National Union of Teachers (NUT) members across England and Wales are balloting for strike action over pensions. So are members of the smaller ATL teaching union. We must win those ballots and defeat the government's plans to make every teacher pay more for a worse pension.
We also have to look ahead and make plans for big regional demonstrations on 30 June, planned as the first strike day. Striking teachers, lecturers and civil servants will be marching to defend their pensions. We hope other workers will come and join us to show their opposition to the Con-Dem cuts.
The pensions robbery is not the only attack facing teachers. Budget cuts mean that schools are announcing staff redundancies. We should take inspiration from a victory at Rawmarsh School in Rotherham where 25 teachers faced redundancy. After over ten days of strike action, NUT members have finally fought off the very last threat.
The government is also determined to accelerate the spread of academies. The pensions ballot covers members in academies too. It's a chance to unite the whole membership in struggle.
The pensions loss calculator on the NUT's website spells it out. The government's proposals mean that a young teacher might have to pay in £60 more a month. For what? - to be told they must work until they are 68 or have £300,000 stolen from their pension during their retirement!
These calculated losses are shocking enough. But the Con-Dems' plans for 'career-average' pensions could mean that they are an underestimate of what we could lose.
The idea put forward by the leaders of the NASUWT teaching union that we should wait until negotiations are completed before unions start to ballot is, at best, naïve. The Con-Dems have already budgeted for £2.8 billion that they plan to rake in from the attack on public sector pensioners. They're not offering any serious negotiations.
Fortunately, five other teacher, headteacher and lecturer unions have agreed to issue the same united message - "now is the time to defend our pensions". The UCU lecturers union is considering action. The PCS civil service union is likely to vote at its conference to ballot for strike action too.
Let's win the ballot and make 30 June a real show of strength. If the government won't back down, unions need to be ready to go further and escalate our action next term.
The National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) is at the forefront of the battle against the Con-Dem cuts. The NSSN was initiated by the RMT transport union in 2007 so that rank and file trade unionists could organise together across the union movement and ensure that workers in struggle would be supported.
This role was important in 2009, when workers in the private sector fought a series of disputes at the Lindsey Oil Refinery, the Visteon and Linamar car plants and the Vestas wind turbine factory.
Now it's the turn of all workers, their families and communities as the Con-Dems look to make us pay the price for the bankers' crisis. They want to take us back at least 80 years by decimating the NHS, education, public services and the welfare state.
From the beginning, NSSN supporters have played a leading role in setting up local anti-cuts campaigns. To aid the anti-cuts work, in January, at a conference of 600 trade unionists, community campaigners and young people, the NSSN launched its anti-cuts campaign with a majority trade unionist committee.
We say that we must fight ALL the cuts, including those of Labour councils, who shamefully have passed on the Con-Dems' cuts. Now we must fight the implementation of these cuts - library by library and school by school if necessary.
I have been a registered mental health nurse since 1999. I have always worked in the NHS, either in a hospital or in the community. I have worked at staff nurse and team manager level (similar to ward sister). I now work as a community mental health nurse due to redeployment after my service was cut to save money.
The current round of cuts is hitting working class people the hardest because they generally have no alternative - no private health insurance or access to private health care. So they have to make do with reduced services.
Obviously the cuts also mean that health workers may lose their jobs or may have to work harder in a more stressful environment because of reduced staff levels.
As for this 'pause' that the Con-Dem government talks about, the cuts to the mental health sector are not pausing. My trust plans to make a 4% 'saving' each year for three years. The trust continues to review and cut services as planned previously. The NHS is a big machine to start and stop for brief pauses.
This new programme of giving GPs the money to choose what services they require will not help working class people. GPs already regularly restrict their referrals to specialists to save money. Often it's only when you kick up a stink or when you're in constant agony and can't work that they refer.
I'm sure some GPs might like the power, status and extra perks that the new scheme may bring. But they will have to employ extra staff to administer it all, at a cost. Therefore more money will be spent on admin and less on specialist referrals for patients.
It is not unusual for me to get sent information about my trust's corporate image. Privatisation is already here in the way NHS trusts conduct themselves. Most NHS trust services are more 'competitive' at the moment as they have the infrastructure - staff, buildings etc. But it cannot be long before, say a big supermarket chain, puts in a more competitive bid because they will probably hire less expensive, less qualified staff on much worse terms and conditions.
Derriford Hospital, the major health facility in west Devon and Cornwall, has announced massive cuts. Following an 8% cut to its budget, managers are seeking to make cuts of £31 million which will lead to reduced care for patients and hundreds of job losses.
The hospital's income has been reduced for the first time in a decade, following the Con-Dem government's austerity programme, combined with the rocketing costs of the government's unwanted and dangerous restructuring programme.
Staff will face the prospect of compulsory redundancies and enforced reductions in incremental and sickness pay, with £17 million of the £31 million in cuts being aimed at the pay bill. This follows £20 million in 'savings' made last year in which low-paid workers bore the brunt, with pay cuts for part-time nurses.
Paul Roberts, Plymouth Hospitals' chief executive, warned that the number of posts at Derriford would be "significantly reduced".
In addition to cuts in staffing levels and pay, two operating theatres will be shut, 130 beds will be lost and outpatient clinics will be reduced, all real cuts in the service people receive. There will be further reductions in temporary staffing, meaning reduced care on the wards.
The management has argued that the cuts will not reduce services, but many people in Plymouth are very concerned by the announcement.
The Socialist Party in Plymouth is aiming to start a city-wide campaign against the health cuts and is in discussion with union activists on how to develop this. We are the only voice in the city arguing for a publicly-owned and fully funded NHS and will continue to fight for the rights of NHS workers and patients.
What we think
The eurozone faces its deepest crisis since the euro was launched in 1999. Failure to resolve the sharpening Greek debt emergency would have a devastating effect on the European and world economies. A default by Greece, in effect, bankruptcy under which the Greek government would not be able to pay its debts, would trigger a new banking crisis, probably as severe as 2008. At the same time, a Greek default could trigger the breakup of the eurozone, with the emergence of two or more currency areas, if not a complete disintegration.
Greece, moreover, is far from being an isolated case. Ireland, Portugal and Spain face similar problems.
There is no agreement between the eurozone leaders on how to deal with the crisis. Their disarray has been heightened by the Dominique Strauss-Kahn affair, with the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) facing charges of sexual assault in New York.
Whichever policy is followed by the eurozone capitalists, the working class faces a prospect of savage austerity. New loans will only be granted to the Greek government on the basis of even more drastic austerity measures. On the other hand, a default and exit from the eurozone would, on a capitalist basis, also lead to a further degradation of living standards.
The Greek bailout implemented last year has not worked. The Greek government was granted €110 billion of loans on condition that it carried out drastic attacks on the working class: welfare spending cuts, wage cuts, pension cuts, and increased taxes. However, it is estimated that Greece will require around €50 billion of new loans in 2012 to cover its borrowing needs. The main reason Greece has not met its economic targets is that the austerity measures have prolonged the economic slump. The Greek economy contracted by -4.4% last year and is expected to contract by -3.5% this year. In reality, the IMF/ECB/eurozone 'rescue' has only increased the indebtedness of Greek capitalism and undermined its ability to pay off its debts.
The eurozone leaders are discussing a further €30 billion loan to Greece, but only on condition that the government rapidly carries out a further €50 billion of privatisation of state industries and utilities. It has even been proposed that these privatisations should actually be supervised by the IMF, which would mean a complete loss of economic sovereignty for Greece.
