The Old Socialist Unity Blog - we have moved

WE HAVE MOVED

2007-06-13T08:33:00.001+01:00

Due to continuing technical problems with the Blogger platform that we use for this blog, we have migrated over to a new address here.

We hope you like the new look.

Please remember to redirect any links to the new address.

Tactical victory for Iraqi oil workers'

2007-06-12T11:57:00.000+01:00

PRESS RELEASE from Naftana

Dear all,
Below is the full translation of a message received today, Monday 11 June 2007, from Hassan Juma'a, president of the Federation of Oil Union (IFOU) declaring a tactical victory in the ongoing struggle of Iraqi oil workers. On behalf of Naftana, we would like to extend our thanks to all, from across the world, who have campaigned and written to express solidarity with the oil workers and the IFOU. Naftana will continue to relay news ofthe oil workers in their struggle to improve living and working conditions,assert trade union rights and protect Iraq's oil from the proposed oil law,championed by the occupation governments.

Naftana

Full text of message:

Warm greetings, We would like to inform you of the latest developments in the oil workers strike in the south. Finally the workers have won in in demanding their legitimate rights. That is why an enlarged meeting was held with his excellency the minister of State for the Parliament Affairs lasting five hours resulting in thecessation of all the failings resulting from the conduct of the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and the irresponsible stance of the oil minister.

Most ofthe issues within the remit of the prime minister were dealt with. The meeting was very successful, because the minister represented the prime minister. The activation of the committee formed by the prime minister to deal with the outstanding problems was affirmed.

And after deliberations within our union, the two sides agreed to halt the strike and to use dialogue in dealings to resolve the outstanding issues. On the other hand, all problems were presented to His Eminence Sayyid Sistani, and the Iraqi ministry of oil was reprimanded for its improper conduct.

Therefore, we would like to say to all that the workers will is indestructible. The workers can achieve what they want by the means available to them and their strength. And the oil workers are very strong, because they have a legitimate right. The workers have scored a thirdvictory in demanding their rights.

Long live the Iraqi working class.
Regards,
Hassan Juma'a Awwad

The Commissar

2007-06-12T10:20:00.001+01:00

.

Last night at our socialist film club we showed the 1967 Russian film, “The Commissar” by Alexander Askoldov. This is a truly great piece of art, but is perhaps slightly inaccessible for those more used to the Hollywood conventions of film making.

The film was a political disaster for Askoldov, being made both on the 50th anniversary of the October revolution, and also completed immediately after the six day war in the Middle East. He was never allowed to make another film, expelled from the Communist party (CPSU), and exiled from Moscow.

Instead of an heroic piece of “Soviet Socialist Realism”, the movie about a Red Cavalry unit during the civil war shows them in a very unglamorous light. What is more it is very sympathetic to the interpretation that the Soviet Union failed the Jews - a politically unacceptable message to the CPSU after Russia's allies in the Middle East had just lost a war to Israel.

Top Russian star, Nonna Mordyukova, plays Klavdia Vavilova a Cavalry Commissar who is pregnant by her lover, another soldier who has been killed in action. Because she has been in the saddle for the last three months, the doctors have told her she is too late for an abortion, so while she has the baby she is billeted on the family of a poor Jewish tailor, played by the brilliant Rolan Bykov.

Suddenly she is taken out of the energetic maelstrom of war, and finds herself in a family leading a slow paced small town life. The movie does not shy away from the fact that the Red Army commandeers a private room for her, as an officer, although this means that three adults and several children of the Jewish family have to share one room.

Slowly she becomes acclimatized to family life, and has the baby – the child birth scenes are especially brilliant and certainly this must be the most imaginative use of cavalry and field artillery in cinema! In her civilian clothes and with her baby she is ashamed to meet her former comrades.

But then the Red Army pulls out of the town, and she must stay behind with the family while they await the advancing white army: the Jews fear a pogrom. As they huddle in the cellar the family keeps their spirits up with the simple pleasures of singing and dancing. But as Bykov asks whether the Jews will ever be safe in the world and can their be an “international of kindness”, Mordyukova replies that the important thing is not the “international of kindness” but a workers’ international that will free humanity not through kindness but through steel determination and discipline. Her words seem like a foreign language to the family.

We then have a flash forward to the holocaust, as the Jews of the town are herded together, and we have a vision of Jews in the uniforms of the Nazi death camps.

Later, the Commissar watches the white armies entering the town, and in a desperately moving scene she abandons her baby so she can rejoin her regiment to stop this rising tide of fascism. The film ends with the Red army advancing across the battlefield, but the abiding memory are the words of the Jewish mother, when they find that the Commissar has abandoned her baby: “What sort of people are they?”

This is not a good film to watch if you want easy reassurance about the Russian revolution, but is a fantastic celebration of the human spirit and parental love. It also shows that war is unspeakable, even when it is just.

It is also worth mentioning the extraordinary score by Alfred Schnittke.

The paradox of the Soviet Union is that such challenging and intelligent cinema came from Russia during this period, but also that the Communist Party would ban such a humane artistic work for being off message.

Panic Attack: art in the punk years

2007-06-11T22:00:00.000+01:00

"Wreckers of Civilisation" (Nicholas Fairbairn Tory MP, denouncing the COUM exhibition at the ICA 1976)

Punk kind of passed me by. The social, political and cultural event didn’t have much impact on me as I was around 7 years old and dancing around the living room listening to ABBA (ok, don’t hold that against me….). But having much older siblings who were into the punk scene I was able to witness the changes but memories are still hazy of that period.

So I was interested in the exhibition at the Barbican Art Gallery which is celebrating punk and post-punk art (1977-1983). The blurb in the pamphlet talks about it being a tumultuous time with political and social upheavals.

A very insightful book littered with personal anecdotes to read in conjunction with this exhibition is "Left Shift" by John A. Walker.

The first pictures set the scene with the (in)famous iconic artwork of Jamie Reid for the Sex Pistols "God Save the Queen". One of my criticisms of the exhibition is that it’s kinda patchy and lacked coherence. Next to Reid’s work is John Stezaker’s conceptual art ('post-Duchampian art')based on collage and image. Art is this subjective animal and I have to say Stezaker's work never grabs me in anyway. His cut and paste postcards of 1950s London may have been transmitting some radical concept about the metropolis but it just smacked of dressed-up mediocrity but in a new style.

Conceptual art at its height challenged the nature of physical art as a commodity but now I would argue it challenges nothing and fits quite snugly in the bosom of the Establishment where value in terms of financial gain outweighs saying something important. A capitulation to comformity as opposed to radical opposition.

Victor Burgin's work intertwines Freud, Marx and Barthes and I was kinda transfixed by it with his juxaposing text and images (I much prefer his work in this period than his later work as he seems to have flipped over to postmodernism... ).

Though I was fascinated by his photography (UK76 and US77) as he explores urban and human alienation. One picture (Nuclear Power, 1977) is of an ordinary family with this text alongside that challenges the notion of the heterosexual nuclear family and the power dynamics.

What I did find powerful were the images of Stephen Willats, Martha Rosler and COUM transmissions. This is a mixture of video, performance and DIY art. Art that is easily accessible, goes beyond the boundaries, experiemental and is transgressive in its message but also has something to say without sticking rigidly to the usual format and medium. Even now I found their work refreshing and modern.

COUM transmissions - "Prostitution" caused controversy in 1976 and for the ICA 'cos of their performance art that included sexual acts, porn (can porn be subversive art?) and used tampons in their art work. Genesis P-Orridge and Cosey Fanni Tutti who later became Throbbing Gristle. What gave it the extra kick was photocopies of the newspapers of the day with their “shocked” “utterly shocked”, "moral decline" and “appalled” headlines. Brought a definite smirk to my face.

The issue of alienation is further explored by Stephen Willats in his excellent mixture of collage and DIY photography, "I Don't Want to be Like Anyone Else" (1976) and Martha Rosler's "Secrets from the Streets" (1980).

The lower floors were a mish-mash of work. It was fascinating to see women artists influenced by feminism, Hannah Wilke (So Help Me Hannah, 1979-1985), Barbara Kruger and Linder. The influence of feminism was prevalent in much of the work. Patriarchal norms and subverting the female form using performance art and video. Parallels can be made between the work of German Dadaist Hannah Hoch and Linder as both explored the position of women in society by using collage and photomontage as their medium (Hoch's The Beautiful Girl and Linder's Pretty Girl No. 1 are worth comparing as both depict the many fragmented and contradictory roles women play in this society)

The later post-punk kinda lacked any coherent message again the work of Tony Cragg, Tony Oursler, and graffiti artist of Jean-Michel Basquiat were bunched together without any real analysis. The influence of conceptual art and, for me, the artwork wasn’t saying much and not as clear as previous work. There was this kind of respectability and slickness in its presentation.

