we are making no progress at all."
The opposition to Bush at the top is a faint reflection of the mood below. The anti-war movement in the US is experiencing a resurgence.
The occupation is fundamentally unviable. Despite his posturing, it is possible that, in the face of growing opposition, Bush could be forced to 'declare victory' and withdraw the troops more quickly than he currently expects and hand over to ill-prepared Iraqi military forces.
However, whatever the US 'timetable' the legacy of Bush, Blair and Co.'s adventure will be enormous instability in Iraq, including a likely escalation in the civil war, and a massive increase of the anti-imperialist mood in the Middle East and worldwide.
The Iraqi constitution has been cobbled together, not in the interests of the Iraqi peoples, but the different ruling factions in Iraq, and above all US imperialism. It is no surprise that the occupying powers are continuing to try and make sure they "get their snouts in the trough" as Jack Straw put it in a moment of blinding clarity.
The world's oil giants have been kept out of Iraq since its oil was nationalised in 1972 but the new Iraqi constitution guarantees a major role for foreign companies in Iraqi's oil. The problem they face, and it is a major one, is security. As yet none of the major oil multinationals will touch Iraq, because they consider it too dangerous.
The continuation of the occupation is the continuation of a nightmare for the peoples of Iraq. However, the unelected leaders of the various sectarian religious factions do not offer a way forward. The solution lies with the working people and poor masses of Iraq.
The Socialist Party stands for a mass movement of the working class and the oppressed masses for an end to the occupation of Iraq and for the natural resources of Iraq to be owned and controlled by the peoples' of Iraq.
Such a movement should establish multi-ethnic defence forces to guard against ethnic and religious clashes and to protect the security of all, under the democratic control of working people.
It should also call for the convening of an Iraq-wide national assembly of democratically elected delegates to vote on the formation of a workers and poor farmers' government that would provide the basis to deal with the crushing problems facing Iraq.
THE ISRAELI government is collapsing in turmoil, forcing forward the date of the next general election by eight months. The political drama began when trade union federation leader, Amir Peretz, unexpectedly ousted Shimon Peres as leader of the Labour Party, by a vote of the party rank and file.
Peretz then quickly moved to withdraw the Labour Party from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's coalition government, which left Sharon without a majority. Then came a second bombshell; Sharon decided to abandon the right-wing Likud party that he helped create in 1973, to set up a new party as a vehicle for fighting the coming election and then trying to form another government.
A section of Likud views Sharon as a great betrayer, following his masterminding of the recent 'disengagement' of Israeli forces from the Gaza strip. Many in the party expressed vociferous opposition to the withdrawal and Sharon has now calculated that he will place himself in a better position by escaping a party that has become an obstacle to his plans.
His newly created entity, named 'National Responsibility', is drawing in other deserters from Likud and they are likely to be joined by opportunist leading politicians from other capitalist parties represented in the parliament.
Sharon's aim would then be to lead a new, completely realigned coalition government after the election, expected in March 2006, if his party can gain enough support. The policy of a further Sharon-led coalition would inevitably be to try to continue a neo-liberal economic programme and to concretise the brutal unilateral separation with the Palestinian territories that he has begun.
While a majority of Israelis have supported 'disengagement', the election of Peretz to the Labour Party leadership reflects widespread anger and distress over the repeated cuts programmes and other attacks on living standards carried out by the government.
Peretz was elected by Labour members on the basis of arguing against the most brutal pro-market measures, and for a return by Labour to a more 'social-democratic' stance.
However, while he is not typical of the leaders of Israel's largest capitalist parties, in that he comes from a working-class, Arab Jewish background, he has played a major role in holding back and betraying workers' struggles in the trade union federation and supported many of the government's anti-working class measures.
He has also come to the helm of a deeply divided and discredited Labour Party which, posing no real alternative, will struggle in the pre-election period to counter the momentum of Sharon's latest project.
ON 18 NOVEMBER, immediately after Mahinda Rajapakse's acceptance speech, Siritunga Jayasuriya made a fighting speech carried live on national TV.
Addressing Rajapakse, Siritunga Jayasuriya declared: "This is the first time in Sri Lanka that a president has been elected on the votes of the Sinhala (majority) population. The Sinhala Buddhist zealots have dominated your election platforms. As president, you have a duty to control these forces which you have encouraged. Their hatred of the Tamil-speaking people, including the Muslims, poses a huge danger in this country.
