Tory minister Andrew Lansley's Health and Social Care Bill threatens the break-up of the NHS. What the bill introduces, such as contracting out GP services to private groups and companies, is bad enough. But an even greater danger lies in what the Bill takes away from the NHS.
The NHS was designed to be a comprehensive health service free at the point of use, funded by taxes and publicly accountable to elected representatives locally and nationally.
Previous governments, Tory and New Labour, undermined this ethos by bringing private companies into the NHS. The most obvious examples are the private finance initiative (PFI) deals enthusiastically sponsored by Labour, despite their huge expense and the massive profits creamed off.
The Con-Dems' Health and Social Care Bill, however, undermines the NHS as a comprehensive public health care system. Part 1, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Bill would remove the government's 'duty of care' to provide a comprehensive service.
This duty of care for example allowed women suffering from cervical cancer to compel the government to provide Herceptin to treat their illness. More importantly it ensures the government is required to provide a basic minimum health service throughout the country.
Once this duty is removed it will allow for private operators to decide (on the basis of profit) what type of health services are provided or not.
So, less well off areas will find more expensive treatments harder to access locally while more affluent areas may retain a more comprehensive service but at a higher cost.
The Bill will also spell the end of national pay agreements for NHS staff while at the same time removing the limit on how much NHS providers can charge patients for treatment.
These plans, to bring private profit into the heart of the NHS, have met huge public opposition. So, with elections in view, the Con-Dem government has announced a "pause" in implementing the Bill. But all three main parties are committed to further marketisation of the NHS.
Delegates at the conference of Unison union health workers gasped in disbelief as Labour shadow health secretary John Healy extolled the virtues of PFI and said that private companies could help the NHS.
The NHS is under attack in every area. Hospital trusts have now been warned that they will be expected to make 50% deeper 'savings', ie cuts, than before - and that figure was already £20 billion!
The unions in the health service urgently need to link up with local NHS campaigns and anti-cuts bodies with a comprehensive plan, up to and including strike action, to resist both these cuts and the further marketisation of the health service.
We also need to build a mass party that is fully committed to protecting and extending the NHS as a publicly owned, democratically accountable health service.
Don't let the government get away with these attacks. It's time for a fightback!
Health workers, trade unionists and members of the local community protested on 28 April at horrific proposals to cut local community mental health services in east London. 97 of the current 200 workers who cover three of the country's poorest boroughs, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham, would go.
"I'm still fighting the cuts for my grandkids" said Marcia, who is about to retire. Ruth Benbow, Unison member and health worker, added: "I'm really concerned about cuts to frontline services and what the impact might be on service users. I'm worried about the future for the whole NHS if the cuts go ahead, my fear is the NHS all being privatised."
The magnificent 26 March TUC demonstration had a big impact. The next step in the battle against all cuts is the coordinated strike action on 30 June involving civil servants, teachers and possibly other groups of public sector workers.
Health workers, patients and anti-cuts campaigners took part in a protest on 28 April against the threatened closure of the Connaught day centre at Whipps Cross hospital in north east London.
The day hospital provides specialist health care for the elderly. One of the speakers at the demo was 87-year old Connaught patient Ena Abrahams who spoke of the importance of the NHS. Ena said closure was part of plans to merge Whipps Cross with two other hospital trusts.
Linda Taaffe from Waltham Forest Anti-Cuts Union (WFACU) said how saving NHS services was part of fighting all Con-Dem government and local Labour council cuts.
Whipps Cross Unison joint branch secretary Len Hockey (personal capacity) spoke of the need to fight all cuts and privatisation in the NHS. Cuts are going ahead despite the Con-Dems' three month pause to the health bill, which will hand over the NHS to private consortiums. Organising strike action by health workers should be an important part of the fightback.
While the hospital trust and GPs have said they want to keep the hospital open, this needs the agreement of commissioners. It was the same commissioners who notified the trust of withdrawing funding for the day hospital. The campaign continues.
Recent research has shown that half of all final year university students say they wouldn't have applied to university if fees had been £9,000 a year. This makes it even clearer that young people in Britain are faced with a stark choice: fight for our futures or become a lost generation.
A breathtaking one in five 16 to 24 year olds are now out of work and the youth unemployment figures continue to rise. It is becoming increasingly hard to find even the low-paid 'McJobs' that had become the norm for young people.
The problems of finding work are shown in the Wiltshire town of Trowbridge. In recent years, factories have moved out of the town and the people have had to rely on call centre jobs, often with worse terms and conditions.
Now even these jobs are starting to go. Vodafone, target of national UK Uncut protests highlighting a massive tax dodge, are due to close their call centre in Trowbridge, cutting 200 jobs.
Not content with doing nothing to help youth who are out of work, the government's slash and burn approach to public services will greatly increase the number of unemployed.
And life is no easier for those looking to escape the dole queue by learning new skills. The scrapping of the meagre EMA payments for 16 to 19 year olds and the rise in tuition fees to £9,000 a year will price many out of education. Funding cuts will reduce the range of course choices. It is estimated that there will be 36,000 fewer university places this year than last.
Everywhere young people turn, doors are being closed in their faces. But if we fight back we can win. The student protests last year showed that young people are not as apathetic as we are often portrayed. The trade union demonstration of at least half a million on 26 March shows the potential for a powerful mass campaign.
75 years ago 200 men marched from Jarrow to London, protesting against unemployment. Marching over 280 miles, they showed unity and strength, fighting against a government whose policies prevented them from earning a living and having a decent life.
This generation faces a similar situation to the Jarrow marchers in 1936 and, like them, we will not take it lying down. Inspired by these workers I will be joining the Jarrow march this October organised by Youth Fight for Jobs.