Photography of Nan Goldin, Cindy Sherman and Robert Mapplethorpe (I like their work a lot) but again what was their significance and how were the pictures chosen? To be able to appreciate their work you need to be able to see a varied collection of work and I do think you really need to see the a lot more of Goldin's "The Ballad of Sexual Dependency" I would be interested to know why these particular photographs were chosen. I can see the logic of including them as they include people who are seen to live on the margins of society, gritty realism, no overly stylised content (a kind of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder") and an exploration of sexuality and sex.

There is a short film directed by Derek Jarman (I saw Jubilee in my early teens and still have a penchant for it) with Jordan (not that Jordan) resplendent in a tutu dancing around what only can be described as a bomb site. A very hazy looking silent film which finishes with the Union Jack burning in the background.

Overall I was disappointed as there was no interpretation of punk instead we were presented with an elastic interpretation stretched beyond belief. Why Gilbert and George were there struck me as strange. On the plus side, I was pleased to see so many women artists.

Where was the graphic design, and DIY stencil art which adorned many punk fanzines and LPs? Where was the fashion or anti-fashion that questioned conformity and identity that was an important part of punk? More questions than answers but if you want to see some interesting art that has something to say then go to this as it makes a change from the stagnating conformity that passes for art nowadays.

Can the forward march of Labour be restarted?

2007-06-11T18:17:00.000+01:00

.

The situation that the left finds itself in after the defeat of the McDonnell bid for the Labour leadership is a complex one. A bit of a debate has broken out about this around a statement issued by Socialist Resistance (SR) This was published on Liam Mac Uaid’s blog :

The key passage is: “McDonnell’s defeat throws the Labour left into serious crisis. No spin can hide it. The project of reclaiming the Labour or the idea that the Labour Party is a fruitful arena for the left to work in have been dealt a devastating blow.

“All this has implication for Respect, which should be taking the initiative to open or re-open a dialogue with those on the left who are currently not in Respect as to how they see the way forward.

“The Morning Star and the CPB are a case in point. They are likley to find it increasingly difficult to cling to a policy of reclaiming Labour. Apparently a new discussion has already opened up on this internally in the CPB. The Morning Star had already called a conference in June on “Politics After Blair” at which the issue will now be unavoidable.

“But Respect needs to be open and flexible in this situation to any new forces from the Morning Star or the trade union left. It should do whatever is necessary to ensure that new forces have space to make their influence felt. If it can do this it could break it out of its current impasse and open up a new stage of development.
“Respect’s task in this process is to turn the tide of politics back towards the left. Rebuild ideological and practical opposition to the market. Work with the left in the unions to build an independent pluralist left alternative alongside the struggle to regenerate the unions and rebuild trade union strength and organisation.”

To which I posted a comment to the effect that SR are making two mistakes: i) in not understanding that Respect is not a vehicle around which left unity can be built; and less explicably ii) that SR seem to completely fail to understand the political perspective of the CP.

I concluded my initial remarks by saying that currently “the building blocks for any serious alternative to Labour are utterly absent, but where the situation isn't hopeless either.”

Given the undemocratic manoeuvrings in and around Respect, the media galavanting of George Galloway, and the dispersal of the layer of left social democrats who had aggregated around the Socialist Alliance in various parts of the country, then I would characterise Respect thus: “Who is Respect? Galloway or the SWP? Anyone else? Will either of those forces play the productive role you are calling on them to play? If there is no actually existing force within Respect who will steer the organisation to play the role you think it could play, then how could it happen?

“Even were the SWP or Galloway to have a damascene conversion, would anyone on the activist left trust them? No-one is going to join Respect, or particularly want to work with them. The whole project is basically an embarrassment now.

“If we are looking for a left unity project, then we have missed the boat. The wave of left activists who left the labour party after Clause IV and over the Iraq war could have been attracted to an organisation that respected labour movement norms of behaviour. But were never going to be attracted to respect.”

SR are utterly self delusioonal if they believe that the CP or any significant left from the unions would touch Respect with a barge. Even were the Political Committee of the CP so minded, and I have no reason to think they are, then the membership would probably not agree to it.

The failure of McDonnell’s campaign has produced unhelpful knee-jerk reactions from Respect and the Socialist Party that the Labour Left should join them in their equally unsuccessful campaigns outside the Labour party. They remind me of the mayor of Amity, swearing that the water is safe. For example Thornett writes: "It¹s right to say to the Labour left, and those like the CPB (and some of the trade union left) who have clung to a Reclaim Labour policy for so long that after the McDonnell collapse the only rational conclusion in the cold light of day is that the Labour left has no useful future in the Labour party. There is no point in saying anything else."

In fact this approach is completely misguided. Instead of looking at whether we can reconstitute the greatly diminished left around already flawed projects, we need to take stock of the current political situation.

The overwhelming features are i) that the right within the Labour Party are utterly triumphant, and their victory is structurally irreversible. ii) The Labour party has failed to make the same shift to the right with its electoral base – the enduring progressive and social democratic attitudes of labour voters was well described recently on the SWP blog, Lenin’s Tomb ; iii) that the far left have failed to break that progressive base away from electoral loyalty to the Labour party; iv) the unions – on the whole - maintain ideological and political opposition to New Labour values, as can be seen by the way the unions make the running in opposing PFI, Academies and private equity. v) the structural problems of the unravelling British state.

So how can we seek to harness the positive aspects of the current situation to strengthen the left?

Alan Thornett has replied to me and asked whether I think Respect’s genuine electoral successes are the “wrong type of voters”. In a sense they are, but not in the sense he implies. Respect has done well particularly with that minority of voters for whom the war is the overriding political issue, but for the majority of the working class that is not the case, and opposition to the war has been subsumed into the general cynicism about politics.

This is where SR’s misunderstanding of the CP’s position is clear, because the CP are talking some sense over this issue:

As Robert Griffiths, the CP General Secretary: recently wrote : “But what is needed now more than ever is for the trade union movement, once again, to take on its historic responsibility to ensure the existence of a mass party of labour. For all the assistance that socialists and communists can render, the unions alone have the human, financial and organisational resources, as well as the class interest, to take the necessary steps.

“Together with the non-sectarian left, they need to work out a political strategy which takes account of current realities. For example, most major unions remain affiliated to the Labour Party and are unlikely to leave it in the near future.
“The first steps in this direction might be for all the major unions to affiliate and participate fully in the Labour Representation Committee. Deals between union leaders in smoke-free rooms to win resolutions at Labour Party conference are not enough. The active involvement of unions and their members in the LRC would be the clearest declaration of political intent.

“The LRC could itself go the extra mile and allow full membership status to socialist organisations including the Communist Party, respecting their right to participate independently in elections in return for an agreement not to campaign for the dismantling of the Labour Party through further union disaffiliations.
“In their relations with the Labour Party, unions should stop all financial, logistical and political support for MPs who consistently vote against key union policies. “

SR are correct to highlight the Morning Star conference as important, not least because the CP still able to punch above their weight, and alongside John McDonnell, we also have Ken Livingstone and Jon Cruddas attending. At the deputy leadership hustings at GMB congress last week Cruddas came out in favour of starting to renationalise public utilities.

The Labour Left were crushingly defeated in the PLP, but the McDonnell campaign has gathered together a nucleus of activists, who are less isolated and more motivated than they were before the campaign. It is as fruitless for us to argue with then that they should leave the party as for them to argue we should join it – comrades need to come to their own conclusions.

The way forward is for all the left, inside and outside the Labour party, to promote the trade unions in exercising their own political voice. By and large, the unions will not abandon their stake in the labour party until they have exhausted its historical usefulness. But currently they are not making enough demands on the party, and so not testing the usefulness of the link.

The Labour Representation Committee could become a vehicle for the unions to exercise collective political voice and if a substantial section of organised labour is to draw the conclusion that a party of labour needs to be refounded, as they effectively did in 1931, then the LRC could be the body around which that debate tales place.

Of course there are serious obstacles, not least of which is the LRC’s requirement for Labour Party membership, which is a serious obstacle to many grassroots trade unions and community activists. But again the way forward is for local trade union bodies to affiliate and open a dialogue about being able to send delegates who are not individual LP members.

In the meantime, we have largely missed the boat in England of building an electoral alternative to New Labour. There may still be a case of standing against Labour, but this can only be done by building grassroots links first, not by building the roof before the walls like Respect and the CNWP have done.