Capitalist leaders are deeply divided. The European Central Bank, the German government and others favour more loans to Greece, on condition of further austerity measures and privatisation. Leaders like Angela Merkel in Germany fear an electoral backlash against further bailouts. There is fear of the eurozone becoming a so-called 'transfer union' in which the stronger economies are effectively financing the weak economies.
Other sections of the capitalists, particularly in the finance sector, now believe that a default is inevitable. They recognise there is a limit to the austerity that can be imposed on the Greek people without provoking greater social conflict and uprisings. It would be better, in their view, to carry out an orderly default. This would involve the exchange of existing Greek government bonds for new bonds, guaranteed by the IMF/ECB, etc, that modified their terms. This could mean longer periods of repayment and a lower interest rate. But the most contentious issue is whether there should be a reduction in the face value of the bonds (though in the secondary bond market there is already at least a 40% reduction in the value of the bonds).
The main motive of these finance capitalists is to carry out an effective rescue of the banks. Overall, foreign banks have loaned £1.6 trillion to the four heavily indebted eurozone countries, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. Domestic banks also hold billions of euros of government bonds. A forced default, or a panic-driven rescheduling, could trigger a banking crisis on the scale of 2008. There would be huge losses for the banks, not only on government bonds but also on the various 'derivatives' which are linked to the bonds.
At the moment, the Greek government is clinging to the euro (despite rumours early in May that it was considering withdrawal from the eurozone). It calculates that if it is part of the eurozone then the stronger eurozone governments will be forced to bail out the Greek economy.
However, at a certain point the conditions of such a bailout will become unsustainable. The conditions attached to new loans would make them intolerable, making withdrawal from the eurozone preferable. Then, countries like Greece and most likely Ireland and Portugal (and possibly Spain) would at least have the option of devaluing their new national currencies and boosting exports, as well as encouraging inflation which would reduce the real (inflation-adjusted) value of their debts.
Recent events confirm the analysis of the eurozone that the Socialist Party put forward from the beginning. While the euro could develop for a period on the basis of the growth of the European economy, we predicted that the common, multinational currency would not be able to overcome the national divisions of capitalism. In fact, the euro did not bring a 'convergence' between the stronger economies, like Germany and France, and the weaker, 'peripheral' countries, like Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The low interest rates that were based on the performance of the stronger economies helped fuel property bubbles in the weaker economies. They also allowed their governments to hugely increase public spending on the basis of a temporary boost to tax revenues, fuelled by property booms and financial speculation.
When the global economy was pushed into deep recession after the onset of the US subprime crisis in 2007, the peripheral economies were faced with an unsustainable burden of debt. Deficits were boosted by the downturn, with the eruption of mass unemployment and the collapse of tax revenues.
The euro may or may not survive this crisis. But, sooner or later, the eurozone will be wrecked on the rocks of insurmountable economic problems and the conflict of national interests between the member states.
Horrendous austerity measures have provoked massive resistance from the working class throughout Europe, and especially in the countries facing the most acute debt crisis. Workers are furious that they are being forced to pay for a crisis triggered by the banks and other predatory speculators. The real bailout is the rescue of the banks and big business by the working class.
In Greece there have been nine general strikes and seemingly endless protests against cuts. There has been resistance in Ireland, Portugal and Spain. Commentators, however, have noted that there appears to be a lull in the strikes and protest action, a certain 'protest fatigue'. Any such pause, however, will be purely temporary. It arises because the leaders of the workers' organisations, while calling strikes under pressure from below, have no alternative to the policy of bailouts and austerity measures.
Faced with this deep, long-term crisis of capitalism, the working class needs a bold alternative. This should be based on a clear refusal to pay the debts run up by capitalist governments, from which banks and other speculators hugely profited when the going was good. Repudiation of debts, however, is not in itself a solution. On the basis of capitalism, bankruptcy of the state would mean a period of prolonged poverty and suffering for the working class.
Control of the banks and the commanding heights of the economy - the major industrial and commercial companies - must be taken out of the hands of the capitalist class, which is responsible for the present global crisis. The economy should be planned and managed in the interests of working people, controlled by elected representatives of workers, trade unions, consumers, community organisations, and so on. This would be the beginnings of a socialist planned economy.
European institutions, like the eurozone and the EU itself, which are clearly agencies of the capitalist ruling class, should not be opposed from a narrow, nationalist point of view. Europe, as well as the wider world economy, cries out for socialist economic planning. This is the only way that the living standards of workers everywhere can be raised, obscene inequalities progressively eradicated, and the environment protected for future generations.
I attended the disabled people's protest in central London on Wednesday 11 May as part of a group organised by the Royal National Institute of the Blind. At the rally at the end there were a couple of good disabled activists among the speakers.
Maria Miller, Tory minister for disabled people had chosen to attend prime minister's questions in preference to meeting the people she is supposed to represent and, as you can imagine, this didn't go down well with the crowd.
Labour's shadow secretary for work and pensions, Liam Byrne, did speak. He made a point of stating his disapproval of the way the for-profit company Atos was assessing people as being fit for work, including, for example, people with cancer. This, of course, was breath-taking hypocrisy since Labour introduced the Work Capacity Assessment in October 2008.
I had an appointment with my MP, Toby Perkins, Labour MP for Chesterfield. Also in attendance was a disabled woman with her husband. This woman had just had her care package cut from 58 hours to 19 hours a week by Derbyshire County Council. Toby acknowledged that this was having a significant effect upon her and her husband, who is her main carer. He arranged to meet them privately to discuss how to pursue this situation.
I then talked about the changes to welfare benefits proposed in the government's Welfare Reform Bill, including the migration of people from Incapacity Benefit to Employment and Support Allowance. Toby agreed that the actions of Atos were unacceptable and that they were assessing many people inappropriately.
When I pointed out that it was the previous Labour government who brought in the test he claimed that if they were still in power they wouldn't be letting Atos get away with the kind of behaviour they are doing currently.
However, he did not see anything wrong with the system brought in by the last government and said he agreed with the concept of the Work Capacity Assessment.
I also talked about the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance and the fact that this would mean many people would lose their benefit or have it reduced, even though the benefit doesn't even currently meet all the additional costs of disability.
I then asked Toby how he intended to vote on the Welfare Reform Bill. He said he couldn't give an answer at present as he needed to consult with his front bench colleagues and that it was difficult as he agreed with some parts of the bill.
This only serves to highlight further that the difference between Labour and the Con-Dems is not significant.
Despite me and my friend, Liz, having to march without assistance, it was great to be part of what is believed to be the biggest ever march of disabled people - estimated, even by the police, at 8,000.
National Union of Teachers (NUT) members at Rawmarsh Community School in Rotherham have secured victory in their fight to stop compulsory redundancies. The new headteacher had wanted over 30 redundancies, including 25 teachers, to cut a management created deficit.
NUT members took nine days of strike action which reduced the threatened job losses to four teachers, of which the only NUT member was Ralph Dyson, the union rep at the school.
Action was then resumed after Easter with three more strike days and a further three-day and then five-day strike planned. This determined stance finally forced the head to back down and accept a compromise that keeps Ralph as a teacher at the school.