With growing support from the trade unions and from young people up and down the country, this march will play an important role in building a mass movement against the cuts. We're fighting for decent jobs and a decent future.
What we think
From the start the Con-Dem government has been weak. The Tories were forced into a coalition because they could not win a mandate for massive cuts in public spending. With the biggest drop in family income since 1977, and the cuts starting to bite, the unpopularity of the government has grown dramatically. As a result, the cracks in the coalition are widening.
Like rats in a trap, the Liberal Democrats are spitting invective at their coalition partners. Nick Clegg has accused David Cameron of being a 'liar' and part of a 'right-wing clique'. Lib Dem energy minister Chris Huhne has threatened legal action against chancellor George Osborne for his claim that the Alternative Vote (AV) would require expensive voting machines.
Clegg and Co are kicking out in frustration because they are facing electoral disaster at the local government elections and in the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections on 5 May as ex-Lib Dem voters punish them for joining the hated Con-Dem government.
If, as is likely, the Lib Dems also lose the AV referendum, the growing pressure on the leadership of the party from its rank and file could become intolerable. It is not excluded that Clegg could be removed as leader of the party or that the party could split. As a result of that growing pressure Clegg has already had to promise that his party will be more "independent of the Conservatives after the referendum".
But what would this mean in practice? If the Liberal Democrats attempted to seriously oppose their coalition partners on any major issue, the government could become unworkable and a general election could be on the cards before the end of the year. If, on the other hand, Clegg and the rest continue to sign up to huge cuts in public services and workers' living conditions, the party is guaranteeing its own demise. Against this background, the claim by both Clegg and Cameron that the coalition will return to 'business as usual' after the election will be difficult to achieve.
Even if the 'yes to AV' campaign manages to scrape a victory by convincing Labour voters that voting 'yes' will damage the Tories, there will also be problems for the coalition government as right-wing Tory backbenchers would attempt to sabotage the introduction of AV.
AV is the issue around which the cracks in the coalition show most clearly, but the root cause is the growing movement against the cuts. The effects of the gigantic trade union demonstration against cuts on 26 March are continuing to be felt.
The demonstration will be followed by coordinated strike action at the end of June by some public sector unions, including the PCS civil servants' union and teachers' unions NUT and the ATL. Even the head teachers' union, NAHT, is threatening strike action.
Pressure is growing on the leaders of other trade unions to take part in a 24-hour public sector general strike. Regional demonstrations will give other workers a chance to show their opposition to cuts and support for strike action.
For millions of working class - and many middle class - voters the election is their first chance to punish the Con-Dems at the ballot box. There is no question that Labour will be the main beneficiaries of this trend. However, this does not reflect enthusiasm for the policies that Labour puts forward, but rather a hope that it is 'not as bad' as the Con-Dems.
In reality, Ed Miliband et al are also fully in support of massive cuts in public services, albeit at a slightly slower pace than the Tories. At local level Labour councils have voted through cuts just as large as those carried out by Liberal and Tory councils. Many of the government's policies - including increasing tuition fees and the destruction of the NHS - are a continuation of those carried out by Labour governments.
If, as is possible, New Labour is thrown back into government within months, it - like the ex-social democratic governments of Spain and Greece - will attempt to carry out the will of the markets, of capitalism, and savage public services. They would, however, face massive and determined resistance. No doubt the leadership of New Labour dread such a prospect and are hoping that the Con-Dems will last a few more years.
To stop the cuts a mass working class struggle is needed, starting with coordinated public sector strike action. The National Shop Stewards Network conference on 11 June (see page 6) will discuss how to develop the struggle against cuts. However, it is also crucial that the working class begins to build a party which stands in its own interests.
The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition challenge in the local elections and the Welsh Assembly elections, along with Coalition Against Cuts in Scotland, are steps in the direction of such a party.
For election updates go to:www.socialistparty.org.uk
A recent Care and Support Alliance survey of 1,000 disabled people and family carers, found that 22% have support needs but are not receiving services; 54% said changes to services had a negative impact on their health; 52% said their independence had been negatively affected; and 43% were less able to afford essentials such as food or heating. This was before the latest round of cuts.
In the name of a 'deficit' caused by the greed of the bankers and their profit-driven system, £81 billion in public spending cuts are planned to be carried out over the next four years.
The 28% cut in government funding to local authorities has already led to £1 billion cuts in social care spending this year and the tightening of eligibility criteria. This is at a time when there is a growing population of older disabled people.
£18 billion cuts in welfare spending will also lead to significant changes in benefits. Of the 70,000 who lost all benefits in October 2010, 20,000 were disabled people.
For example, a new Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will replace the mobility and care components of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) from 2013. This is a move to reduce entitlement by at least 20%. Automatic entitlements will end, and the successful use of aids, such as a wheelchair, could lead to the loss of benefits.
PIPs will require incapacity benefit claimants to be reviewed. They will face the possibility of sanctions for making mistakes when claiming. Already 20,000 disabled people lose their benefits every month.
Increasing rents for some social housing to 80% of market rates, and cutting the amount given in housing benefit will have an impact on thousands of disabled people, placing many vulnerable people at risk of homelessness. Also, the National Housing Federation has warned that over 400,000 including vulnerable people, such as pensioners and victims of domestic violence, are at risk of losing essential housing support funded by the Supporting People programme.
The misnamed Welfare Reform Bill being rushed through Parliament is the vehicle for most of these cuts. It will also introduce, from October 2013, a Universal Credit that will eventually replace tax credits, housing benefit, social fund loans, income support and income based Employment Support and Jobseeker's Allowances.
Given the scale of these cuts, the initial response of disabled people's organisations has been mixed. Following the autumn spending review, Inclusion London published a briefing that condemned outright the Tory/Liberal cuts. Both they and the Norfolk Coalition of Disabled People have since produced a detailed analysis of what the cuts will mean for disabled people and family carers in their areas.