There is serious work that can be done, but the vehicle for that work is not Respect nor the CNWP, the focus remains where it perhaps always should have been, with organised Labour in the mass organisations of our class.

Enough!

2007-06-11T09:46:00.000+01:00

.
Last Saturday’s
“Enough” march in solidarity with Palestine was a reasonable size, perhaps 7000 or 8000, would have been my judgement based upon comparison with a reasonable home attendance for Swindon Town FC. However, the Morning Star claimed 20000, which seems a bit optimistic, but they may have had a better view then I did. In particular it was good to see banners from a number of twinning groups, showing the gradual spread of very practical solidarity work, supporting Palestinian towns and communities. Just sending the photos of the demo to our twinning partners in palestine helps them know they are not forgotten.

Given the significance of the 40th anniversary of the occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights it is perhaps surprising that more emphasis wasn’t put in this demo, but it seem to have become slightly overshadowed by the 24th June demo in Manchester. In the end just eight of us came down from Swindon.

The British left was there in all its farcicality. A naive observer would think that we must be so strong to support such a diverse range of publications.

And London is a weird place

By making my way to a pub in Whitehall, for refreshment after the demo I was in place to see 500 naked cyclists going past, apparently something to do with opposing car use.

Then on the way to Embankment tube station I was privileged to see the bizarre spectacle of an Orange march, with assorted nut-jobs from all parts of these fair islands wearing their bowler hats and sashes, swaggering and beating big drums. When Gordon Brown talks of British values, this is presumably not what he means? But what else is there about Britishness? A fictitious national identity to forge together our island nations into an imperial project of bigotry, conquest and plunder.

We were told off by the police for mocking them, and I was told I could be arrested for pointing at a sweaty middle aged fool in a suit with a union jack clown hat and asking if he was part of the master race. Even under new Labour I am not quite sure what legislation this is against.

Further update on Iraqi oil workers' strike...

2007-06-08T19:52:00.000+01:00

Press release from Naftana:
The president of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU), Hassan Juma’a has informed Naftana* at about 3.30 PM London time (Friday 8th June 2007) that the arrest warrants against the leaders of the Federation have not been withdrawn, and he made an urgent appeal to world trade unionists and the anti-war movement to step up the solidarity campaign with Iraq’s oil workers and trade unionists.

Hassan Juma’a said “the arrest warrants, issued by the prime minister’s office, are still in force, despite the Federation’s decision to postpone the strike till Monday 11th June to allow for further negotiations.”

US jet planes were buzzing the skies of Basra as he spoke to Naftana on the phone. He added that Iraqi army tanks and other forces were still besieging workers in Sheiba, in Basra governorate, but that the workers will resume the strike on Monday if their demands were not met.

(The pic is of Hassan Juma'a Awad with Ewa Jasiewicz)

Pakistan's "No 1 terrorist" protected by Britain?

2007-06-08T10:11:00.000+01:00

.
There has been remarkably little coverage in the British press of the fact that Imran Khan the former international cricketer, is using the British courts to try to bring Altaf Hussain, head of the semi-fascist Muttahida Qaumi Movement, to justice for the massacre of 42 democracy protestors in Lahore on May 12th. Khan is using the well known human rights lawyer, also called Imran Khan.

According to Pakistani paper, the
Daily Times:

“Three weeks ago, gunmen opened fire on a rally supporting Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, triggering bloodshed that left 42 people dead. Khan along with lawyers, human rights activists and opposition parties accuses Hussain of orchestrating the carnage from his residence in London. “The entire incident was planned. No British citizen is allowed to sit in London while directing terrorist operations abroad, so why is there an exception for Altaf Hussain?” said Khan, describing the MQM as “a fascist movement run by criminals”. “

As Imran Khan has pointed out: “The British government is involved in a war against terror but is giving Pakistan’s No 1 terrorist sanctuary”.

For the past 16 years, Hussain has lived in self-imposed exile in the UK initially as an asylum-seeker and currently as a British citizen. He fled to London to escape from criminal prosecution in Pakistan He is now based in an office block on Edgware High Street in north London, from where he rules his party by phone apparently directing his closest lieutenants in long, late-night conversations.

But Hussain does not fit the media profile of a terrorist neatly enough for the British press, or the British government to be interested. His party, the MQM tries to project an image based on secularism, economic development and support for the “war on terror” since entering a coalition government with President Pervez Musharraf in 2002, himself an Ally of Britain and the USA.

In reality the MQM has always been liked to extortion, gun smuggling and international crime networks, it is also an ethno-linguistically defined supremacist party, representing the Urdu speaking community who fled to Pakistan following partition in 1947.

So why is New Labour, usually obsessed with terror, so quiet? Why is the British press so quiet about a murder gang being allegedly orchestrated from Britain against democracy protestors ?

Could it be because Altaf Hussain’s party is included in President Mussaraf’s government?

Update on the Iraqi oil workers' strike....

2007-06-07T23:07:00.000+01:00

Update from Hands Off Iraqi Oil website about the strike:

"Naftana members spoke to IFOU leader Hassan Jumaa Awad today who alerted the support group to an arrest warrant issued by Prime Minister Maliki's office. The warrant names four leaders of the Federation including Hassan Jumaa Awad and demands their arrest for 'sabotaging the Iraqi economy'. The Federation is asking for unions and organisations world wide to support them in their unfulfilled demands and to protect them from repressive measures.

Please send faxes and emails of support for the union to Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki and Oil Minister Dr Hussein al Sharastani. There is a model letter on the website".

Hassan Jumaa Awad: "One person from the Ministry of Oil accompanied by an Iraqi military figure came to negotiate the demands. Instead it was all about threats. It was all about trying to shut us up, to marginalize our actions," Awad said. "The actions we are taking now are continuing with the strike until our demands are taken in concentration."

There seems to be a total media blackout about this strike in Britain. We need to show our solidarity with these strikers as there's a strong possibility that brute force will be used to smash the strike by killing trade unionists.

Migrant Workers To Vote on Strike Action at Roadchef Services

2007-06-07T12:58:00.000+01:00

Roadchef’s withdraws five times a day staff transport costing £150,000 per annum to M3 service station with motorway only access and no public transport links

Roadchef's withdraws five times a day staff transport costing £150,000 per annum to M3 service station with motorway only access and no public transport links

GMB Southern Region has given permission for an industrial action ballot to be held for GMB members employed by Roadchef on the service station between junctions 8 and 9 north of Winchester. The dispute is over the withdrawal of coach transport to and from the site for staff from June 9th 2007.

The coach travels from Southampton and picks up at Eastleigh and Winchester to the service station north and the service station south and then back to Southampton. It takes an hour to travel from Southampton to the service station south. There is no interchange between the service station north and the service station south and the only access to these two service stations is from the motorway and there is no public transport links whatsoever. The service operates five times a day at 6 a.m., 9 a.m., 2 p.m., 10.p.m. from Southampton and 7 p.m.from service station north back to Southampton. The service is used by over 90% of the 80 staff who are mainly migrant workforce who are mainly from Polandand Portugal. The overwhelming majority of these staff are GMB members. The company has had difficulty recruiting staff to work at this remote service station and had to lay on transport to attract a workforce.

The employers have been threatening to withdraw the service on the grounds that it is costing them too much since February of this year. The staffs have been in a state of uncertainty for almost five months. On the 17th May 2007 the company have given formal notice that the transport service will be withdrawn as of the 9th June 2007. After that date staff will have to make their own arrangements to get to work. Management have offered staff £5.80 a day towards the cost of travelling over 70 miles round trip each day on the motorway. The only way staff can get to work is by road transport and 90% of the staff do not own cars and could not afford to buy and run them since they are low paid workers.

Negotiations between the company and GMB at local level have failed to reach agreement and the union faced with the unilateral withdrawal of the service on 9th June are now proceeding to an industrial action ballot to secure the reinstatement of the essential staff transport. This is because members who are unable to get to work will be deemed to have dismissed themselves.

Gary Cook, GMB Organiser said, "This is a cowardly attack by an already profitable company on some of the most vulnerable workers in the UK on the grounds of reducing the cost of an essential transport service just to boost profits. GMB will defend our members and we will respond to this attack. GMB will get overwhelming support from our members for action to solve their problem of getting to and from work.

GMB want to meet the owners Delek to sort out this problem. We want them to maintain the transport service until we arrive at a solution."

Posties vote for strike.