Whilst teachers have made concessions to help avoid compulsory redundancies, there is absolutely no doubt that it is only through the NUT members' strike action and solidarity that this victory has been achieved. That will inspire and give confidence to teachers elsewhere to fight the cuts.
At the same time, it's been a disgrace that the head has been backed by the Labour-led local education authority in not only making the cuts, but victimising the trade union rep at the school.
Ralph would like to thank all those who have given support and backing: "At times we have felt deeply humbled and proud by the support, advice and backing we have received. We know that the fight is not yet over and there are many hurdles to overcome. So may we take this opportunity to thank you all from all of us here at Rawmarsh Community School NUT.
"Without the above, the fight would have been a lot lonelier place to be and harder to fight for. At times when the resolve has been shaky your backing has been comforting and inspirational. The whole experience has been life changing and learnt us a lot about ourselves and others. It has given us the energy and motivation to keep up the fight."
A former British senior intelligence officer claims that Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's former spin doctor, 'sexed up' the Labour government's 'dodgy dossier' in 2002 to include the bogus threat that the Saddam Hussein regime could launch weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against British interests within 45 minutes.
The dossier, which included an introduction by Blair saying the document established "beyond doubt" that Iraq had WMD, was used to justify war against Iraq the following year.
In January 2010 Campbell told the Chilcot inquiry into the cause of the war that the 'facts' in the dossier hadn't been twisted to justify the ensuing war. However, in evidence to the inquiry, the Director General of Defence Intelligence, major-general Michael Laurie, flatly contradicted Campbell's version of events.
Laurie told the inquiry: "Alastair Campbell said to the inquiry that the purpose of the dossier was not to make a case for war. I had no doubt at that time this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used.
"We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence, the wording was developed with care."
Having 'made the facts fit the war', the US-British governments' invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, a bloody sectarian civil war, regional instability, and increased terrorism internationally.
'Under capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get poorer'. Merely Marxist propaganda? Not so. A new report by the high pay commission shows that the wage gap between UK's highest earners and the rest of workers will soon be as wide as in Victorian times.
According to the commission the top 0.1% of earners will see their pay rise from 5% to 14% of national income by 2030. The last time this concentration of wealth was seen was in the early 1900s.
Last year according to the report the average salary of corporate fat cats was over £3,747,000. This sum is over 145 times greater than the national median full time wage of £25,800.
The report says the trend is likely to see a further widening of this gap to 214 times by 2020.
Undoubtedly, right wing trade union leaders will seize upon such figures as strengthening the call for a return of a Labour government.
However, recent figures published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that income inequality between rich earners and the majority of workers accelerated under the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
More evidence that the government's austerity measures are pushing the economy back into recession comes from the latest house repossession figures. These show a 15% leap in repossessions in the first quarter of 2011 - some 9,100 properties.
The Council for Mortgage Lenders expects repossessions for the whole of 2011 to be around 40,000 - up on the 36,300 recorded in 2010.
The Ministry of Justice also produced figures last week that showed repossession claims in courts in England and Wales rose for the third consecutive quarter in January-March this year. 20,034 claims were made - 8% higher than in the same period in 2010.
Needless to say it is the squeeze on incomes through rising unemployment as well as pay cuts at the same time as hikes in energy, food and fuel bills that have pushed people into indebtedness.
Another big factor causing mortgage arrears is the government decision to halve the payment rate for support for mortgage interest (SMI) last October. SMI is a benefit paid to people on income support, jobseeker's allowance or pension credit and with mortgages of less than £200,000.
London Met police marksmen are to be issued with hollow point or 'dum dum' bullets. The ammunition, which typically instantly kills the victim, has been outlawed in wars under the 1899 Hague Declaration.
According to the London Evening Standard: "Police experts say there is less risk of injuries to innocent parties and bystanders" using these bullets. The tragic irony of this sentence seems to be lost on the Standard as this type of ammunition was used to assassinate innocent party Jean Charles de Menezes in Stockwell underground station in a botched anti-terrorist operation by Met police in 2005. After this fatal shooting the dum dum ammunition was withdrawn. But "after 12 weeks testing" (on who?) the police are reintroducing it.
Brian Coleman, Tory councillor and London fire boss, claimed an outrageous £3,500 in expenses for taxi and car journeys on top of his £120,000 earnings.
'Grab-a-cab Coleman' is also notorious for his political bile aimed at the capital's firefighters. Last year he threatened Fire Brigades Union (FBU) members with mass sackings unless they agreed to unacceptable changes in working practices, while at the same time hypocritically accusing the FBU of 'thuggish' behaviour.
What does a private rail transport company do faced with an increased demand for its services during the 2012 London Olympics? You've guessed right, it cuts its services!
Southeastern intends to slash the number of trains during week days between 28 July and 12 August 2012 in south east London, including closing the Woolwich Dockyard station.
It seems that Southeastern, with its high fares and overcrowded trains, is now trying to establish a new record for the worst rail service ever.
If splits at the top denote opposition from below, then the character of the divisions between the alleged 'partners' in the Con-Dem government means that a massive social and political revolt is brewing in Britain.
"We should stab them [the Liberal Democrats] in the eye before they stab us in the back," one Tory MP told a Financial Times correspondent. Vince Cable, Lib Dem business secretary in the coalition, replied in kind and attacked the Tories for being "ruthless, calculating and very tribal".
The reason for the mudslinging can be found in the results of the local government elections and the referendum on the alternative vote (AV) electoral reform. The outcome represented a damning verdict, in particular on the Lib Dems' decision to share power in the last year with the Tories.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg insisted that the party should 'own' fully the vicious anti-working class austerity programme of the Tories. Voters took him at his word and ruthlessly punished his party. From a 'radical' alleged protest party, the Lib Dems - and particularly their ministers in government - have acted as human shields for the Tories.
The consequence of this is that the Lib Dems have been pushed back from the urban areas in the North, Scotland and Wales and are now largely a party of the 'shires'. Their strategists admit that when voters heard "Lib Dems" it immediately connected in their minds with "Conservatives" and "cuts".
In Liverpool, the Liberal Democrats, who have acted historically as the hatchet men for big business and the Tories, saw one of their former leaders, Mike Storey, defeated by an 18-year-old! The Tories generally did better, although they merely held the ground gained in the 2010 election, flat-lining electorally.
Could the coalition then fall apart given the internecine conflict in its ranks? This is unlikely in the short-term. The Liberal Democrats are in no fit state to fight an election, particularly this year. Among other things, the loss of 700 council seats is a heavy financial blow, particularly as councillors are now paid by the state. They are part of a new caste or 'salariat' with a material stake in capturing and holding council positions. The same also applies to councillors from the other main parties.
Gone are the days when Labour councillors, although they did not always stand on the left, nevertheless tended to be volunteers dedicating themselves to defending their communities and class. As Labour has been transformed from a workers' party at bottom into another capitalist party, so workers have dropped out of Labour Party membership. In their place have come careerists and place seekers, devoid of any sympathy or susceptibility to the worsening plight of ordinary working class people.
So the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to jump ship and Cameron's Tories are unlikely to push them out of the government at this stage. As the defeated Tory leadership contender David Davies commented: "They are passengers on the aeroplane but without parachutes."
The Tories did not calculate nor wish for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats originally. But it has dawned on them that this is probably the best government through which their draconian cuts policy could be carried out. A Tory government ruling by itself but not yet 'decontaminated' from Thatcherism - the "nasty party", in the words of present Home Secretary Theresa May - would have attracted much greater opposition than this one, where Clegg is taking the hit for the unpopular policies.