But the United Kingdom Disabled People's Council (UKDPC) post-spending review statement said it had discussions with the Tory minister for disabled people, Maria Miller, and stressed the need for full impact assessments that would 'identify the effect the cuts will have' on disabled people.
The winter 2010-11 edition of UKDPC's Activate newsletter contained no outline or analysis of the cuts, but did announce the setting up of a Disability Rights Watch UK to gather evidence "to show the UK government where they need to improve the law, policies and practices to ensure that disabled people can enjoy their full human rights".
Gathering personal stories of how the cuts and discrimination are impacting on people can have an effect in countering government propaganda if they are widely circulated. But reasoning with a coalition that sees its historical legacy as completing the dismantling of the welfare state, started by Margaret Thatcher, is like trying to scratch a diamond.
There has also been a failure to publicly condemn the planned closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) that will put many of its 21,000 users at risk of having to choose between living independently with the most basic of support or being forced into residential care.
The government's announcement in December that the ILF is 'financially unsustainable' was supported by the Fund's trustees, and made only after consulting with 'disability organisations' that still have to be named.
In response to the ILF planned closure and the broader cuts, the National Centre for Independent Living has reiterated its long-term demand for a 'right to independent living'. But granting this right, without the billions in resources needed to achieve it, would ring hollow.
In fact, the current statutory duty on local authorities to assess and provide social services, contained in section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, is under threat. This is a primary target of Communities Secretary Eric Pickles' war on local authority legal duties in preparation for the mass privatisation or closure of services.
The decision by the UKDPC and the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) in January to organise 'The Hardest Hit' (THH) march, rally and lobby of Parliament on Wednesday 11 May reflects the groundswell of anger and alarm building among disabled people and family carers since the autumn spending review.
However, it must be used as a starting point to build a national campaign against the cuts. Disabled people's and carers' organisations and the disability charities involved in the DBC employ several thousand workers and have tens of thousands of members across the country.
Mobilised into a national campaign with active groups in every town and city, it could quickly give disabled people, family carers and not-for-profit sector workers, many of whom are facing redundancies and wage cuts, the confidence to fight back together and build a mass movement that would find an echo among millions.
On their own disabled people and carers' organisations cannot beat this government. Although it is possible that partial retreats such as the decision to continue to give mobility benefits to those in residential care could be achieved.
It is vital that links are developed with the public sector trade unions and the developing anti-cuts movement. Disabled people and family carers must play a role in them and support the call for a one-day public sector strike, as the next step in the campaign following the 26 March trade union demo.
Together we can defeat this government, reverse the cuts made so far, and demand decent benefits, pensions, jobs, homes and services for all.
"Families are crumbling across the country as carers cannot cope". Bristol mum Riven Vincent posted this online in January. David Cameron had visited her before the 2010 general election and pledged that, if elected, he'd protect disabled children.
Yet across the country, centres for disabled people and their carers are closing. The services and charities that form the scaffolding for the shaky edifice of Cameron's Big Society have had funds cut. Key welfare benefits are being axed and it's harder than ever for carers to get respite.
Hypocritically the Tories praise carers but expect families to bear the brunt of the cuts. They preach good traditional values but it is costs, not values that matter to them.
Thousands of children care for relatives to the detriment of their own welfare. Women in particular are often thrust into caring roles in the home - and into poverty.
Cameron famously knows what it's like to have a disabled child and the tragedy of losing a child is immeasurable. But millionaire Cameron and his rich wife had all kinds of resources at their disposal.
The millionaires, sitting in Cabinet or inhabiting the boardrooms of big companies, probably never empty bedpans for their parents, go without holidays or, like Riven, care 24/7 for tube-fed, doubly-incontinent children without their nannies, drivers, cleaners, gardeners and personal assistants.
Most carers have to leap hurdles before they get any help, waiting months for an answer to requests and when help comes it's often too little too late. Dave and Sam didn't crack under the pressure whereas Riven did. After six hard years and being told not to expect more than six hours weekly respite, she sadly asked for her child to be taken into care.
An extra £800 million has been allocated to respite care over the next four years, but it's not ring-fenced. Local councils can decide how to spend it and they are making cuts. Under Labour only 23% of the £400 million given for respite care in 2008 actually went into carers' breaks.
Caring involves financial, physical and psychological costs to the carer. It's a cheap option for the Con-Dem government.
But we and the people we love and care for deserve better: professional, dedicated support; training; weekly respite and proper holidays; a decent living income.
But let's face it - many of us wouldn't be doing it at all if there was a good, free and well-funded care system worthy of the name.
My mum told me: "Wheel me to the local DWP office or the NHS. Tell them you're on strike. Imagine if all the carers did that"!
She's right: we deserve a break. But expect nothing from the Con-Dems, although the last lot were no better. Somehow we'll have to fight for it!
Since 2008 Labour and Con-Dem governments have paid around £100 million a year to Atos Healthcare, a division of Atos Origin, to assess new sickness and disability related benefit claimants for the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). By using the unfair Work Capability Assessment (WCA), many were found 'fit to work'.
From April 2011 the WCA will be used by the Tory/Liberal government to assess one and a half million current disabled and ill Incapacity Benefit claimants. Of these, only about a quarter of a million will be transferred on to ESA.
Even then, many receiving ESA will only be able to claim it for a year. Those transferred to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) will receive £26 a week less, causing further and unnecessary hardship.
Some disabled people, particularly people with learning difficulties or mental health problems or cognitive impairments such as dyslexia, will be at risk of sanctions.