2007-06-07T12:52:00.000+01:00

Postal Workers Back Strike Action
Results announced at the CWU's annual conference in Bournemouth:

Royal Mail Pay:
Yes: 66,064 (77.5%)
No: 19,199

Post Office Ltd (Counters):
Yes: 2740 (73%)
No: 993

Cash In Transit:
Yes: 545 (66%)
No: 283

Postal workers have voted strongly in favour of taking industrial action over pay, in what would be the first national postal strike since 1996. However the union seems to be using the ballot result as a bargaining chip, rather than showing seriousness that they will fight.

According to Deputy General Secretary, Dave Ward: "This yes vote shows absolutely clearly that Royal Mail workers have rejected the company's business plan, the company's leadership and the unacceptable pay offer. Royal Mail leaders say they listen to people; this is the clearest message they have ever had. Royal Mail has to listen and return to serious negotiations."

But he goes on to say: "Because we care about the service there will be no immediate announcement for strike action – we want an agreement – not a strike for the sake of it. So we will give Royal Mail a further opportunity to back-off from their cuts and come back to the negotiating table with a fresh approach."

The dispute is partly about Royal Mail's 2.5% pay offer. A series of walkouts will now be held by about 130,000 CWU members unless new talks can lead to a breakthrough in the dispute. But as Dave Ward points out: "The key issue in this dispute remains the unacceptable cuts in postal services – cuts in postal jobs - and attacks on our members’ terms and conditions. Royal Mail’s plans include 40,000 job losses – later deliveries - reductions in collections – reductions in weekend service. The closure of delivery offices and mail centres – and the destruction of the rural and crown office post office network."

But as I have pointed out before, the underlying issue is whether or not the CWU stands up for the idea of defending Royal Mail as a public service. So-called “liberalisation”, opening up the publicly owned Royal Mail to competition, was introduced in January 2006, as a result of EU legislation, but the free market zealots of New Labour decided to deregulate three years earlier than competitor countries. The response to this from the CWU was revealing. Billy Hayes complained “We all know that postal liberalisation is coming, but the CWU cannot understand why a British regulator [has placed] the nation’s postal service at a competitive disadvantage” (emphasis added)

All along the CWU has accepted that liberalisation and competition could not be opposed, and therefore even if Royal Mail does stay in the public sector, it will be subject to market pressure. So it will be run as a business not as a public service.

The CWU needs to take a political stance against liberalisation, and demand that Royal mail continues to run as a public service. This is a long haul argument, but is one that the RMT has effectively mounted over renationalisation of the railways. The advantage is the not only can we start to turn the tide over the political idea there is no alternative to the market, but it would make the workforce more confident and inspired to fight. It is never a good way to fight, to first concede that your opponent is correct in principle!

The Royal Mail's plans to respond to market forces, "Shaping the Future" were accepted last year by the CWU. But the inevitable consequences of the scheme are now becoming clear.

Given the liberalisation and competition then management will be determined to stand firm. The posties have a real fight on their hands, and the union's leadership needs to show the required determination. If not then the grassroots activists need to prepare to take the lead themselves.

Why we need the boycott

2007-06-07T11:43:00.001+01:00

Some of the discussion about the proposed academic boycott of Israel has missed a crucial point. For example, the Guardian reports it as already having started: “The boycott was launched by the UCU, which represents more than 120,000 academics, at its inaugural conference.” But there is no boycott, only a decision to debate whether there should be a boycott.

The motion was passed with a decisive majority at the UCU conference precisely because of the way it was phrased. The motion requires the union to hold a debate about having a boycott in every college and university up and down the land.

Therefore, those who seeking to overturn the motion in the name of academic freedom are in reality seeking to suppress the debate which is being proposed, and disempower the lecturers from debating the question of Palestine.

What is true is that if/when the union does pass a resolution for a boycott the new General Secretary Sally Hunt has pledged she will try to overturn it with a ballot of all members.

That’s a further reason why activists need to ensure the debate involves as many members of UCU as possible. The very process of having the debate with union members is an excellent contribution to raising awareness of the plight of the Palestinians, and puts further pressure on Israel.

The Jewish Week , a New York newspaper, accuses those advocating the boycott of anti-semitism and quotes Nachman Ben Yehuda, dean of the faculty of Social Sciences at Hebrew University in Jerusalem saying: “What does it mean to boycott the Israeli academy? It means to boycott Jewish professors. We need to put this on the table”

But there is not question of academics being boycotted because of their Jewishness, it is the institutions that are being targeted, because of the exceptional nature of the forty year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

According to Asaf Wohl, writing on the Ynet news site says: “One of the official reasons for the boycott on the Israeli academy is the occupation. Isn’t it ridiculous to hear such criticism from the citizens of a country that sends its army to the other side of the earth just to keep under its colonialist patronage two arid scraps of land in the middle of the ocean? From the citizens of a country that refuses to return Gibraltar to its legal owners? Not to mention its soldiers who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

However, the occupation of Palestinian lands is exceptional and unique in the modern world because of the question of the settlements. Israel is seeking to illegally annex East Jerusalem despite the fact that international law is now unequivocal that territory cannot be illegally acquired through conquest, and there are half a million colonists illegally living in the new Zionist towns and settlements in the West Bank.

The exceptional nature of these settlements, the land grab that they represent, and the systematic destruction of the Palestinian economy and civil society that they cause require pressure to be brought onto Israel.

The EU and USA have sanctions against the Palestinian Authority freezing funding, because the elected Hamas government does not recognise Israel. The symbolic issue of Hamas's refusal to acknowledge Israel is considered more important that the actualy existing failure of Israel to respect the territorial integrity of Palestine.

As the governments of the west have no intention of pressurising Israel, it falls upon civil society, and particularly the trade unions, to apply measured and targeted sanctions on Israel. As Kamel Hawwash, the only British Palestinian delegate to the UCU conference wrote in a letter to the Financial Times: "The mere discussion of boycotts took the debate on to the next (and in my view) necessary level. ... I am very pleased with this as a British Palestinian academic and I look forward to following the debate over the coming 12 months. I see the decision of the UCU as an opportunity for Israeli society as a whole and not just academia, to come to a historic realisation that they will only achieve peace and security when the Palestinians have their due rights and there is an independent, confident Palestinian state living side by side with Israel and not inside Israel."

The proposed boycott is in the interests of justice,and without justice there can be no peace.

Harriet Harman: still desperately seeking deputy leadership

2007-06-06T23:16:00.000+01:00

Lucky old me, I received this morning a leaflet from Harriet Harman's election campaign for Deputy Leader. She plays up her left-wing street cred ("legal adviser to the women in the first equal pay strike" and also "the two-year long union recognition at Grunwick"). And her special pitch is that she is a woman. Well, so is Hazel Blears and neither one will be getting my vote. But the icing on the cake was the quote from Glenys Kinnock:

"It is unthinkable that the Labour Party should elect a deputy leader who isn't a woman. That woman has to be Harriet because she has that empathy with women and families"....

And it was the "empathic" Harriet who abolished the lone parent rate of Child Benefit.....

More cheek by Jowell...

2007-06-06T15:01:00.000+01:00

Well, it seems that Tessa Jowell has lied through her pearly whites as the Big Lottery Fund will cut £120m from its programmes. What? A New Labour politician lie... surely not..? Ok, economical with the truth...

So much for the promises she made that the voluntary sector would be “protected” from the effects of the extra £425m contribution the BLF made to the 2012 Olympics. The BLF are making up the financial raids by cutting the funding of two programmes. One of the programmes up for the chop is specifically aimed at disadvantaged young people but hey, this is New Labour and when it comes to young people it is case of victimising, stigmatising and ASBOing the little blighters!

And let’s refresh our memory at what Jowell said in March this year: “we have agreed with the Big Lottery Fund that resources for the VCS would be protected from this transfer. The amount going to the VCS will therefore continue at the levels planned.”

The Big Lottery Fund has declined to confirm or deny the proposed cuts before being discussed at its country committees in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

And I am sure that this level of cuts will continue. But hey, don’t despair as your local community-based organisation goes down the drain due to being cut to the bone, it is all for a good cause…watching a bunch of athletes run round a track.

Money well worth spent indeed, eh Tessa?!!

NB: The new Olympics logo is causing controversy (you can rate it on the BBC website..personally I don't think it deserves the wooden spoon ..it deserves far worse!) and even Ken Livingston has given his tuppence halfpenny on the "catastrophic mistake" which, btw, cost £400,000. This cut and paste garish collage (they coulda bought the materials for a fiver at WH Smith) is about as exciting and stunning as Kate Moss's summer collection (note to Kate: the strappy grandad vests are a real no no and soooh last year...).