Hence the campaign to 'save the whale' is dwarfed by the noisy attempt of Cameron and even Osborne to 'save the Lib Dems'. Forgotten temporarily are the spats within the Cabinet as Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne assailed the "dishonest" role of the Tories and particularly Cameron in the 'No' campaign against the AV proposal.
Actually, Cameron originally wished to remain relatively neutral in the referendum campaign. But as former Tory minister in the Thatcher government Michael Portillo has revealed, Cameron was in effect forced to come out strongly in opposition to AV. He was confronted by a rebellion of Tory MPs, who would have probably lost their seats under AV, threatening to unseat him as Tory leader unless he led the charge for the 'No' campaign.
This, in turn, is a reflection that incipient splits are not restricted to the Lib Dems alone. Under the impact of the economic and social situation in Britain, the Tory party can be riven with big splits and even a trend towards disintegration.
It is the dire economic situation of British capitalism - against the background of an intractable world crisis of capitalism - that is driving this government to launch an offensive against the rights and conditions of the working class which is unprecedented in the modern era.
The justification of Osborne and Cameron, with the discredited Clegg in tow, for inflicting so much misery, is that 'it will be all right on the night'; the government cuts will do their job in laying the basis for the economy's revival and, happily for them, the victory of the Tories or the Con-Dem coalition in the next election.
But that promise lies in tatters, due to the British economy's miserable performance in the last few months. Moreover, the worsening of the European and world economic crisis - described elsewhere in this issue of the Socialist - will dampen further any lingering hopes.
Even the miserly 2% growth rate envisaged for this year has been downgraded to a miserable 1.7%. This undermines any hopes of a sustained recovery; instead, we have what capitalist economists now call a "growth recession". This means that the growth rate is so low as to be almost invisible and utterly incapable of making serious inroads into unemployment levels.
In fact there has been no real substantial drop in unemployment in the last six months. Consequently the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, now says there will be slow if any growth at all and a "protracted fall in living standards" is now most likely. Britain's economic performance is worse than any of the advanced industrial countries with economic output 4% below pre-recession levels.
Added to the woes of the working people, who are called upon to pay the bill for this crisis, are the spiralling price increases. There is the looming prospect of a period of stagflation, with little or no growth combined with price rises. Fuel could increase by anything from 20% to 30% in the next period, which will feed through to vital household items, including food.
This economic scenario could be considerably worsened if, because of rising prices, the government pressurises the Bank of England to increase the rate of interest, which is possible sometime later this year.
This, combined with the severe depressionary effects of Osborne's £81 billion worth of cuts over four years could send the economy, and with it the lives of working people, into a further downward spiral. This has led to a chorus of leading capitalist economists, alarmed at the consequence of the British government's policies, condemning Osborne and Cameron. Will Hutton, Nouriel Roubini, and even former US financial secretary Larry Summers have lacerated them.
In fact, capitalist economists outdo each other to describe the severity of the present crisis. Comparisons with the 1930s depression have even given way to economists like Roger Bootle, managing director of Capital Economics, predicting that this crisis' severity and duration will be the most severe "since the Great Depression of the 1870s".
This holds out the prospect of decades of 'eternal austerity' for Britain's working people. Such a system, with mass unemployment and the tendency for this to become permanent, widening economic divisions and inequalities, is signified in Britain with the publication of the recent Rich List, indicating a system that is sick unto death.
This alone guarantees a massive collision between the classes in Britain which is in its first stages, signified by the mighty demonstration of 26 March. Not just nations but also classes fight more ferociously over contracting incomes than when the economic pie is expanding. This is the situation in Britain today.
Under the cover of the crisis an unprecedented offensive against the rights and conditions of the working class is underway. Even where there is no economic justification for cuts - as with the teachers' pension scheme which can presently meet all future claims on it - this government is determined to wield the axe. There are cuts in local government and the state sector.
So severe are these projected cuts that in the 400 or so local authorities in Britain, 'mini-Greeces' can develop. Those who carry out these cuts at local level could be besieged on the same scale locally as has the Greek government on a national level. Nine general strikes have taken place in Greece because of the determination of the bosses to inflict greater and greater pain on the Greek workers. An element of barbarism, the tendency towards disintegration, is therefore taking place alongside heroic attempts by the working class - despite the leaders' cowardice - to fight back.
Britain is not yet at the stage of Greece. We have not yet experienced the big events - apart from 26 March and the student revolt against tuition fees - which Greece and other countries have faced. But such events are decisive in changing the industrial and political consciousness of working class people. But if Osborne, Cameron and Clegg get their way, such a mass revolt or a series of revolts are on the way here as well.
The explosion of anger in the so-called 'Tesco riot' in Bristol indicates the gathering force of opposition from below. The causes of this event were many: police violence, unemployment, as well as resentment against big business in the form of opening new superstores. Such inchoate revolts, only on a bigger scale, will take place elsewhere as the widespread uprisings of the 1980s under Thatcherism showed.
Of even greater significance - because of the colossal difficulties facing the participants - was the tremendous demonstration in London on 11 May of the sick and disabled against the government's barbaric attack on them. Over 10% of the £81 billion that Osborne intends to cut - a total of £9 billion - is directed against this most vulnerable section of society. As one demonstrator said: "Once we were poor dears. Now we are the benefit cheats."
For every one of the 5,000 who participated in the London demo, there were 100 or more behind them either too sick or too poor to travel to the capital. A battle royal will open on this issue alongside many other crucial social questions in the next period. But the Tories will press ahead unless they meet resistance.
How many times have we said that the Tories don't preach class struggle because they are too busy practising it? Yet that is not strictly true today. Witness George Osborne speaking to the Institute of Directors (IoD) recently, in which he mapped out, under the guise of eliminating 'red tape' in industry, a programme for dismantling hard-won trade union rights; on tribunal appeals, raising the percentage of workers who must participate before a union ballot is 'valid', etc.
He concluded with the rallying cry of a committed capitalist class warrior, telling the IoD to "get stuck in". His sidekick Cameron has become so bellicose, including assertive insults in the House of Commons, that he is now being compared to the fictional toff and bully "Flashman" in the book Tom Brown's Schooldays!
And yet the Tories are not as confident as they appear on the surface. The sound of screeching rubber - arising from u-turns and projected changes in policy - has dominated the political arena in the last period. This is because they have met with a wall of resistance to their proposals to effectively 'privatise' the NHS.
So popular is the NHS, with massive opposition to Lansley's proposals from the Royal College of GPs, doctors in the BMA, etc, as well as users of the NHS, that the plans are discredited. Even the Financial Times urges Cameron to withdraw the Bill completely. However it would be a mistake to conclude from this that the government will completely abandon measures to privatise the NHS.
Therefore Cameron's promises, alongside those of Francis Maude, the Con-Dem coalition's 'privatisation general', not to go down the road of privatisation on the scale of the 1980s are not worth the paper they are written on. Cuts including disguised and open privatisation are taking place in the NHS and will only be fully defeated by mass resistance of the health trade unions together with the trade union movement as a whole and users in the working and middle classes.
The government's u-turn on the sale of forests, followed in recent weeks by their backtracking on their sneaky proposals to privatise allotments, shows the government can be defeated and brought down. Such is the scale of the growing opposition in Britain that is not excluded that the government will be forced into another general election this year.