Since the introduction of the WCA, there has been a massive rise in appeals at the tribunal service. At least 40% of those appealing have been found 'not fit to work.' This process is a waste of taxpayers' money that is better used to create jobs, as well as hugely stressful.
Incredibly, many reports have stated that claimants, diagnosed with cancer, have been declared as fit to work; many blind and deaf people will also no longer automatically receive sickness benefit and are unlikely to qualify for extra help in finding work.
While most disabled people want to work, the government has also failed to appreciate that there are few supported jobs available to them and has not fully recognised the barriers that they experience in obtaining jobs - the institutional discrimination and prejudicial attitudes.
Atos Origin's renewed contract will involve them reassessing all existing Disability Living Allowance claimants to check if they are eligible for the new Personal Independent Payment.
This transition aims to save the government a further £1 billion plus that will result in many disabled people being found no longer eligible or placed on a lower rate than before.
Along with the privatisation of the welfare state, it seems that we are reverting to what working class and poor disabled people had to go through in the 19th century, where they had to provide for themselves and in times of crisis, were forced to go cap in hand to workhouses and philanthropists.
Most of the capitalist newspapers are aiding the government's ability to divide and rule by blaming the vulnerable in society, for example, scapegoating disabled people as 'scroungers', "greedy skivers" and "benefit cheats" for claiming benefits.
For the last six decades, the country has been governed by all three political parties and disabled people are no further forward in securing their right to live as equal citizens. They are still being denied welfare services. This indicates the need for society to become a socialist one, that puts people first, not profit.
For me, someone who is registered blind, the cuts are a very real and worrying thing. Like many other blind and visually impaired people, I rely on Disability Living Allowance (DLA), not totally, but to top up the income we often can't receive.
Due to finding work difficult to come by I have only been able to get a part-time job. Many may ask why do I require DLA if I can work. That is missing the point.
Contrary to what Iain Duncan Smith, minister for work and pensions, has to say, the DLA is a non work-based benefit that has two components.
The first is the mobility part which is used to help disabled people get about and remain as independent as they can be, given their disability.
The other part is the care component which goes towards helping you pay the costs of living. If you require a carer it would go towards that.
Also, as someone who is registered blind, I have had mixed experiences with the 'access to work' scheme set up by the previous Labour government.
Despite its slowness and inefficiency it is still a very good service which helps many disabled people into work. My workplace was adapted for me to carry out tasks like any other employee.
None of the cost of this is funded by the employer, be they in the non-governmental public or private sector.
Instead a government grant can cover things like taxi transport to and from work if a bus service is not available or equipment like screen readers for use with computers, which I take full advantage of.
Cuts in these areas will not only affect me but will affect my productivity. I really think the government should be looking to encourage disabled people into work rather than making them feel like criminals for needing support and assistance to be on a level playing field with the rest of society.
The main thrust was that the monarchy was a force for good. Portillo maintained that the monarchy brought 'colour and interest' to people's lives. Longley argued that my 'roundhead' values would provide for a colourless, miserable existence for the masses, as well as maintaining that the monarchy was above class, and above the squalid manoeuvring of politics.
I said that to describe the monarchy as 'above class' was frankly ludicrous; explaining that the queen herself possesses enormous wealth and is the biggest landowner on the planet.
I added that there is no place in a democratic society for an unelected institution which possesses inherited powers.
The UK does not have a written constitution which sets out the rights and duties of the Sovereign, they are established by conventions. These are non-statutory rules which can be just as binding as formal constitutional rules. As a constitutional monarch, theoretically the Sovereign must remain politically neutral.
However, the Sovereign retains an important political role as head of state, formally appointing prime ministers, and approving certain legislation. She has other official roles to play, such as head of the armed forces and head of the police, and can be seen as having two roles: Head of State, and 'Head of the Nation'.
In circumstances of a fundamental conflict of interests between capital and labour it is not inconceivable that, under pressure from capitalism, the monarch could refuse to sign an Act which, for instance, nationalised the commanding heights of the economy under workers' control and management.
In November 1975 the Queen's representative Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Labour's Gough Whitlam as prime minister and appointed right-wing Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker prime minister. Thus an unelected vice-regal representative had removed from office a government which commanded a majority in the House of Representatives.
It would be impossible to believe that this action was taken without the approval of the British monarchy. Portillo dismissed this example of Royal political action by first saying it was a civil servant's mistake, then later in the programme saying he didn't believe it. He maintained that societies were fairer in countries where monarchies existed.
If time allowed I could have given many other examples of the reactionary role of monarchies.
The Moral Maze did provide a limited platform to explain the class nature of the monarchy, but against the universal sycophancy of the media and the unrivalled ability of the British state to stage an extravagant event at considerable expense to the long-suffering tax payer, it was a peashooter opposing a hostile tank formation.
Great play was made of poll after poll indicating mass support among the population for the continuation of the monarchy. If the wording on such a poll was: 'Do you support an unelected institution having the power to frustrate the will of a democratically elected government' I think we would see a different outcome.
The ruling parties in the former Soviet countries usually use May Day, international workers' day, in a cynical manner, organising official events to which people are expected to turn up to wave balloons and listen to speeches and pop music.
Having been prevented from organising their own event, activists of the opposition 'Kazakhstan 2012' movement and Socialist Resistance Kazakhstan (the Socialist Party's counterpart in Kazakhstan), decided to participate in the official event.
However, once the red flags had been unfurled the police waded into their part of the demonstration to remove any opposition activists. Socialist activist Ainur Kurmanov received head wounds after being kicked by police whilst on the ground. The leader of the 'Leave People's Homes Alone' campaign, Bakhytgul Ukteshbaeva, was also hurt.
As the oppositionists chanted "shame" and "stop police repression", other participants began to shout out their disgust at the police actions. Later a section of workers who had joined the official parade broke away in protest.