My own cut and paste Olympics design would have been a simple drawing of someone flipping their middle finger with the prosaic though good old fashion slogan: "Fuck the 2012 Olympics" and cheap at the price as well.

Dunno, could catch on and maybe indulge in a bit of graffiti art (eat ya heart out Banksy).. Now, where's my spray can..?

Pakistani socialist arrested again

2007-06-06T13:02:00.001+01:00

Leader of the Labour Party of Pakistan, FAROOQ TARIQ, has been arrested again by police. This is in the context of a continuing crisis for the government of General Musharraf

Farooq’s lawyer explains the current situation:

•Police has no detention orders (up till now) for him, so we can say the arrest is very illegal.

On MOnday he was initially detained in Hurbancepura police station
from 4:00 am to 10:00 pm. Many civil society activists visited to him
including Joint Action Committee and Pakistan Social Forum's officials.

•At 10:00 pm Tuesday he was shifted on unknown place by the police.

•By a provision of the law, within 24 hours of the arrest police have
to produce the arrestee with the statement of alligation/alligations or some evidences to the duty session Judge. After the arguments by the lawyers and judgment, Judge may send him to jail or retain him with the police for further investigation.

•Now the limit of 24 hours is crucial, to avoid the provision of law
police shifted him to another unknown place before the 24 hours are passed.

•Police officials are denying providing any information or legal status to anybody regarding Farooq.

•A habeas corpus petition against the police by the Lahore Bar
Association is in process.

•To day SHO provide some false statements/allegations verbally before
the Judge and did not produce Farooq as per notice given by the court.

•The Court passed fresh orders to Police Superintend of the region to
produce Farooq tomorrow with the allegations or detention orders by the interior ministry. Now the date 07-06-2007 would be important in this regard.

•All District Bar Associations of Lahore, High court Bar Associations, Media Associations, Political Parties and civil society organizations are in solidarity with us.

Rifondazione row over Cuba

2007-06-06T12:34:00.000+01:00

Tensions in Rifondazione Comunista, the Italian hard left party were already high following the support of the party leadership for maintaining Italian troops in Afghanistan, as the price of maintaining the L'Unione coalition in government. As a consequence they have done badly in the recent round of local elections, losing between 20 and 50 percent of their own votes from last year.

Now there is a big row brewing over Cuba.

It started with two articles by Angela Nocioni on the 31st May in the party's daily paper, Liberazione, which attacked the Cuban government, the Five Cubans imprisoned in the US, and Giustino Di Celmo, an old Italian, whose son was killed by Posada Carriles in 1997 in a terrorist bombing in Havana.

This produced a huge response from readers, and on the Internet. For several days running, Liberazione has been publishing entire pages of letters against those articles.

On the 5th June, there was a letter by Marco Consolo, who is in charge of the Latin American desk in the International dept of the PRC, who says that the paper is breaking with the party over the question of Cuba.

However, both the paper editor, Piero Sansonetti, and some party heavyweights like Rina Gagliardi have come out on the side of Nocioni.

Solidarity with striking Iraqi oil workers'

2007-06-05T20:10:00.000+01:00

Oil workers in Basra went on strike yesterday. The Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU) was set to enter its second day of strike action today. The TUC has sent a message of support to the striking oil workers. There is the EDM 1180 that needs supporting so please contact your MP and also raise the matter of the striking oil workers' in your union.

They need your solidarity at a time when the Iraqi oil is to be ripped off, if the US/UK governments get their way, by the Western oil companies.

Deputy leadership candidates interview

2007-06-05T12:44:00.000+01:00

Socialist Campaign Group News has conducted an interview with each of the six contenders for the Labour Party deputy leader.

Jon Cruddas comes over as by far the best candidate, not only in terms of policy content but because he answers the questions clearly without any beating round the bush.

Should the government halt further privatisation in the NHS?
Jon Cruddas: Yes. I’ve called for a moratorium on private sector involvement in the NHS. I think we urgently need to take stock of where we are and what is and isn’t working. I also think that the pace and scale of reform has left the NHS and the people who work in it reeling.

In order to tackle the gender pay gap, do you believe the government should legislate for mandatory pay audits?
Jon Cruddas: Yes. I was disappointed that the Prosser Commission didn’t recommend it. There is an enduring 17 per cent gender pay gap.

Should Trident be replaced by a new generation of nuclear weapons?
Jon Cruddas: No. I voted against Trident. Trident and any upgrade are relics of another era. The events of July 7 2005 demonstrate that we face very different security threats.

Is the government pursuing the correct policy in Iraq?
Jon Cruddas: It is withdrawing troops but I think we need to review whether that is being done speedily enough. My view is that they should be drawing in multilateral forces and using diplomacy to try and find a settlement to the whole Middle East problem.

Should the government reject the hostile campaign of the US administration towards the Hugo Chávez government in Venezuela, which has overseen enormous social progress that has been repeatedly endorsed by the Venezuelan electorate?
Jon Cruddas: Chavez heads a democratically elected government which is doing amazing things for the poor. Any interference by the US or any other state should be rejected.

In contrast none of the other candidates gave a clear answer about privatisation of the NHS. Blears and Benn rather mendaciously redefined the issue as if the NHS cannot be privatised if “treatment free at the point of use” is still supported. Peter Hain defended his us of the private sector in Northern Ireland. Alan Johnson said: “Private innovation and competition can be beneficial”

All of the candidates except Jon Cruddas support nuclear weapons. Benn argued: “In the differently dangerous world we now live in, I don't think we should give up our deterrent.”, and he cheekily said that Trident replacement was necessary because it was a manifesto commitment.

On the question of Chavez, Hilary Benn thinks the real issue is falling into the trap of anti-Americanism; and Hazel Blears lectured the Socialist Campaign Group over the need to stay on the “centre ground” of British politics. Alan Johnson clearly believes that Britain’s relationship with the USA is too important to jeopardise: “Britain's relationship with the US will be led by Gordon Brown, but I will support him in any way I can. Whilst Gordon is wanting to maintain a strong relationship with the US, I firmly believe that he will not shy away from any issue, such as this, in private.”

All the candidates expressed support for extending council housing, but Alan Johnson worryingly said: “Borrowing against an authority's rental income could be a source of funding. ” I have a suspicion that the Brownite right are contemplating allowing local authorities to set up ALMOs themselves that can borrow money at commercial rates – so they will be publicly owned commercial companies.

TUC response to the Freud Review

2007-06-05T11:03:00.000+01:00

The TUC has just published their response to the Freud Review, "Reducing Poverty, Increasing Support".

Their response makes two main points:

"Benefit claimants, including disabled people and lone parents, need extra support to help them to get jobs, not the threat of penalties".

"There is no need for privatisation or contracting out of services currently provided by Jobcentre Plus. We pay particular attention to some of the problems that may follow from contracting out to faith organisations".

CWU snubs Johnson

2007-06-04T23:13:00.000+01:00

.

I know some of you are getting fed up with the Labour Deputy Leadership election, but it is a significant defeat for the leadership of the postal workers union that their support for the right winger, Alan Johnson, has been overturned by rank and file delegates at conference today. This underlines how the Deputy Leadership contest has allowed some debate in the unions about their future relationship with the Brown government. From what I gather support for continuing the link with the Labour Party is very weak within the CWU, and if there is a large scale strike this year - as seems likely - then pressure may grow to follow the FBU's example and disaffiliate.

This report is from the Morning Star:

CWU delegates in Bournemouth overwhelmingly voted to reconsider the union's decision to support Labour deputy leadership candidate Alan Johnson on Monday.

An emergency motion pointed out that Mr Johnson had failed to support the Trade Union Freedom Bill and the union's campaign against post office closures and had publicly supported Royal Mail's unpopular plans for employee share ownership.

Conference agreed to censure the NEC and instruct it to reconsider its decision to support Mr Johnston in line with the decisions taken at last year's conference and inform the membership of the decision prior to the ballot commencing on June 6th.

South London delegate Bob Cullen pointed out that deputy general secretary Dave Ward had said that he would rather "support a lamppost" than Mr Johnson, who was once the leader of the CWU.

"Let's support the lamppost," he urged delegates.

"If he can privatise what was his own industry, what would he do to others? He has no time for us working people. He should not be considered."

London Divisional representative delegate Martin Walsh branded Mr Johnson "the weakest" of all the candidates.

"He does not support the policies of this union, yet we still support him. That is wrong," he said.

"He walked away from this union, we did not drive him away."

London delegate Phil Walker added that Mr Johnson offered "little or nothing" to the union in his leadership manifesto.