The local election results do not indicate that victory is guaranteed for the Tories and certainly not if they have the Liberal Democrats on board. The Lib Dems face political extinction, as we pointed out previously. Already there are calls, after the election debacle, for Nick Clegg to walk the plank!
But New Labour is no real alternative. The election results were disastrous for its leader Ed Miliband, particularly in Scotland. In a general election, however, Scotland is not guaranteed necessarily to vote in such heavy numbers for the SNP.
Some ground could be gained, not that the mass of working people hold out much prospects for radical change. But such is the fear of this government and the proposals in the pipeline there could be an electoral swing towards New Labour. However there is no prospect of any movement of working people into the party.
It is incredible that, as the situation worsens, New Labour shifts even further towards the right, offering even to rescue the Liberal Democrats in an alternative coalition to that of the present Tory-led coalition! New Labour's leadership made this grand gesture for two reasons.
Firstly Miliband, because of the reduction to 600 MPs introduced by the government, obviously no longer believes that Labour can be victorious in future electoral contests. At the same time, given the overall economic and social situation Miliband is probably now afraid or half afraid of actually ruling alone and is preparing like Cameron to hide behind the Liberal Democrats if necessary in a new coalition government.
Yet they totally underestimate the scale of the crisis in Britain and its political repercussions in future. Canada's general election result shows, particularly in the near destruction of the Liberal Party and the discrediting of its leader Michael Ignatieff, that this could take place in Britain in the period opening up.
Cameron's scenario - that after four years of 'difficulties', in reality savage cuts, the Tories alone or in coalition with the Liberal Democrats could carry through tax cuts on the eve of the next general election and ride back into power - is very far-fetched to say the least.
The Tories will need at least an 8% lead in opinion polls to guarantee a majority government and they are far from that at the present time. This is one reason why Cameron will be reluctant to go towards an early election even in the medium-term. Particularly as, given the damage which will be inflicted on the living standards of working people, the Tories would be unlikely to win.
However, for working class people the rocking of the Parliamentary cradle from right to 'left' will not fundamentally change their conditions. The local election results and the situation that flows from this require a stepped-up campaign to lay the foundations for the new mass socialist alternative, a new mass workers' party.
On 5 May elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and local councils saw the further consolidation of the two largest parties, the loyalist Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and the republican Sinn Féin. Their victory occurred despite the fact that these two parties, in coalition with the other three main parties, are implementing sharp public spending cuts.
Every election in Northern Ireland is dominated by a "sectarian headcount", as political parties which are based entirely in either Protestant or Catholic communities battle for supremacy. For the last 15 years there has also been a battle within each community as to which party will become pre-eminent. In each case the most strident representative of the 'interests' of 'their' community has won out.
The five main parties on the outgoing Northern Ireland Executive were and are united in implementing a programme of sharp cuts and attacks on working people. This was the cause of widespread anger and disillusionment but at this stage this did not result in damage to the electoral base of the Executive parties.
In part this is because the cuts have in the main yet to bite and there has not yet been a generalised anti-cuts movement, and because there is no credible mass alternative force at the ballot box.
It is also the case however that the 'national question' still dominates politics at every election in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding this, on the doorsteps in this election, cuts, the economic situation and class issues tended to dominate.
A consequence of widespread cynicism with all the parties was a sharp decline in the number of those who actually turned out to vote however (just over half the electorate voted).
The largest unionist party, the DUP, consolidated its lead over the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), gaining two Assembly seats to bring it to a total of 38. Its share of the vote at 30% was marginally down (by 0.1%). The UUP vote fell from 14.9% to 13.2% and it lost two seats.
Sinn Féin increased its share of the vote marginally (to 26.9% from 26.1%). It won one extra seat (it now holds 29) and significantly further eroded the base of the previously largest party in the Catholic community, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP).
The SDLP vote fell from 15.2% to 14.2%, it lost a key Assembly seat in Fermanagh South Tyrone and Sinn Féin came within 500 votes of the party in Derry, previously an historic base of the SDLP.
Between them the DUP and Sinn Féin won 56.9% of the vote. In the first elections post the ceasefires in 1996 the two parties won a total 34.3%. Whilst it is true that both parties have changed many of their positions and have entered into a coalition since then, it remains the case that they are seen as the most ardent defenders and promoters of the interests of 'their' community and their vote has grown on that basis.
Alongside the growth in the vote of the Sinn Féin and the DUP the recent period has seen the demise of several of the smaller parties which emerged in the early years of the peace process. Their development was important in that it appeared to at least open up the possibility of change.
Today the sense that change is possible has ebbed but the fact that hundreds of thousands have turned away in disgust from the established parties and no longer vote, is a clear indication that a political vacuum has opened up. The question is how and when a new mass party of the working class can fill this space.
There are a number of smaller parties with representation in the Assembly but they do not point the way forward in any way. The Alliance Party is a 'cross-community' party which seeks votes from both communities. It now has eight seats, a gain of one, and saw its vote rise to 7.7% from 5.2%.
Alliance is largely a middle class party and has adopted increasingly right wing policies in recent years. It is in favour of the introduction of water charges, for example. Much of its vote has come straight from disillusioned UUP voters.
A warning for the future was the small but not insignificant vote of the extreme unionist party the Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV). The TUV won one seat and 2.5% of the vote.
There was also a clear growth in the vote of 'left republican' groups. The Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP, linked to the paramilitary INLA) stood in five council seats and in Strabane narrowly missed out on a seat.
Éirígí, a relatively new left republican group, won approximately 10% of the vote in West Belfast. The votes for these groups represents a rejection of the status quo (and in working class areas Sinn Féin are now seen as part of the status quo by many) and reflects class anger at the fact that the peace process has not delivered.
There is also a sectarian edge to the vote however. Groups such as the IRSP and Éirígí are based entirely in the Catholic community and have no perspective whatsoever of building support among the Protestant working class. They increase sectarian tensions through many of their actions.
The negative side to this vote is well illustrated by the significant support in Derry gained by a candidate who is associated with the 32 County Sovereignty Committee and the Real IRA.
The vote for Eamonn McCann in Derry must be analysed in this light. He won 3,120 first preferences (8.3%) in Foyle for the People Before Profit Alliance (PBPA, a group established by the Socialist Workers Party). PBPA candidate Gerry Carroll received 1,661 votes (4.8%) in West Belfast.
There is no doubt that PBPA benefitted from the fact that left republican or other dissident republican candidates stood simultaneously but not in the same elections. For example, PBPA stood in the Assembly election in West Belfast but not the local elections in the same area. The IRSP and Éirígí did the opposite.
The new Assembly and Executive will take over from where the last left off. The Northern Ireland economy remains in recession. The private sector has now been shrinking for 41 months in a row. New car sales fell 19% year on year in April. The housing market remains in the doldrums - few houses are being sold and prices have fallen by 40% from their peak in 2007.
Public sector cuts will have a major impact in the coming months. The living standards of working class people are falling rapidly.
The exact measures that the Executive will now implement are uncertain and will depend to an extent on what ministries each party holds. Individual parties have stated their opposition to certain policies but all are of one voice when it comes to cuts in general.
The Socialist Party stood in three Assembly seats and four local council areas in our biggest ever electoral intervention. The party stood on a clear socialist programme and we undoubtedly raised our profile to new levels.