Through the night the KNB (political police) consistently harassed Ainur and his friends and comrades who had come to the hospital. Firstly they tried to pressure the doctor to change his diagnosis, to say he had not been hurt and then attempted to get Ainur to admit that he had organised an "unsanctioned protest".
Activists of Kazakhstan 2012 organised a round the clock presence at the hospital to protect Ainur. During the night prisoner rights activist Vadim Kuramshin was attacked by police. The authorities say they want to charge Ainur with organising an unsanctioned protest - he faces yet another 15 days in prison.
This attack comes against the background of an increase in strike action in the country, a new wave of prison disturbances and even more harassment of the opposition. On 2 May, the trial of Dmitry Tikhonov, charged with organising an "unsanctioned protest", began.
A video of the attack can be seen on: www.socialismkz.info/
For details of solidarity action and addresses for letters of protests, see www.socialistworld.net
"The u-turn by the council represents a significant victory for our campaign. We have faced legalised robbery of our public fields through the device of the school becoming an academy.
We asked the council to secure our rights of access but the council failed to act leaving us facing the loss of the fields and public access to them. In a densely crowded terraced housing area you cannot begin to realise how valuable the fields are to us residents.
Despite the u-turn, that threat to the fields still exists. So we'll continue to build our campaign and seek support from across the city and beyond.
We now want to secure the public's right to access land that is already ours. We want the council to stop acting like powerless administrators in the face of more powerful interests.
I've heard people talking about 'people power'. If you organise, you can change things. We also will continue to work for a council that fights for its citizens.
We're cautious. Left only in the hands of lawyers there is still a major threat to our fields. But we will go on and seek to win full and ongoing access for Coventry citizens, and hopefully strike a blow for all the people."
Video:
Coventry Socialist Party website
City of London fat cats saw their 2010-11 bonus pot shrink 8%, compared to a year earlier, to £6.7 billion. However the masters of the universe were handsomely compensated by an average 7% rise in their salaries. This inflation busting pay hike compares to an average of just 2% rise across the economy for mere mortals.
These financial swings and roundabouts make a mockery of the government's Project Merlin deal with the City which was meant to voluntarily deliver financial restraint from the fat cats. By continuing to stuff their pockets with wads of cash they add a further insult to ordinary workers, many of whom continue to suffer from employer-imposed pay cuts at the same time as tax increases and government cuts in public services.
The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that the UK economy continues to flat-line with zero growth over the last six months. Tory Chancellor George Osborne attempted to be upbeat about growth, despite the evidence that his multi-billion pound austerity programme of spending cuts was acting like a massive drag on the economy. As a spokesperson from the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank put it: "The UK has just come as close as it is possible to come to a recession without actually being in one."
Global capitalism has racked up a £3 trillion overdraft - the sum that the world's central banks pumped into the global economy to prevent a financial meltdown.
The £3 trillion figure (which includes a mere £200 billion, so far, from the Bank of England) represents a staggering 8% of the world economy. However, this massive stimulus appears to have had only a short-term effect. According to Fathom Consulting, who compiled the global 'quantitative easing' figure: "It remains unclear how much of the equity market rally has been 'genuine', rather than simply a 'mopping up' of that extraordinary injection of liquidity." Fathom warns: "As that stimulus is gradually withdrawn, further gains in equity markets will be harder to achieve."
Meanwhile, the US government will hit its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit by 16 May.
The reasons for the multi-trillion debt is government bailouts to the banks and big business, funding costly overseas wars, capitalist recession, and a decade of tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations.
Meanwhile real wages actually fell by 8% during the last decade and median household income in the US fell from over $52,000 in 1999 to $49,777 in 2010.
Despite recently pushing huge spending cuts through the House of Representatives (with Democrat agreement), the Republicans are demanding deeper cuts in welfare and social services and yet more tax cuts for the rich.
Headteachers have voted overwhelmingly to ballot for strike action over pension cuts. At the annual conference of the National Association of Head Teachers 99.6% voted for a ballot, while 0.4% abstained.
They join other teaching unions NUT and ATL, who are likely to strike at the end of June over the same issue, probably with the lecturers' union UCU and civil service union PCS.
NASUWT members should be demanding a strike ballot as well, so they can prepare to join the action.
Mike, a young teacher and NUT member from east London explains why strike action is necessary: "I'll be £230,000 worse off under the proposed scheme if I have taken my pension for 25 years, and will no doubt have to use a Zimmer frame while teaching at the grand old age of 68, if I can reach the chalkboard or control a class of highly energetic 16 year olds.
"I will be paying an extra £84 each month in contributions (this amounts to over £33,000 over 38 years) which will not help me to pay off my student debt, nor get a deposit for a flat. Pay much more, work more, get much less, I won't pay for the bankers' profligacy with my pension!"
Over 30 members of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) at Rawmarsh Community School in Rotherham went on strike again on 4-5 May against compulsory redundancies.
The only member of the NUT being forced out is union representative Ralph Dyson, who led nine days of strikes earlier this year to stop 25 jobs being axed.
One NUT member said: "We're not going to abandon Ralph to sink when he held the lifeboats for the rest of us to get in."
The dispute started when new head teacher Dr Stuart Wilson announced that 25 teachers and nine support workers were being made redundant at the end of the spring term due to financial difficulties.
But after solid and determined strike action, the number of enforced redundancies among teachers was reduced to just one.
Some teachers left for other jobs, went part-time, shared jobs or took voluntary redundancy. But the one left, Ralph, is a clear case of victimisation of the union rep.
John Dalton, Rotherham NUT branch secretary said: "Management expected the NUT to call off action but the members voted overwhelmingly to continue action until the number of NUT redundancies is zero."