"We have to look at the most acceptable candidate. Let's have another look at them," he said.

"Policy issues should be key to our judgment. Let us get what change we can out of this deputy leadership contest."
London Parcels delegate Paul O'Donnell said that Mr Johnson's nomination sent out the wrong message.

"It's like having a fry up for the bailiffs before they repossess your cooker," he said.

Kent Invicata delegate Sean Tait added: "We can't send divided messages to our own membership. We should make sure the people we support, support us."

Before the voting, CWU general secretary Billy Hayes urged delegates to reject the motion, insisting: "What you're saying is that the NEC is not entitled to an opinion. We are deciding the next Deputy Prime Minster."

The NEC will meet on Tuesday to decide who they will now support.

UPDATE: There is a good online report also in Socialist Worker . They make the point that: "It should be noted that not all the executive had supported Johnson at the executive meeting in question, with three supporting Jon Cruddas."

It is also worth saying that The Morning Star are wrong that Bob Cullen is from South London, he is from Oxford.

We are back

2007-06-04T22:49:00.000+01:00

.

Sorry for the interruption in posting recently.

The blog was temporarily blocked by Google because they decided it was a so-called "Spam blog".

It seems they have an automated tool that searches blogs and tries to identify automated blogs being used for nefarious purposes, and their algorithm is too aggressive, and there are loads of false positives.

It is illuminating to read the Google help group, which is a forum for people with blogger problems, as this issue affects loads of people using Google Blogger.

There was one poor guy blocked at the same time as us who makes his living out of his blog, and has 400000 hits per month (which is slightly more than we get) - he was blocked. And what is so frustrating is there is no way with Blogger to get to speak, or even e-mail a human being.

Anyway, we are back, and we have resolved to migrate to Wordpress soon.

Lecturers' union condemns Israel

2007-06-01T15:22:00.000+01:00

The UCU Congress yesterday passed 2 resolutions:

Boycott of Israeli academic institutions
This requires the Union to

circulate of the full text of the Palestinian boycott call to all branches
encourage members to consider the moral implications of links with Israeli universities
organise a UK campus tour for Palestinian academic trade unionists
issue guidance to members on appropriate forms of action
actively encourage branches to create direct educational links with Palestinian educational institutions including nationally sponsored programmes for teacher exchanges etc.

European Union and Israel
This requires the Union to campaign for:

The restoration of all international aid to the PA and all its rightful revenues
No upgrade of Israel’s status with the EU while the occupation and human rights abuses continue
A moratorium on research and cultural collaborations with Israel via EU and European Science Foundation funding until Israel abides by UN resolutions

The Morning Star has the following report of the debate:

DANIEL COYSH writes:>.

DELEGATES at the newly formed university and lecturers' union defied their national executive on Wednesday evening and voted for a nationwide debate on whether to support a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

The debate on whether to hold a debate had always promised to be one of the more controversial aspects of the inaugural UCU congress and the hall was packed with speakers, delegates, observers and hacks, hungry for a juicy row.

In the event, most left disappointed. Strong opinions were voiced, but everyone managed to avoid the hysterical smears and name-calling that so often heralds the hijacking of discussion by hard-line Israel supporters.

Although many opposed any demand for a boycott, every speaker was insistent on their support for the Palestinian people and their condemnation of Israel's actions. Opponents of a boycott instead argued on the grounds that such a step was counterproductive, would divide the union or would stifle "academic freedom."

The boycott call was launched in April 2004 by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). It is supported by 60 Palestinian trade unions, NGOs and political and religious organisations.

UCU delegates discussed a motion calling on UCU to circulate the full text of the PACBI call to all branches.

The motion also condemned Israel's 40-year occupation of Palestine and its "denial of educational rights for Palestinians by invasions, closures, checkpoints, curfews and shootings and arrests of teachers, lecturers and students."

Opening the debate, University of Brighton delegate Tom Hickey welcomed growing international condemnation of Israel as an "apartheid state" and detailed the devastating effect of the occupation on the Palestinian people.

"If we do nothing and look away, we make ourselves complicit in it," he argued.

Executive member Mary Davis spoke against a boycott, calling the motion "divisive and disingenuous."

She said that, if the same principles were applied to Britain, then all British academia would be boycotted over Britain's shameful role in the attack on Iraq.

Instead, she proposed concentrating the union's efforts on pro-Palestinian activities, such as stopping arms sales to Israel and supporting the importation of goods produced in free Palestine, such as olive oil.

However, the final vote saw 158 delegates back the motion, with 99 against.

Speaking after the debate, Mr Hickey said that the next step would be to organise a series of regional debates over the next year, with as wide a range of speakers as possible, including academics from both Israel and Palestine.

He stressed that the form any potential boycott could take was up to the union, but he suggested that it could include such measures as a refusal to attend conferences organised by Israeli universities or a ban on joint grant applications with such institutions.

UCU general secretary Sally Hunt, who had spoken out against a boycott prior to the debate, commented: "Today's motion means all branches now have a responsibility to consult all of their members on the issue and I believe that every member should have the opportunity to have their say."

She also pointed out that a previous motion had endorsed an official policy on "greylisting and boycott" by the union's transitional arrangements committee, providing a series of "key tests" which would have to be passed before any boycott could be implemented.

Cannon on socialist legality

2007-06-01T13:13:00.000+01:00

.

The recent decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew the broadcast licence of the RCTV channel has raised quite a lot of interesting debate, that has thrown light on some of the underlying political assumptions and attitudes of those participating in the discussion.

I have already posted about the facts of the dispute, and explained why the Bolivarian government are justified .

But one point came up in the debate at the Red Squirrel blog that is worth pursuing further.

One of the “left” voices joining in the chorus of criticism of Chavez was TWP from the Shiraz Socialist blog, which is loosely aligned with the politics of the British AWL , an avowedly Marxist group but which takes some eccentric positions.

TWP wrote : “How many of us have “openly called” for the overthrow of capitalism? Well apparently Tariq Ali doesn’t see the irony in his statement about Chavez’s failure to renew a TV licence for the anti-government channel RCTV. By his logic most of the newspapers of the far left could be legitimately closed down in Britain.”

As Ken Macleod points out:
“There's another troubling aspect of the Shiraz Socialist's take on this. She seems to think that the far left 'calls for the overthrow of capitalism' in the sense of calling for the overthrow of democratically elected governments! Apart from the absurdity of making such a call at present, most of the far left does no such thing, and it's quite dangerous to concede that it does. Cannon's Socialism on Trial is … very much to the point here.”

From June to November 1941, leading members of the Socialist Workers Party in the USA (no relation to today’s SWP in Britain), were no trial in the Minneapolis, MN, District Court of the United States.

James P Cannon defended the party brilliantly from the witness stands, and the court transcripts are a very valuable resource, because they contain a clear and simple explanation of socialist politics.

Some of the issues raised are very relevant to the current debate, in particular relating to the attitude socialists take to violence and the constitution, and in particular the explanation that as democrats we will always try to achieve our aims through peaceful means – but reserving the right to defend democracy by any means necessary.

Of particular interest is Cannon’s very clear explanation that even the Russian revolution was constitutional and legal.

Here are some excerpts from the book: Socialism on Trial"