Three candidates in Belfast - Pat Lawlor, Tommy Black and Paddy Meehan - won 819 votes in the Assembly elections in total. In Enniskillen Donal O'Cofaigh received a very creditable 248 votes standing in Enniskillen for the local council. The party intends to build on these votes by putting down firm roots in the working class communities where we stood.
The Socialist Party has established the Stop the Cuts Campaign with others, and we believe that in the next period the campaign will be central to attempts to organise a fightback to the cuts agenda of the Executive. The experience of mass struggle will transform the situation, giving working people confidence in their strength as a united class, and bringing the issue of the need for a new mass party of the working class to the fore.
Lecturers in the further and higher education sectors are being attacked on all fronts by the Con-Dem government and the employers - cuts, job losses, pay and pensions.
Members of the lecturers' union, UCU, have been inspired by the decisions of the NUT and ATL to ballot for strike action in defence of the Teachers' Pension Scheme, which covers teaching staff in schools, colleges and the new, post-1992 universities. The potential for united strike action on 30 June in defence of pensions across not only education sectors but also the civil service is opening up.
In these circumstances, therefore, rank and file UCU members will be outraged by the change in strategy by sections of the UCU leadership regarding the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) - the scheme for the 'old' pre-1992 universities - and the major concessions to the employers that have now been offered by the union's USS negotiators.
The union's higher education national sector conference last November refused to consider immediate strike action in defence of USS, which was called for by Manchester University branch, and instead chose to ballot after the critical USS Trustees' meeting in January this year. A 'yes' vote was secured following a further delay, and one-day strikes were eventually held in March. The union leadership insisted that the union's position on USS was still secure because the employers could not proceed with their planned changes to the scheme unless UCU's national pensions reps attended the joint USS forum - and they would refuse to do so.
Subsequently, the UCU reps were threatened with legal action by the employers if they declined to attend. No great surprise there, most of the history of the trade unions has included employers threatening trade unionists with the law.
UCU members will no doubt be shocked to discover that their elected USS reps capitulated to the employers and attended the joint national USS meeting on 10 May. Members will be wondering whether they had the encouragement of key 'moderate' sections of the national leadership to do so.
As a result, the employers, with the chair's casting vote, forced through their plans for a dual scheme, giving new starters a much inferior career-averaged rather than final salary based scheme.
This is a disgraceful state of affairs - and the best the 'moderates' seem to be able to do is suggest another ballot to somehow pressurise the employers! Also, according to UCU Left, the unions' pensions reps failed to report these events to the union's national higher education (HE) committee on 15 April.
Plans for strike action over USS on 24 May must go ahead, and the UCU HE committee meeting the day before must have the bottle to insist on this. A vote of no confidence in the union's USS pension reps should be tabled at the HE committee.
A full investigation of the national leadership's handling of the USS dispute should be held. And the union's whole handling of this dispute must be put to vote at the union national conference starting on 28 May.
But this must not be a distraction from the crucial battle UCU must fight with other public sector unions in defending the Teachers' Pension Scheme and the schemes of other public sector workers. Strike on 24 May! All out on 30 June!
Morale among postal workers has never been so low. We think things can't get any worse but they do. One of the Brown government's final acts was to appoint new chief executive, Moya Greene, with the job of privatising Royal Mail.
She's overseeing the closure of seven mail centres in the London area and the one in Hull, where workers are being offered jobs in Sheffield. A round trip of 140 miles! This will lead to thousands of redundancies, many compulsory. This smashes the 2010 Business Transformation Agreement, which the CWU leadership tells us is a great deal. It is not.
After 6,000 job losses, greater workload and pensions cuts, members feel let down. They are mistrustful of the CWU leadership.
There are rumours that we in Royal Mail may be balloted for action over pensions, as the Con-Dems' plan is to raid the fund's £25 billion assets and transfer us to an even worse scheme than the one we were shunted onto two years ago. But we should have been balloted over the closure of the final salary scheme. And this lack of fight is leading many workers to question the value of being a CWU member.
Job losses are adding to the funding crisis in the CWU. But members are also becoming disillusioned and leaving because they feel they are not being properly represented.
This is a message to the leadership and officials. You've got to start listening to us. You are supposed to represent our interests, not accept job cuts or negotiate pay cuts. You've got to get us back on side by showing you are up for a fight against all attacks on the workers.
Postal workers also face attacks on the public services we all rely on from the savage cuts in public spending announced by the government and councils across the country. Widespread, coordinated industrial action backed up by movements of local communities and service users is what's needed to stop the cuts.
Our union must support all such movements, we should try to link our own action with that of other trade unions.
A one-day strike of Royal Mail members against privatisation on 30 June when other public sector workers will be taking strike action would show the government that we won't accept attacks on Royal Mail lying down.
Whatever happens, CWU should support workers taking action on 30 June and we should march with them on the regional and city-wide demonstrations.
On 12 May at a mass members' meeting, Unite British Airways (BA)cabin crew voted to put the latest agreement between the union and management to a ballot of the membership. This appears to be the final chapter in one of the longest running disputes in Britain for a generation.
The original dispute was sparked off by management's plans to alter the terms and conditions of cabin crew. Chief among these changes was a reduction of in-flight staffing numbers and the introduction of new cabin crew on much worse pay and conditions.
These changes were imposed on cabin crew without the agreement of the union. In these circumstances cabin crew had no option but to fight in order to maintain the credibility of their union as a force that could effectively defend their interests.
But the cabin crew were unable to win a quick early victory. Among the reasons for this were the anti-trade union laws, the long delays in action and the failure to broaden the dispute across the entire workforce.
While the cabin crew and their elected representatives showed tremendous determination, serious question marks must hang over the conduct of the national union leadership during the course of this dispute. It is clear that management was able to impose change on cabin crew because they were isolated from other sections of the workforce at the company. This allowed management more time to organise to counter the dispute.
From the resulting stalemate management went on the offensive, refusing to substantially negotiate and embarking on a vindictive witch-hunt against union members.
Staff travel concessions were withdrawn from those who had taken lawful strike action while leading Unite stewards were disciplined and even sacked. Trade union facility time agreements were effectively torn up.
Documents leaked to the Guardian reported on management plans to sideline the main cabin crew Unite branch BASSA (British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association). The dispute had morphed into a battle to maintain the continued existence of the union among crew.
The union failed to reverse the imposed changes and since December the focus of industrial action has centred on pushing back management's witch-hunt against staff and limiting the worst effects of the impositions. This included the reduction in pay resulting from more lucrative longer haul routes being assigned to newer crew on inferior pay.
The key demands in the final ballot for strike action were the following:
Reading through the terms of the new agreement it appears these demands have been partially accepted by the company. Staff travel will be restored once the agreement is implemented. On the issue of victimisations management has agreed to binding arbitration at ACAS.
Socialists are clear that ACAS is no friend of the trade union movement, nevertheless putting the final decision regarding disciplinaries in their hands is an improvement on the situation where the decision rested with management and was being used as a method to witch-hunt trade unionists. However it is unclear at the present time whether this covers sacked activists such as Duncan Holley, BASSA branch secretary, who took his case to an employment tribunal and lost.
The agreement also pledges to honour existing trade union facility time, a big concession from management who had previously been attempting to disrupt the operation of the union among cabin crew by often refusing to grant reps time off to carry out union duties.