"None of the ordinary working and poor people wants war again. They feel bad things are now in store. You have made a lorry-load of promises to this country. If they are not implemented, the United Socialist Party, with Siritunga Jayasuriya, will go to the streets. We will mobilise behind the demand that they be implemented or that you step down.
"Some of the main TV stations and newspapers have been so careful not to mention the name of our party or its candidate. I say a heart-felt thank you to all those who, in spite of this, voted for the United Socialist Party."
SIRI EXPLAINED to the media, all keen to interview him now, that the USP election campaign was fought with small resources but a powerful message. Hundreds of thousands of leaflets were distributed island-wide, and Siri personally spoke at open air meetings at 180 different bus stations with a loudhailer.
The three TV broadcasts allotted to the USP must also have had some effect in publicising the case for socialism. In Nuraya Eliya, the USP got 1,631 votes, the highest score of any candidates, apart from the top two, in any area of the country. The only area where the USP got no vote was in Killinochchi, the heart of LTTE (Tamil Tigers) country - where only one person's vote was recorded, and that for Wickeremesinghe's UNP!
The USP will continue its work with trade unionists, with the Tsunami-affected people still fighting for justice, with the Tamil-speaking minority, and with the young people whose future hangs in the balance as long as capitalist forces rule. The USP, now proven to be the leading left party in Sri Lanka, will continue its tireless efforts to build the forces for a socialist alternative to the policies of big business, of the IMF and World Bank.
THE RESULT of the election is perhaps the worst it could be both from the point of view of the working class and poor people of Sri Lanka and of the Tamil-speaking minority.
Rajapakse has been in league in this election with two arch-chauvinist, anti-Tamil parties - the JVP and the JHU. Now the green light has been given for open attacks on Tamil-speaking people who make up 20% of the 19 million population (mainly situated in the north and east of the country). Already two incidents in the East have left a number of dead and injured.
In spite of professing, in a populist manner, to be against any more privatisation, Rajapakse has participated as a minister and prime minister in eleven years of a government that has carried through more privatisations than the previous UNP-led government.
The UNP candidate, Ranil Wickeremesinghe, was seen as more likely to re-start the stalled peace talks with the LTTE guerrilla forces fighting for a Tamil homeland in the North and East of the country. In 20 years of civil war, they fought the Sri Lankan army to a standstill. The overwhelming majority of the island's population are Sinhala, but few want a return to war or the communal violence of the past.
The United Socialist Party has always defended the Tamil-speaking minority against oppression, and defended their right to self-determination. They have always stood for the right of all parties and trade unions to operate in the LTTE dominated areas of the North and East and fought for the right of all Tamil-speaking people to vote. The USP, therefore, regretted the position taken by the LTTE to recommend a boycott of the voting.
Throughout the election, Siritunga explained how little difference there was between the two main candidates and that the openly pro-imperialist UNP could not be trusted to bring peace, let alone prosperity, to the war weary and impoverished population.
But, with a communalist elected as president, the situation is fraught with danger.
As Siritunga made clear in his speech at the Election Commissioner's office, he and the USP will waste no time in mounting the maximum opposition to the reactionary policies of the victorious candidate, arguing for the maximum unity of workers, poor farmers, fishermen and nationally oppressed minorities behind the banner of socialism.
For background and more on the results and perspectives following the election see www.socialistworld.net
"WE, the workers in the medicine company RACE, appeal to all workers and the public, as well as other trade unions and popular organisations, to denounce the union busting and anti-worker policies of the management of the RACE company is using against its workers.
The medical company RACE is one of the most important distributors of medicines in the Venezuela. It accounts for 5% of the national market, and is the owner of Farma Plus, a franchise of pharmacies.
The company has responded to the constitutional right of workers to organise themselves with the dismissal of three members of the joint leadership of SUPROFARD, our recognised trade union.
On 4 November, Johnny Coronil and Danny Santos were sacked. They will join the general secretary of the trade union, SUPROFARD, who was dismissed by the company in May 2005, for demanding his rights.
The RACE management has set up a 'yellow union' that represents nobody and whose sole objective is to divide workers and to hinder the genuine organisation of workers. The company is threatening its workforce with new redundancies.