Marxism and violence

Q: Now, what is the opinion of Marxists with reference to the change in the social order, as far as its being accompanied or not accompanied by violence?
A: It is the opinion of all Marxists that it will be accompanied by violence.
Q: Why?
A: That is based, like all Marxist doctrine, on a study of history, the historical experiences of mankind in the numerous changes of society from one form to another, the revolutions which accompanied it, and the resistance which the outlived classes invariably put up against the new order. Their attempt to defend themselves against the new order, or to suppress by violence the movement for the new order, has resulted in every important social transformation up to now being accompanied by violence.
Q: Who, in the opinion of Marxists, initiated that violence?
A: Always the ruling class; always the outlived class that doesn’t want to leave the stage when the time has come. They want to hang on to their privileges, to reinforce them by violent measures, against the rising majority and they run up against the mass violence of the new class, which history has ordained shall come to power.
Q: What is the opinion of Marxists, as far as winning a majority of the people to socialist ideas?
A: Yes, that certainly is the aim of the party. That is the aim of the Marxist movement, has been from its inception.
Marx said the social revolution of the proletariat—I think I can quote his exact words from memory—“is a movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority”[2] He said this in distinguishing it from previous revolutions which had been made in the interest of minorities, as was the case in France in 1789.
Q: What would you say is the opinion of Marxists as far as the desirability of a peaceful transition is concerned?
A: The position of the Marxists is that the most economical and preferable, the most desirable method of social transformation, by all means, is to have it done peacefully.
Q: And in the opinion of the Marxists, is that absolutely excluded?
A: Well, I wouldn’t say absolutely excluded. We say that the lessons of history don’t show any important examples in favor of the idea so that you can count upon it.
Q: Can you give us examples in American history of a minority refusing to submit to a majority?
A: I can give you a very important one. The conception of the Marxists is that even if the transfer of political power from the capitalists to the proletariat is accomplished peacefully—then the minority, the exploiting capitalist class, will revolt against the new regime, no matter how legally it is established.
I can give you an example in American history. The American Civil War resulted from the fact that the Southern slaveholders couldn’t reconcile themselves to the legal parliamentary victory of Northern capitalism, the election of President Lincoln.
Q: Can you give us an example outside of America where a reactionary minority revolted against a majority in office?
A: Yes, in Spain—the coalition of workers’ and liberal parties in Spain got an absolute majority in the elections and established the People’s Front government. This government was no sooner installed than it was confronted with an armed rebellion, led by the reactionary capitalists of Spain.
Q: Then the theory of Marxists and the theory of the Socialist Workers Party, as far as violence is concerned, is a prediction based upon a study of history, is that right?
A: Well, that is part of it. It is a prediction that the outlived class, which is put in a minority by the revolutionary growth in the country, will try by violent means to hold on to its privileges against the will of the majority. That is what we predict.
Of course, we don’t limit ourselves simply to that prediction. We go further, and advise the workers to bear this in mind and prepare themselves not to permit the reactionary outlived minority to frustrate the will of the majority.
Q: What role does the rise and existence of fascism play with reference to the possibility of violence?
A: That is really the nub of the whole question, because the reactionary violence of the capitalist class, expressed through fascism, is invoked against the workers. Long before the revolutionary movement of the workers gains the majority, fascist gangs are organised and subsidised by millions in funds from the biggest industrialists and financiers, as the example of Germany showed—and these fascist gangs undertake to break up the labor movement by force. They raid the halls, assassinate the leaders, break up the meetings, burn the printing plants, and destroy the possibility of functioning long before the labor movement has taken the road of revolution.
I say that is the nub of the whole question of violence. If the workers don’t recognise that, and do not begin to defend themselves against the fascists, they will never be given the possibility of voting on the question of revolution. They will face the fate of the German and Italian proletariat and they will be in the chains of fascist slavery before they have a chance of any kind of a fair vote on whether they want socialism or not.
It is a life and death question for the workers that they organise themselves to prevent fascism, the fascist gangs, from breaking up the workers’ organisations, and not to wait until it is too late. That is in the program of our party.

The Same way Lincoln did

Q: Now how do you expect the capitalists to abrogate the elections? How will they accomplish that purpose?
A: They can do it in various ways—by decree, by vote of Congress declaring there is a state of emergency which requires dispensing with election struggles, and handing the power over to the president or somebody to rule for this period, which may be long or short—but most likely it would be long.
That is precisely what was done to a legally constituted parliament elected by the suffrage of the French people, containing representatives of various parties—Socialists, Radical Socialist, Conservative, Communist and other parties. This parliament was dissolved, and a dictator appointed with power to rule the country at his will until further notice. That is what happened just like that (indicating).
Q: Supposing they don’t do those things that you anticipate, and you get yourself elected into control of the government, control of the Senate and the House, let us say, and you elect a president, too. Do you expect then that the army and navy are going to turn against you and try to resist your authority?
A: I anticipate that some of the officers would—those who are tied most closely to the upper circles of the ruling class. I would expect some of them to attempt to dispute the authority of the people’s government That happened in other instances.
Q: Yes, I know you are illustrating by that. I am talking about this country. You have got yourself elected into control of the government now. Now tell us how you expect the resistance against your authority is going to be made. Who is going to do it and how is it going to be done?
A: It would be done by the agents of the ruling class that is facing dispossession.
Q: Do you expect the army and navy of the United States government to turn its guns against you when you are in duly elected control of the government?
A: Yes, I would expect some of the officers to do it—not all of them. If all of the army and navy would be of such a mind, it would be manifestly impossible to be elected in the first place, because the army and navy are more or less in their ranks reflective of the general population, and if we are elected by a majority vote, you can be sure that our popularity in the masses of the people will be reflected in the military establishment That is always the case.
Q: Well, how would you resist this uprising against you?
A: The same way Lincoln did in 1861.
Q: Would you already have an army, or would you use the army that you find standing when you came into power?
A: We will just use what measures are possible. A good section of the American army and its best officers in 1861 revolted against the authority of the legally elected government of Lincoln. Lincoln took what he could and recruited some more and gave them a fight, and I always thought it was a wonderfully good idea.

The legality of the Russian revolution
Q: Now, can you tell us anything about the legality of that revolution?

A: Yes.

The Court: Judged by what standards?

Mr. Goldman: What I mean by that is to have him explain exactly how the revolution occurred, because counsel for the government tries to present it as a violent upheaval of the minority against the majority, and the facts are the very contrary. I want the witness to explain the nature of that revolution.

A: The czar and czarism were overthrown in March by an uprising of the masses, of the people in the big cities, and the peasants.

Q: Was the Bolshevik Party responsible for that uprising in any way?

A: No. The Bolshevik Party was a very infinitesimal group at the time of the March revolution.

Q: What is the meaning of “Bolshevism”?

A: The world Bolshevik is a Russian word meaning majority. It acquired a political meaning in the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. In the Congress of 1903 a controversy developed which divided the party into groups, the majority and the minority, the majority called the Bolsheviks and the minority called Mensheviks.

Q: Those are Russian words meaning minority and majority?

A: Yes. They split up and divided into parties. Each called itself the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party and in parentheses on the end “Bolsheviks” or “Mensheviks”, as the case might be.

Q: Now, will you proceed and tell the jury what happened during the October Revolution, or in our calendar in November 1917.

A: Well, to show the chronology: When czarism was overthrown by the masses of the people, the whole structure of that tyranny was destroyed. A new government was constituted, but the new government machinery was based on the Soviets, which sprang up spontaneously in the revolutionary upheaval. Soviets of workers and soldiers were established everywhere. In Petrograd, the workers and soldiers sent delegates—deputies—to the central council or, as they called it, the Soviet; similarly in Moscow and other places. This body was recognised as authoritative.

The government that was constituted after the overthrow of the czar was headed by Prince Lvov, with Miliukov as foreign minister; it derived its authority from the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies and the Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies. In April they had a National All-Russian Conference of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Soviets, and there they elected an All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Soviets. In May, the peasant Soviets had an All-Russian Congress and elected an All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the peasants.

Q: What proportion of the population did those Soviets represent?

A: They represented the people, the great mass of the people. I think it was impossible even to speak in terms of majorities or minorities. They were the masses themselves. The peasants and the soldiers and the workers were the people; those two bodies, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Peasant Soviets, formed a joint body which was recognised as the most authoritative and representative body in Russia. It was by their consent that the government cabinet ruled.

The All-Russian Executive Committee of the Soviets repudiated Miliukov, who was the leader of the bourgeoisie. The Soviet body opposed him because of his foreign policy, involving secret treaties that had been exposed. He therefore had to resign, because without the support of the Soviets, authority was lacking; and I think that could be likened, as an analogy, to the French system of the resignation of the prime minister when there is a no-confidence vote in the Chamber.

Q: So that the Soviets constituted the authority of the people of Russia?

A: That is right.

Q: In what way did the Bolsheviks progress to power?

A: I wish to go on with the chronology, if you will permit me. Following the fall of Miliukov, Kerensky rose—there is a popular impression in this country that he became premier with the fall of the czar. That is not so. Kerensky became premier in July. He was made a minister and eventually premier because he was a member of the Social Revolutionary Party. That was the peasant party, which then lead the Soviets. He was also supported by the worker element, because he had been a labor lawyer. That was the basis of Kerensky’s office; that is, his authority was derived directly from the Soviets.

Now in this period the Bolsheviks were a small minority. They did not create the Soviets. The Soviets were created by the masses; they were initiated by the masses. Neither the Bolshevik Party nor any other party could do anything without the support of the Soviets. In the midst of the revolution of 1905 and again in the overthrow of the czar in 1917, the Soviets sprang up simultaneously.

The most influential one naturally was in Petrograd, which was the seat of government. The Bolsheviks were a small minority in this Soviet at the time of the overthrow of the czar. When Kerensky became premier, the combination of his Social Revolutionary Party and the Menshevik Socialist Party—those two parties together had an overwhelming majority in the Soviets, and ruled by virtue of that. The Bolsheviks were an opposing faction.