This is entirely due to the resilience of cabin crew under the most unbelievable bullying and harassment by an entirely vindictive management, not to mention constant vilification in the media.
However readers of the Socialist should be clear that as far as the original industrial dispute is concerned, cabin crew were unable to reverse the attacks. There now exists a significant cohort of new starters among cabin crew with much worse terms and conditions. They will exist as a separate bargaining unit to 'older' cabin crew on better terms and conditions whose numbers over time will diminish due to natural wastage.
It cannot be ruled out that management will return at a future date looking for yet more concessions from cabin crew and will hope to play off different sections of cabin crew against each other. There are fears among reps in other sections of the BA workforce that the contract of new cabin crew may be applied to the rest of the company.
As the largest union in BA Unite was in a unique position to bring about a more united approach. It would be naïve to believe this could be easily done or that there were not pre-existing divisions amongst the workforce that management could exploit. Nevertheless there were a number of steps Unite could have taken in order to overcome this.
For example, once it became clear BA management was intent on union-busting, Unite could have called a meeting of all senior trade unions reps at the company to put the case for cabin crew to the wider workforce. During the course of this two-year dispute, other sections of Unite at BA were also in dispute with management.
At the very least the union could have explored ways to coordinate action between the different sections. It would appear there was no attempt to do so and the opportunity of bringing the maximum pressure to bear on management was lost.
Although the joint agreement is littered with ringing phrases committing the company and management to a new era of amity and cooperation, this will prove to be short-lived as the global economy stagnates and oil prices continue to rise remorselessly. In order to maintain profit levels management will return at some point in the not too distant future demanding further concessions in pay, terms and conditions from staff.
Thanks to the steadfastness of cabin crew, workers at BA will have the benefit of strong union representation but the main lesson to be drawn from this dispute in the future is that isolation of sections strengthens the hand of management.
Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) members in the Cardiff office of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) had solid support for their second walkout on 11 May.
PCS members are fighting back against the slashing of the EHRC budget by 68% and the staffing by 66%.
The Con-Dem government wants to close the EHRC helpline and run down the organisation that enforces the law and tackles discrimination.
This is part of the government agenda to let employers off the hook and give a green light to the worst employers to discriminate against workers.
PCS EHRC members in Cardiff fully understand how this battle fits in with the campaign to build for action to stop the attacks on our jobs, pay, pensions and the vital services that we provide.
Sacked Redhall construction workers are continuing their protests outside BP Saltend near Hull. Ten weeks after being locked out of work on the bio-ethanol plant being built for BP/Vivergo, the majority of workers reluctantly want to take a financial settlement.
But the employers are trying to force the trade unions to sign an onerous agreement that would prevent any worker from pursuing a legal case or further protest against the company. This is unacceptable to the workers who have fought to get their jobs back and now voted three times to refuse to sign up for this deal.
As we go to press on 17 May, Redhall workers in Hull will protest outside the courts when GMB national officer Phil Whitehurst is due to appear to face charges following arrest two weeks ago under Section 14 of the Public Order Act (POA). This arises from heavy-handed policing and blanket-use of the POA to restrict the right to protest because the workers had several times effectively closed down the BP site and blockaded traffic.
At the Trade Union Councils' annual conference it was obvious that many trades councils have been in the forefront of the anti-cuts movement.
They have initiated coalitions against the cuts in many areas, involving local communities, as well as public sector workers. Socialist Party members in the National Shop Stewards Network have been the prime movers in many of these initiatives.
Motion after motion was carried unanimously, with commitments to campaigns against the government proposals high on the agenda. After the magnificent demonstration of 26 March, the main question asked was how will the TUC develop the obvious mood of resistance shown on that day?
The mood of the conference was shown by the voting for the Suffolk motion moved by Teresa MacKay. This listed among its demands the nationalisation of the pharmaceutical companies and was chosen as the trades council motion to go to this year's TUC in October!
The first section of the document assures us of the government's intention to raise the educational attainment of young people, ensuring them an easier transition from education into a job. This comes from the very same government who just months ago took the axe to EMA student payments and tripled tuition fees, the same government that has driven through swingeing cuts to school budgets.
But even what is in the document, far from outlining plans for supporting young people in education, amounts to a list of further attacks. On the basis of continued cuts to an already overstretched education system, increasing the age of compulsory participation in education will result in a greatly reduced standard of education post 16.
Many pupils, most likely those from more working class backgrounds, will be siphoned off at 14 to study vocational courses, told academic studies are 'not for them'. The introduction of the so called English Baccalaureate will introduce a two-tier system similar to that of O-Levels and CSEs. Only those pupils who've studied the 'right' subjects to be awarded the 'English Bac' will have the chance to go to university.
Part of the Con-Dems' '5 Steps to Seeming Like You Are Working In the Youth's Interest' is aimed at ensuring that young people don't "fall through the net" and that no young person is "written off".
Part of this is more Work Programmes for 18 year olds struggling to go from education to work, and creating more 'education and training places' for young people, particularly those from 'disadvantaged' backgrounds. The government is also expecting Jobcentre Plus to extend its service and take in the 5,000 most disadvantaged 16-17 year olds, through 'Work Experience and Work Clubs'.
This comes at a time when funding for Connexions and other youth services has been almost universally slashed by local councils and Jobcentres are being shut and jobs cut left, right and centre. The government is condemning young people to a lifetime of insecure, alienating employment at best, whilst desperately covering their tracks with these feeble attempts at a cure.
Extending work-for-your-benefit schemes to 12 weeks; Reducing the requirements of apprenticeship schemes, as requested by McDonalds among others; Hugely expanding numbers of interns, with a mere promise to 'ask' for wages or expenses.
Out of these schemes, those on apprenticeships are the only ones guaranteed a minimum wage. However, for those under 19 or in their first year of the apprenticeship, this is set at £2.50, due to rise to a whopping £2.60 in October! There will be an extra 40,000 apprenticeships available.
So for the remaining 960,000 unemployed youth, the government is proposing they work for free. This is a huge attack, primarily on those who are unemployed, but also a threat to the millions on temporary or insecure contracts. It must be recognised for what it is, an attempt to further casualise an entire generation.
The section of the proposals on benefits reads as a list of attacks. They will "ensure that work pays" by introducing the Universal Credit, reducing the number of disabled people who can claim support and forcing parents with young children to look for work - all essentially cuts in benefits.
Unemployed people will 'prepare and search for work effectively' by being forced onto slave labour schemes that provide no meaningful skills - work that definitely doesn't pay! And "stronger sanctions" will be introduced for unsatisfactory performance at reviews of how hard people are looking for a job - yet another way to slash benefits.
The Con-Dems' contempt for the unemployed is obvious in every sentence. Claimants are referred to as "Jobcentre Plus customers". And all the time, no mention of the fact that there are no jobs for the unemployed to find!
The final part of the document talks about creating the conditions for sustainable growth. As priorities, the government is claiming that it will "indentify and remove barriers to growth in key sectors in the UK economy".
But the government is the biggest barrier to growth! They want to slash and burn over 700,000 of our jobs and public services to pay for a crisis caused by the bankers and the super rich. That's going to add to the growing army of young unemployed and not help solve the problem.
They also talk about helping "employer-led innovation to raise skills" and creating a more flexible labour market. Great, just what young people have been crying out for - training for a McJob where you can get fired at the drop of a hat!