The 2011 NSSN conference will be held on 11 June at the South Camden Community School, London NW1 1RG.
The themes are:
Registration begins at 10.30am.
Email [email protected] to register. See also www.stopcuts.net and www.shopstewards.net
The background to the commune, as with the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, was war. Faced with economic decline and an increasingly militant labour movement, the desperate and corrupt regime of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte - the self-declared emperor of France - declared war on Prussia in July 1870.
Battlefield defeats soon followed, leading to a revolt of the Paris masses. A new Third Republic was declared and a Provisional Government of National Defence (GND) established. The formation of the 200,000 strong national guard meant that the Paris masses were now armed. The pro-capitalist ministers of the GND feared the potential for class conflict with these forces much more than the Prussian enemy.
A 135-day siege of the French capital by two Prussian armies, further big defeats for the French army and news that the GND was negotiating surrender terms with the Prussians led to a revolt by sections of workers and the national guard.
Headed by the veteran revolutionary, Louis Auguste Blanqui, and his followers, they seized the Hotel de Ville on 31 October and set up a Committee of Public Safety.
Blanqui had a strong influence amongst the Left and worker-activists in Paris, and was respected for his courage. Blanquism, however, was a utopian socialist ideology, which argued that secret groups of conspirators could act as a substitute for the mass action of workers. The majority of workers were not yet ready to rise up against the GND and the insurrection was mistimed and isolated.
The terrible siege of the city continued but so did the class struggle and state repression. In late January 1871, government troops fired on demonstrators outside the Hotel de Ville. Soon afterwards, the GND finally did what they had long planned and announced they were prepared to surrender to the Prussian military leader, Otto von Bismarck. The Prussians insisted on draconian concessions, including the loss of two territories, Alsace and East Lorraine, and huge war reparations.
Elections in February saw the reactionary Adolphe Thiers lead a new national assembly packed with monarchists and rural reactionaries. The assembly antagonised Parisian workers and small businessmen by threatening to cancel the wages of many national guards and demanding that rent arrears and all debts be paid immediately. This threat of bankruptcy, along with the danger of a monarchist restoration and Prussian reprisals, led to a new radicalisation amongst the poor and middle layers in society.
When a central committee of the Federation of the National Guards was democratically elected, Thiers decided to put an end to the emerging alternative government and sent in 20,000 French troops to capture the strategic canons at Montmartre, above the city. However, the troops disobeyed orders to shoot into large crowds of workers and executed two generals.
This was precisely the time for the national guard to go on the offensive. Thiers and his government had fled from Paris to Versailles. The army was disintegrating along class lines. But the central committee, dominated by conservative, procrastinating figures and without a clear socialist programme and worked out tactics and strategy, failed to win over the retreating troops and to end resistance at Versailles.
The leaders of the national guard organised elections for a commune, based on universal male suffrage in each locality, which came into being on 26 March. The commune, or city municipality, recalled the commune formed during the French Revolution, in 1792, which was regarded as a body of popular control.
The members of the 1871 commune were elected and open to recall at any time. Nearly half of the elected members were skilled workers, while the others included radical middle class doctors, accountants and journalists. Karl Marx commented: "This was the first revolution in which the working class was openly acknowledged as the only class capable of social initiative..."
The 90-member commune was made up of various Left republicans, but also a significant number who were members of the International Workingmen's Association - the First International.
As well as Blanquists, there were followers of Pierre Joseph Proudhon. He argued against big business and called for small property ownership, for people's co-operatives and exchange banks. This way, workers would "acquire the means of production" and could operate in a "just market".
Within the First International Karl Marx fought against Proudhon's anarchistic ideas and the illusion that capitalism could be overturned through reforms. Proudhon did not understand the historic role of the working class in abolishing capitalism - because of its size, strength and collective consciousness - and he rejected the democratic rule of the working class in the transition to socialism and a classless society.
Despite the limits and confusion of the commune leaders, far-reaching social and economic reforms were decreed. The conscript army was abolished and replaced with the national guard of armed citizens. Wages for commune members were limited to help prevent careerism and bureaucracy. The inherent internationalism of the communards was indicated by the popular slogan: "the flag of the Commune is the flag of the world Republic".
Church and state were separated, religion would no longer be taught in schools, and church property was abolished.
Economic reforms included the abolition of workers' registration cards and night work for bakers. Pawnshops were closed down. Debts were cancelled for a period. Factories abandoned by their fleeing owners were to be taken over by workers' associations as co-operative societies. It was hoped to organise the workplaces into one "great union".
However, the revolution stopped halfway. Decisive sectors of the economy were left untouched. The commune leaders failed to nationalise the Bank of France. Nor did they introduce an eight-hour working day, as a first step to allow workers the time to begin to participate in the running of a new society.
As it was, the commune had little time to put its policies into practice. Terrified that revolution could spread throughout France and Europe, the French and Prussian ruling classes now united against their common enemy - working people in revolt.
The French army laid siege to Paris with a continuous bombardment. Thiers faked a wish for negotiations to buy time to prepare for his final assault. Against this onslaught, the commune leaders underestimated the class enemy and adopted a defensive attitude.
Following some heavy losses in early April, the French army, given free passage by the occupying Prussian army, finally entered Paris on 21 May. Eight days of terrible massacres ensued.
Around 30,000 men, women and children were murdered, 38,000 were imprisoned, and up to 15,000 deported. Thiers was determined to destroy physically the most advanced sections of the working class and to wipe out the living memory of the commune.
Concerning the latter, Thiers and the capitalist ruling class failed completely. Marx and Friedrich Engels studied in great detail the dynamics of the commune - a "new point of departure of worldwide significance" - pointing out that the working class in coming to power could not rely on the capitalist state apparatus - they would have to defeat it and create their own.