We appeal for national and international support.
With dignity, confidence and resistance, we will win."
The joint leadership of SUPROFARD union
Send messages and resolutions to the RACE company and to the Ministry of Labour demanding:
Send protest letters to:
The company: [email protected] and
Send copies to: [email protected] and [email protected]
AROUND 300 people marched through Sheffield last Saturday, 19 November, to protest at First's bus fares rise. As one woman put it, "I only want to ride on the bus, not buy it!"
The demonstration was called by "We Want Our Buses Back!", the campaign group initiated by Socialist Party, which now enjoys widespread support. The TGWU busworkers' branch secretary, Trades Council, Pensioners Action Group, Green Party and Respect were all there. But most protestors were bus users angry at First's price hikes (fares up 36% since last year) and service cuts.
One woman said, "I'm 50 and on my first demonstration. Where's my mum gone?" And there were lots of young people too, especially college and school students. One told me he paid £8 a week in bus fares just to go to school!
Significantly, Jan Wilson, Sheffield's Labour council leader, joined part of the march. Together with city MP, Clive Betts, attacking First's fare rises in parliament, this shows the pressure local politicians feel under. But the best they can offer are Quality Bus Contracts by 2009. However, New Labour Transport Minister, Alistair Darling, makes it clear "there will be no return to the regulation of the 1980s."
As the demo reached City Hall, marchers burst into spontaneous applause showing how pleased everyone was with the response. At the rally, speakers attacked First's lies and blatant profiteering, calling for them to be sacked.
Colin Wray (Socialist Party) said we don't want another private operator in their place but need re-nationalisation of all public transport. Campaign convenor Calvin Payne said we can't wait four more years and must increase pressure on the council, calling for a mass lobby of the council meeting on 7 December.
AFTER SEVEN one-day strikes, 400 bus drivers in North Staffordshire have achieved a significant victory over First Bus management. They are likely to vote to accept the company's latest offer, which will increase pay to the £8 an hour drivers were demanding.
Although the full £8 an hour won't be paid until April 2007, the initial rise from the current £6.60 will be backdated to April this year and most of the unacceptable strings previously attached have been dropped.
The drivers' solidarity and determination stunned First Bus bosses - every strike day was solid with no buses moving. Polish, Czech and Hungarian drivers previously brought in by First Bus to try to drive down wages and as potential strike-breakers stood shoulder to shoulder on the picket line with other drivers.
The massive support that drivers received from local working-class people was shown by the 3,000 names collected on Stoke Socialist Party's petition in support of £8 an hour for the drivers.
Even after the eighth and ninth strike days were called off, after the latest offer, people still queued to sign our petition. Many drivers thanked us for our support. One driver said: "You have supported us from day one. Thanks for all your help. Our union (TGWU) gives millions of pounds to the Labour Party but they have done nothing!"
Most drivers will accept this latest offer, but aren't fooled by the bosses' propaganda. They know management will try to claw back what they've been forced to concede. But after the solidarity shown in this struggle they're more confident that they can fight back.
Similarly, if First Bus bosses try to push up fares to maintain their inflated profits they will meet massive opposition from ordinary working people. This is also a victory for thousands of workers in the area who are paid a pittance and an important step in the fight for a minimum wage of £8 an hour.
OVER 90,000 PCS members in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will be balloted in December. This is part of the union's campaign against attacks on jobs, services and rights resulting from the so-called "modernisation" programme.
This programme is a key element of New Labour's neo-liberal agenda - they argue that society can no longer afford a welfare state of the type won by workers' struggle in the post-war period.
All governments in the past 35 years have wanted to drastically reduce welfare and other types of social provision, whilst workers want to see genuine improvement and expansion.
The cuts programme in DWP is the biggest and harshest in the public sector, with a projected loss of 30,000 jobs. It is based on the "remote processing" of benefits, pensions etc. This means the centralisation of processes, call centres, office closures and massive job cuts.
New technology is being bought from the private sector. And the prime aim of the programme is to fit the delivery of services within the capacity and capability of the technology and operating systems rather than being based on the needs of our clients, the most vulnerable people in society.
Privatisation of these services is the aim. Management documents show they intend to move toward privatising core functions like labour market advising in the not too distant future.