This document is rephrasing cuts to benefits and repackaging existing slave labour schemes and shows just how far out of touch this government of Bullingdon boys really is.
March for a genuine solution to youth unemployment - for free, decent education and real training on trade union agreed rates of pay that leads to a guaranteed socially useful job at the end. Join Youth Fight for Jobs to fight for a future for young people! If you want to help by marching, fundraising or organising a protest as part of the march, get in touch:
Teachers at Tile Hill Woods secondary school in Coventry held their third strike on 13 May against plans to turn their school into an academy. Their determined fight has gone from strength to strength.
Their first strike had 20 members of the NUT teachers' union on strike, the second had 70 teachers, as members of another teachers' union NASUWT joined them. Teachers at Woodlands Secondary School have now joined in, striking against plans to turn Woodlands into an academy. NUT members from Derby visited the picket line in solidarity as did members of Unite, Unison and CWU unions.
Many teachers told us they were striking against academies to oppose the divide in education that the academies would create and the two-tier system it would establish.
Striking teachers from both schools later held a rally that heard speakers from the Anti Academies Alliance and residents from the local Charterhouse fields campaign. Teachers feared the financial disaster that academy status would spell for our schools. This would lead to a lack of resources, as well as abolishing public accountability in our schools. Crucial rights of teachers, such as maternity leave and long term sick pay, would be abolished, as businesses step in to run the academies.
After emergencies such as fires, schools would be at the whim of insurance companies, well known for dragging their heels for months on end. Under the current system local education authorities can and do step in straightaway with funds and facilities to help schools continue immediately after an emergency. All this support and funding is directly under attack.
No doubt education will suffer, as academies siphon off money and resources to consultants' salaries and shareholders' dividends. Our children's education would be secondary to making profits for fat cats playing in the casino of capitalism.
The rally ended very positively, with a discussion on how to build the struggle against academies. Teachers discussed drawing support from the local communities that the schools belong to - parents, school pupils and trade unionists.
Teachers want to get as many people as possible to show their support and join the campaign. Young members of the Socialist Party and Youth Fight for Jobs offered to help build support for the anti-academies struggle amongst Coventry's school students and young people.
The Socialist Party stands shoulder-to-shoulder with teachers fighting to maintain and improve our comprehensive education system.
Public meeting: "Trust teachers - say no to academies!". Wednesday 25 May, 7pm at the Standard Social club, Herald Way, Canley (opposite Sainsbury's).
Socialist Party councillor Dave Nellist told strikers that Blue Coat School in Coventry had also applied for academy status and wants to take 60% of the Charterhouse public park under its control.
The local community and school shared the park for 45 years, but Blue Coat now wants absolute control and only seems willing to allow limited use by the neighbourhood.
Dave said that if a Board of Governors treated its neighbours like that, then once governors gained greater control over staff terms and conditions, union members were right to ask how their pay and conditions would be treated in future as an academy.
Blue Coat school had also borrowed money from other Coventry schools' reserves and bought old allotments next to the school, clearly to provide further room for expansion.
If it became an academy, more of a business than a school, its expansion and increased student numbers would come at the expense of other schools. Competing academies are bad for education across the city.
Strike action by the NUT and NASUWT unions closed Shorefields secondary school in Dingle, Liverpool for the second time in a month on 11 May. Teaching staff fear that their pay terms and conditions would come under attack once the school opted out of local authority control. Pupils and parents, equally concerned about these plans, joined them on the picket line.
Dingle is one of Liverpool's most deprived areas but Shorefields produces consistently good academic results. Its latest Ofsted report said it had outstanding features.
Most pupils there are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds but community activists fear that once it becomes an academy it will stop providing education based on the community's needs and will concentrate its efforts on academic results and bus in pupils from around the city.
The school's headteacher hasn't concerned herself with the community's feelings, failing to consult and providing them with a fait accompli. And just in case the board of governors opposed her plans, she saw to it that they voted themselves out of existence, replacing them with trustees appointed by her and not answerable to the parents.
A community-based committee has already held two public meetings. A third is planned on 23 May and a lobby of the town hall is planned on 24 May.
The lobby should demand that the Labour controlled council should call in the proposals, which would give campaigners more time to block this privatisation. Liverpool Trades Council has actively supported the Shorefields campaign and invited them to attend their next meeting.
Following the launch of Lambeth Unison's Save Children's Services Campaign, parents, staff, children and local anti-cuts activists lobbied the full council meeting on 11 May, together with Lambeth Save Our Libraries and the Save Park Rangers campaign.
100 campaigners gathered on the Town Hall steps were joined by successive waves of parents and children from different adventure playgrounds around the borough, who kept up a noisy protest throughout the evening with vuvuzelas and whistles.
The council had very heavy security arrangements, closing the main town hall doors and putting security barriers and a police guard on the side entrance. As a Unison steward pointed out: "That is not a sign the council are in control, it's a sign of weakness because they fear you, the workers and community".
Deputations from the three campaigns went in to address the council meeting; the 'Save Children's Services' deputation told Labour councillors they had broken their promises to children earlier this year when they said they wouldn't be closing adventure playgrounds (APGs). Under their proposals, the APGs would hardly ever be open!
Worse still, because opening hours have been so vastly reduced and staff can't live on the wages, this will create a mass exodus of staff, threatening to collapse the APG service almost overnight.
We called for alternatives like using some of Lambeth's unallocated reserve funds (the fourth highest in London) or using £1.9 million of new government money to stave off the worst cuts.
Our deputation warned the Labour group of what happens to parties that break their promises and betray the trust they had; reminding them of the Lib-Dems' recent election meltdown.
The Labour group were dismissive of our alternatives but did make some 'concessions' around APGs, agreeing to extend staff contracts until after the summer holidays, and then make them redundant! This only adds insult to injury but does show there is still everything to fight for.
The Labour group also seems to be very rattled over the libraries and park rangers campaigns so now we have to increase the pressure. Lambeth Unison is holding an indicative ballot to decide on industrial action against cuts and redundancies. Strike action united with community campaigns can force the council to retreat and will save many services and jobs.
An example of the utter inability of capitalism to answer the basic needs of society, and its young people particularly, was provided to me by my own family recently.
My daughter's boyfriend has a degree which he attained last year. Having recently moved in together, he had been hopeful of finding decent employment with his degree after several low paid jobs.
Aged 23, he was taken on in the South West by a company at a basic salary of £12,000 a year plus 10% on any deal.
The job entailed selling upgrades on mobile phone tariffs, making sure it is appropriate and the customer has a suitable phone or cash back amount, largely as a reward/gift for staying with the same phone company.
Very soon a management consultancy firm came in and took over the recruitment and human resources side of the company. They brought in seven or eight young workers who were previously door-to-door salespeople. They were then set working for 100% commission.
Shortly afterwards my daughter's boyfriend was asked, with reference to job security, to move over to 100% commission sales.
The way in which he has been asked to sell upgrades has changed to firstly telling customers about a 'loyalty scheme' where they are due money back.
This also involves targeting specific groups, often the elderly and people with poor English, in the hope of landing sales on often wholly inappropriate packages.
This has now led to daily earnings of as little as £20 a day or less and a move from monthly to weekly (cash) wages.
There was no union organisation in the workplace.
But our discussion revealed to both my daughter and her boyfriend the differences for workers between unionised workplaces, such as mine, and non-unionised workplaces such as his and the one my daughter works in.
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/12046