Lenin and Leon Trotsky, co-leaders of the successful 1917 Russian revolution, concluded that, above all else, the Paris commune failed because it lacked a revolutionary party of the working class. Such a party sinks deep roots amongst the working class and youth, and by studying the lessons of international movements, prepares in advance for the struggle for power.
Today, the working class is inestimably stronger in France, Europe and internationally than it was in 1871 or 1917. The overthrow of Ben Ali and Mubarak in Tunisia and Egypt this year, was accomplished with the decisive intervention of the working class.
But these revolutions have, so far, met only part of their aims, without guaranteeing real, lasting democratic rights or winning fundamental economic and social change.
As with the heroic Paris commune, building mass, independent organisations of the working class, armed with socialist policies, is vital to realise the aspirations of working people in North Africa and the Middle East and across the world.
Three essays by Marx, plus an article by Lenin
The US government has announced a successful military assault on a large mansion in Abbottabad, near Islamabad, which has resulted in the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Significantly, the complex where the killings took place was very close to the Pakistani Military Academy in an extremely wealthy area largely populated by retired military officers.
This points to the fact that sections of the Pakistani state machine around the secret services, ISI, and especially retired military officers, have colluded with Al-Qa'ida and Bin Laden and the Taliban.
This operation represents a further development in US imperialism's foreign policy of targeted assassinations of its opponents. This strategy is enthusiastically backed by the current commander of US troops in Afghanistan and soon to be CIA chief, General Petraeus, dubbed a policy of "hot pursuit".
It follows recent attempts to assassinate Gaddaffi in Libya. They imagine that by the removal of one man they will resolve the problem.
While Bin Laden opposed both Mubarak and Ben Ali in Egypt and Tunisia the mass uprisings in those countries have clearly demonstrated that it is mass movements and not the methods of terrorism which show a way forward.
The use of terrorist methods arise from a defeat rather than show a way forward to struggle against brutal regimes or imperialism.
Marxists and socialists lend no support to Bin Laden or Al-Qa'ida, either ideologically or the vicious terrorist methods they have used.
US imperialism is confronting a Frankenstein monster which it created itself, particularly through its support for such forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Later Bin Laden and other forces were boosted by imperialism's support for rotten corrupt regimes in some Muslim countries.
Bin Laden employed the use of terrorist methods, including mass terrorist methods which caused devastating slaughter and misery for ordinary working people.
Yet US imperialism and other imperialist powers by employing their methods are also pursuing a policy of state terror and are adopting a policy which is a mirror image of what they denounce Bin Laden for.
The use of the lethal drones in Afghanistan and other places has caused the slaughter of innocent civilians. These events show an endless cycle of violence and slaughter in which it is the ordinary working people and poor who pay the price.
US imperialism has attempted a policy of assassination in the past. Such methods were tried against Castro in Cuba following the Cuban revolution.
Now however, it is being increasingly justified by US imperialism as it faces a relative decline as a world power although it still remains the most powerful imperialist country.
While US imperialism's propaganda machine will attempt to portray such killings as an indication of success and a demonstration of the power of US imperialism, in reality such a policy is a reflection of the weakening of the power of US imperialism.
It is reduced to "quick fix" solutions to remove "rogue" leaders or opponents but is unable to resolve the underlying crisis which exists.
Obama and US imperialism have undertaken this operation in the wake of the revolutionary movements which have swept the Arab world in an attempt to reassert US influence and demonstrate its power.
In the USA itself this will undoubtedly be used to strengthen Obama and divert attention away from the deepening social, economic and political crisis which exists.
The Pakistani government has claimed that it was not involved in the military operation militarily but stated that it shared intelligence and information with the US.
But it is clear that sections of the military and ISI have financed and colluded with Bin Laden and the Taliban.
Rather than strengthen US imperialism in Pakistan and the neo-colonial world, in many countries, including Pakistan, it is likely to increase anti-US sentiment, and in some of the Muslim world.
In particular it will strengthen opposition to the war in Afghanistan which was justified on the basis of capturing Bin Laden.
The Indian government has also used this attack to try to gain some advantage for itself, arguing that it shows that Pakistan is offering a safe haven to terrorist forces and urging that further such operations be carried out.
At the same time it is unlikely that the killing of Bin Laden will give a boost to Al-Qa'ida forces in Pakistan. They have sharply declined in recent years.
Following the attacks on 9/11 Bin Laden had 40-50% approval ratings in Pakistan. However, the attacks by his forces and those of the Taliban in the urban areas and indiscriminate killings of ordinary people in bombings and shootings have led to a sharp decline.
Bin Laden's and Taliban approval ratings have fallen to 4-5% in recent polls in Pakistan. However, it cannot be excluded that some Al-Qa'ida forces may get a certain boost from this operation in some countries.
Many in Pakistan, including the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida at this stage are refusing to accept that Bin Laden has been killed. If confirmed it will result in a shock effect on their forces for a period.
The killing of Bin Laden will represent an important symbolic setback for Al-Qa'ida's forces although it is unlikely to affect the military effectiveness of its forces.
It is likely to result in a shock in the short term but they will undoubtedly attempt an attack at some stage.
The killing of Bin Laden will be used domestically in the US and internationally as a propaganda weapon but it will not resolve any of the underlying social conditions which have resulted in the emergence of forces such as Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban.
In Pakistan and parts of the Muslim world it will further undermine the position of US imperialism. The continuation of imperialist domination and of landlordism and capitalism will result in organisations like Al-Qa'ida continuing to exist as Frankenstein's monsters for imperialism.
The horrors that capitalism and the reactionary forces of Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban mean for the mass of the population can only be ended by the working class and poor struggling for a socialist alternative - the only solution to the carnage which has developed.