PCS's left-led DWP Group Executive Committee (GEC) has repeatedly warned ministers and management that to proceed on the basis of untried and untested technology and operating systems while pressing ahead with job cuts and office closures would inevitably lead to service delivery failure. This could affect millions of people and take years to rectify.
To some extent ministers have recognised this - they have diverted resources from other parts of the DWP budget for a recovery plan to prevent complete meltdown in the Child Support Agency.
Management are in denial about the chaos in DWP. But service users, benefit claimants, pensioners etc, are facing increasing exclusion from vital services as a result of conscious policy, for example the bizarrely entitled "reducing footfall" strategy. This may also be because the technology is inadequate, simply does not work, is not fit for purpose or of insufficient capacity.
Some call centres are only answering ten percent of calls. Although we are told to call our users "customers" they are not contacting call centres to order some product but to gain access to vital services, including benefits and pensions.
Backlogs are increasing, as are waiting times for benefit payments and enquiries. IT and communications failures are resulting in crisis management with "emergency" contingencies now commonplace, as is reversion to clerical working. Pressure of work, lack of training and bad planning have resulted in an increase in the error rate. Assaults on staff have increased by 62% in the last year and the type of assaults are getting increasingly serious.
If this wasn't bad enough, the cuts programme is accompanied by an unprecedented attack on terms, conditions and rights, just as PCS predicted it would.
Rather than tackling the root cause of workplace absence, management prefer to harass and intimidate staff through the misuse of "managing attendance" procedures which are being openly used to weed out those who do not easily fit into the new regime.
Rather than work constructively with PCS to tackle issues arising from the avoidance of redundancy measures, management want to scrap current mobility rules so they can make staff work even further away from where they live. Access to flexible and part-time working is becoming more restricted as workloads increase.
The DWP job cuts strategy is the biggest and most extensive in the public sector. It is the most harsh and extensive in the civil service but it is in trouble, as predicted by the left leadership of PCS.
Proceeding with cuts on this scale with untried and untested technology and without proper planning, is resulting in operational difficulty and service delivery failure on a potentially massive scale. Even a small increase in unemployment could test capacity to breaking point.
The GEC has campaigned hard, working with branches and members. There have been some notable successes, including securing important Avoidance of Redundancy agreements and stopping the closures of offices.
Public meetings and demonstrations have been held throughout Britain. Two excellent lobbies of Parliament and much more, including a tremendous DWP turnout on the national civil service strike on 5 November 2004.
The GEC is demanding:
Management to address the causes of workplace absence, not attack the victims. An end to harassment of staff who are sick through automatic eight-day warnings. No worsening of mobility rules and full rights to flexible and part-time working.
These demands are reasonable and achievable and are necessary, if we are to get DWP working again.
Management are not prepared to give concessions that would form the basis of a negotiated settlement. In recent talks they have made it clear they will not move on the key question of headcount flexibility. PCS believes there must be a halt to the cuts while a serious review of the service delivery problems in DWP tales place. If not - to paraphrase a New Labour song - things can only get worse.
PCS wants a negotiated settlement but is not prepared to stand aside and see these damaging cuts in jobs, services and rights continue unchallenged. The willingness of PCS members to take industrial action forced a reversal of plans to attack pension rights.
Management could settle this dispute by engaging seriously with PCS and reaching a settlement that would be in the interests of members, the public and DWP management themselves.
The ballot is due to begin at the start of December and if no settlement is reached the action will begin with a two-day group-wide strike, discontinuous action and an overtime ban. London members recently voted for action in a separate ballot but will now be part of the group-wide ballot.
Maximum unity is now required as we move into the first major ballot of the largest group in the civil service. All activists must work as hard as they can to ensure a big YES for action and a strong turnout to give PCS the strongest possible mandate to win our campaign.
THE NATIONAL Audit Office has just declared that Britain's benefit system is too complex. The constant changes to the system have made it difficult to grasp and vulnerable to error.
They recommend that the system should be simplified but they don't say how this can be done at the same time as cutting 30,000 jobs.
THE HEADLINES of the local Huddersfield press screamed 'Tech Fury' following the successful lecturers' strike. It coincided with the all-out strike by the college's caretakers, which is now in its fourth week. Joint NATFHE and UNISON picket lines were on all entrances to the college.
NATFHE branch Secretary, Marie Lewis, explained what has been happening at the college over the last few years. The government has cut funding for adult education classes and therefore fees have gone up. Yet 80% of students at the college are over 19. Numbers are now starting to drop as mature students cannot afford the extra costs.
So far students have collected 1,000 signatures in protest at the cuts. The college is also axing vocational courses, affecting staff numbers and staff morale. There have been a handful of voluntary redundancies and all classes are down.
The college management are attempting to bypass union consultation and negotiation. The new college principal, Chris Sadler, imposed a pay deal without any negotiation, it was just announced at a staff meeting! Staff were given 2% from last August and 0.8% from January, falling far short of the national claim.
The caretakers' strike is having a big impact. Management are ignoring basic health and safety, as well as security. A class of students were locked in the college one day, and had to wander around in the dark for almost an hour until they could find their way out!
The caretakers' strike began straight after half term. There are 19 of them and almost all of them are involved in regular picket duty.
15 cleaners have so far refused to cross picket lines and are being sustained by the union hardship fund. The management are trying to recruit extra cleaners but on their wages, they are not having much success. So managers and personnel officers have to get up at the crack of dawn, don their marigolds and get their hands dirty!
Dave Ellis, UNISON steward, came to speak to the Socialist Party in the first week of the dispute. The background to their pay claim was the victory for all school caretakers, including the Jarvis-employed workers, to secure a big pay rise last year.
Naturally UNISON informed the college caretakers they were now even more underpaid. The workforce is on two different rates of pay, both under £12,000 a year. Kirklees school caretakers now start on around £15,000 and can earn up to £22,000.
A claim was lodged in 2004 which the college knocked back. After a successful strike ballot, all they could promise was job evaluation next year.
Dave explained to his members that they would have to prepare for an all-out strike. In his experience, one-day or even five-day strikes just give managers time to ride out the storm. The members voted overwhelmingly to support his call. All those who voted against the action have been on the picket line. The strike remains solid.
Dave is determined his members will not be undersold. He told us: "You can go to management and ask for the moon, you might not get it but at least you tried. But if you go and ask for peanuts, peanuts is all you will get."
Dave was impressed with the seriousness of our younger members and explained that the long-term solution to low pay was a socialist government, linked to a socialist world! No argument with that.
Socialist Party members have been visiting freezing picket lines regularly and we are now organising the brilliant young students who joined the mass picket last week. They too have been threatened by the college principal about their future conduct.
Leila explained that they were out on strike because they were left with no other choice as the college had failed to implement all aspects of the pay agreement which had been negotiated for August last year.
The majority of teaching staff at City and Islington College are paid hourly and therefore are incredibly exploited. This coincides with a general roll back in working conditions in other areas. As part of privatisation of education and other services, management want to pay less wages.
"Being a teacher on hourly pay has very little job security. We are currently paid about £22 an hour which maybe sounds a lot but we are only paid for teaching time. It does not account for preparation or administration, or for all the other tasks that are demanded.
"There is a need for further action if our demands are not met. This is a political issue. Privatisation of education and other services is a clear result of Tony Blair's New Labour policies."
NATFHE Pickets at Freemen's campus of Leicester college were well prepared. Lecturers from the catering department had a mobile barbecue to supply pickets with bacon rolls! But they were there for serious reasons.
One picket said:
"It is not just about the money, it is also about feeling valued. I do many hours of unpaid overtime.
"If you worked out what we are paid based on our real hours then it may well be less than the minimum wage!"
Leicester university Socialist Students delivered a letter of support to the picket line.
SOCIALIST PARTY members visited colleges across Lancashire, including Lancaster, Preston and Blackburn.
At Manchester's City College, the pickets and supportive students were even joined by "Sooty" and "Sweep"!
City College lecturers also walked out on 15 November as management still refuse to implement the national pay agreement.
Lecturing was completely shut down on both days, with staff protesting at increased workload, loss of 12 days holiday and the restructuring of departments, leading to higher workload and less pay.
The annual hiring and firing of temporary staff and a drip-feed of redundancies are blatant management attempts to undermine morale and the union.
A lecturer from Wigan College reported how, compared to an earlier local ballot, the vote for national strike action had significantly strengthened - provoked by the merger of Wigan and Leigh Colleges, and the threat to FE-based sixth forms as the government pushes for "skills-based learning" across further education.
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/4753