On 26th April Unite union members working for Greenwich council, south London, elected Socialist Party members Onay Kasab and Chris Slater into the positions of branch secretary and treasurer respectively.
In addition two other lefts were elected into the positions of assistant secretary and chair, making it a clean sweep against a slate of candidates that represented a tired and out-of-date right-wing tradition that previously existed in the former ACTS branch.
The election took place as a result of the merging of the ACTS branch with the ex-TGWU branch to form the new Greenwich Unite 2050 branch. A packed meeting of around 150 took the opportunity to hear from candidates.
However, Onay's opponent announced on the night that she had no desire to address the meeting as her election material had stated all that she wished to say.
It was certainly the case that her campaign had issued a large number of glossy leaflets over just a few weeks. Even council lifts were plastered with her posters.
She also took the opportunity to use her position as an incumbent to hog trade union notice boards and mail out to stewards.
In one leaflet, she implied that she had no political affiliation, asking members to vote for her if they put their employment before politics. This came across as an attack on the Socialist Party.
On the night, campaigners not employed by Greenwich but wearing Unite tabbards handed out yet another leaflet on her behalf. In this they referred to her opponents as mavericks who would lose jobs and highlighted that she had made connections with the local Labour Party.
In sharp contrast, Onay and Chris chose not to make any complaint about what looked like a breach of election rules nor did they attack their opponents.
Instead they emphasised their own record including pay rises for large and several groups of staff, preventing pay cuts and redundancies, stopping library cuts and winning one of the best 'single status' deals in the country.
Onay's opponent was not able to give one specific example of a gain she had won for Unite members. On the night Onay won by a majority of 120, gaining 132 votes as against 12 for his opponent.
When the result was announced virtually the whole room erupted into cheering.
This sent a clear message - workers do not forget a fighting record, no matter the slurs or slanders. It also sent a clear message to the Unison witch-hunters who used undemocratic methods to impose their administration of the Greenwich Unison branch and who have expelled Onay from Unison.
When the question is put to workers to decide, they will choose fighting leaders
Rebuilding Unite in Greenwich is now an urgent task. This will be done in the teeth of the battle against the cuts.
What is clear from the campaign is that there are hundreds of workers who will now be joining Unite very quickly as a result of this election. Workers over the last few weeks took Unite forms while saying that they would only be joining if Onay was elected.
This election result was best summed up by one worker who said after the meeting:
"Now we know the Union is in safe hands - now we know we have a chance against the cuts".
The 400 Redhall construction workers, locked out for two months by BP/Vivergo from the bioethanol plant at Saltend, Hull, received two big boosts to their campaign for reinstatement last week.
On Tuesday 26 April, the scaffolders and electricians, employed by contractors for Vivergo, voted by about 90% to walk out again in support of the locked out Redhall workers.
This act of solidarity sends a clear message to BP/Vivergo that they cannot divide and rule. So if any scaff or spark is sacked as a result of their stand, construction workers around the country must be asked for solidarity strike action.
With the scaffolders and electricians joining the protest, now is the time for the repair and maintenance workers at BP to rejoin the action and bring this dispute to a head.
All trade union members should boycott the site until the Redhall workers are guaranteed re-employment with TUPE rights.
The next day, Wednesday 27 April, the industry national shop stewards' forum unanimously agreed to call for a national day of action if no settlement is reached in this dispute by the time of the next stewards forum which will be held on 9-10 May.
Stewards agreed to organise levies and collections to finance the hardship fund.
Redhall workers should visit NAECI sites over the next week with explanatory leaflets appealing for support so that a national day of action, which needs to be a one-day national strike, is called as soon as possible from the next stewards' forum.
Later that day, another meeting was held with Vivergo at its request. Despite the Redhall workers' rejection of a £1 million pay-off, Vivergo was still not prepared to talk about jobs.
In fact one of the bosses actually said: "Redhalls employees do not fit into my business plan". This is the clearest admission yet that BP/Vivergo ended the Redhall contract to get rid of what they regard as a militant workforce, to break the trade unions and to be able to pick and choose who they take back.
Vivergo needs to understand that there is no business plan without the Redhall workers because no union members will take their jobs or work with scab labour.
The Redhall workers are not interested in selling their jobs. They are fighting for re-employment on TUPE terms and conditions and protecting the NAECI national agreement.
(Report added on 3.5.11)
"I am absolutely disgusted about the way we've been treated", locked-out Unite member Ian McPike said outside British Sugar's plant in Newark, Nottinghamshire on 26 April.
A coachload of construction engineering workers travelled down from Middlesborough to protest at their seven-week lock-out.
The Newark plant refines sugar beet and is part of the huge Associated British Food Group, which also owns many well known food brands and agricultural products as well as Primark.
Its British Sugar subsidiary made £240 million profit in 2010 - a 42% increase on 2009. It has a 40% stake in the Vivergo biofuel plant, along with 40% owned by BP and 20% by American chemical giant Du Pont.
"We've seen what BP allowed to happen last year in the Gulf of Mexico", said Ian. "They've cast 400 of us out and all they want to do is take us back on their terms.
"If we don't accept their terms they say we can't go back.
"It seems employment law is only for the employers. BP has a total disregard for the law and for human beings.
"If TUPE is the law, why isn't it protecting us?
"If we don't go national with this we've got no chance against a national company like BP. We've had support from regional GMB and Unite officials but we've never heard from our national union leaders, like Len McCluskey.
I'm disappointed he's not yet been to see us or been on TV arguing our case". 'Our jobs are not for sale' is the mood of the workers.
GMB and Unite must throw their full weight behind them to defend NAECI 'Blue Book' gains from past struggles and the existence of trade unionism in the industry.
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/11938