During that time Lenin, as the spokesman for the Bolsheviks, said over and over again, “As long as we are in the minority in the Soviets, all we can do is patiently explain.” The Bolshevik Party opposed any attempt to seize power by a putsch.

Q: What is a “putsch”?

A: An armed action of a small group. The Bolshevik Party demanded, with Lenin as their spokesman, that the Social Revolutionary Party and the Menshevik Party take complete control of the government by removing the bourgeois ministers and make it a completely labor and peasant government, and they issued the promise that, “If you do that we promise that as long as we are in the minority, we will not try to overthrow you. We will not support you politically, we will criticise you, but we will not undertake to overthrow the government as long as we are in the minority.” That was the policy of the Bolsheviks in the March days of the revolution against the czar, and into July.

In July the workers in Petrograd staged a demonstration with arms, against the advice of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks advised against it on the ground that it might unduly provoke the situation, and tried to persuade the workers in Petrograd not to go into that action. It was not a rebellion; it was simply a parade with arms. This action, carried out by the Petrograd workers against the advice of the Bolsheviks, brought repressions against the workers on the part of the Kerensky government.

Then the Kerensky government undertook to discredit and frame up the Bolshevik Party. They accused Lenin and Trotsky of being German spies. This was the predecessor of Stalin’s Moscow trials. They accused Lenin and Trotsky and the Bolsheviks of being German spies. Trotsky was thrown into jail, Lenin was forced into hiding, and repressions continued against the Bolsheviks, but it did not do any good, because the policy and slogans of the Bolsheviks were growing in popularity. One by one the great factories and soldiers’ regiments began to vote in favor of the Bolshevik program.

In September an attempt at counterrevolution was made under the leadership of General Kornilov, who could be properly described as a Russian monarchist-fascist. He organised an army and undertook to overthrow the Kerensky government in Petrograd, with the idea of restoring the old regime.

The Kerensky government, that had put Trotsky in jail, had to release him from prison to get the support of his party to fight down the counterrevolutionary army of Kornilov.

Trotsky was brought from prison and went directly to the Military Revolutionary Committee, in which government men also sat, and there drew up with them plans for a joint fight against Kornilov. Kornilov was crushed; the counterrevolution was crushed primarily by the workers under the inspiration of the Bolshevik Party. They tied up his railroad trains, he could not move his troops; his best troops were induced to fight against him, and his counterrevolution was crushed.

As this was going on, the Bolsheviks became more popular all the time, as the genuine representatives of the revolution. They gained the majority in the Petrograd Soviet, the most influential Soviet in the country, and in Moscow and others. The Kerensky government was losing ground because it was not solving any of the problems of the people. The Bolsheviks’ slogans of “Bread”, “Peace”, “Land”, and other slogans—those were the slogans that the masses wanted.

On November 7 was held the Congress of the All-Russian Soviets of Workers and Soldiers. The Bolsheviks had a majority there, and simultaneously with the meeting of the Soviets, where the Bolsheviks had a majority, they took the governmental power.

... ...
Q: When you were tracing the history of the Russian Revolution, you said this: “The Kerensky government was losing ground because it was not solving any problems of the people. The Bolsheviks’ slogans of ‘Bread’ and other slogans—those were the slogans that the masses wanted. The Bolsheviks got a majority in the Petrograd Soviet. On November 7 was held the Congress of the All-Russian Soviets. The Bolsheviks had a majority there, and simultaneously with the meeting of the All-Russian Soviet, where the Bolsheviks had a majority, they took the power from the government.” Now, do you want us to understand from that, that the Bolsheviks took power by virtue of a majority vote of the Congress of the Soviets?
A: That is right.
Q: Do you not mean that the contrary was true?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Don’t you know that there was a planned insurrection before the Congress, and that the insurrection actually took place before the Congress met?
A: No. The Congress met the morning after the struggle had begun, and confirmed the new government.
Q: The fact is that the insurrection was started and was completed before the Congress ever met, isn’t it?
A: No, the power was in the Congress, and the Congress was the real power.
Q: Well, just answer my question, please. Isn’t it a fact that the insurrection had been planned and actually carried out before the Congress ever met?
A: No. The question was submitted to the All-Russian Congress of the Soviets on November 7. That is why they call it the November 7 Revolution.
Q: Don’t you know, further, that Lenin persistently warned against waiting for the Congress and doing it in a legal way?
A: Oh, that was one time that Lenin was overruled.
Q: And who won?
A: Trotsky won.
Q: Isn’t it also a fact that Trotsky ridiculed the notion that it was done legally?
A: No, on the contrary, Trotsky commented on the legal sanction of the action by the Soviets. That was why it was delayed to November 7.
Q: Isn’t it also true that he lulled Kerensky into inaction by pretending to wait until the Congress met, so that it could be decided legally who was to take power?
A: He did not pretend to wait. He waited.
Q: I submit that the contrary is true, in that Mr. Trotsky said so, and I would like to read to you about ten pages or so from the Lessons of October, and then you can tell me whether I am right or wrong.
(Mr. Scheweinhaut reads from pages 74 and 80 of Trotsky’s Lessons of October.)
Mr. Goldman: I submit Your Honour, that this book was ruled out of evidence. I have no objection if he wants to read one or two or perhaps three sentences, but to take advantage of cross-examination and put into evidence what the Court has ruled out, I think is going a little too far.
The Court: Well, this has to do, I suppose, with the dispute between counsel and witness, as to the facts with reference to which the witness takes one position and counsel takes an other. Now this is an attempt to impeach the statements of the witness by the means indicated. I assume he has a right to do that. He may continue to read it.
Mr. Goldman: Exception.
(Mr. Schweinhaut reads pages 80-91 from Trotsky’s Lessons of October.)
Mr. Schweinhaut: Now, am I right or wrong, Mr. Cannon, that the insurrection actually started and was concluded before the Soviet Congress put its seal of legality on it?
A: If you will permit me, I will show you where you are wrong. You misunderstood the whole thing; my authority for the evidence I gave here was Trotsky. He wrote the most authoritative and authentic history of the revolution. Perhaps I should mention several things to show where you are wrong:
First those pages you have read show that there were three different opinions in the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Lenin said they had a majority, and they should take the power without waiting. There was the opinion of Zinoviev and Kamenev who thought the Bolsheviks did not have a majority and should not take the power. And the third opinion was Trotsky’s that they could base the assumption of power on the legality of the Soviets.
Second, those pages you read prove that both the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks derived their authority from the Soviets. In November it became clear that the Bolsheviks had won the majority in the Soviets. Kerensky, who formerly had the majority in the Soviets, prepared to move troops from the capital. What did the troops do? The troops refused to go until ordered by the Congress of Soviets. The Congress of the Soviets convened on November 7. It was revealed that the Bolsheviks had the majority, and their assumption of power was confirmed.
In this All-Russian Congress of Soviets were present the other parties who had been the majority of yesterday. They spoke and debated there. When the vote was taken, the Bolsheviks had the majority. The Bolsheviks offered to give proportionate places in the government to the other parties. They refused and walked off. The Bolsheviks did, as a matter of fact incorporate into the government, a section of Kerensky’s party, the left wing of the Social Revolutionary Party.
It seems to me that here is an excellent illustration of how a revolutionary party, after long propagandistic work, succeeded in a political crisis in winning over to its side a majority of the population represented in the most authoritative body, the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. And the Bolsheviks, adapting themselves to the legality of this authoritative body —
Q: Now, just a minute. Are you still telling us how it occurred, or are you just telling us now that you think it was a mighty fine thing?
A: No, I am explaining the legality of the development as against your interpretation that it was illegal. And it seems to me —
Q: I don’t want your opinion on that. If you want to go on and tell us what happened, all right. Don’t characterise it.
A: I don’t think you will ever get a more legal revolution than that.

The cheek by Jowell

2007-05-31T16:09:00.000+01:00

Tessa Jowell has responded to an e-petition about money being siphoned off from voluntary organisations to fund the Olympics.
Jowell reiterates that, “The amount going to the VCS (voluntary and community sector) will therefore continue at the levels planned. Given your concerns, we hope that you will welcome this approach.”

But……don't get too excited, ”The remaining £250 million will come from the other Lottery distributors, with the exception of UK Sport, between 2009 and 2012. The other distributors have said that this need not impact on any existing commitments. The impact on future commitments will be assessed in due course..”

In other words areas such as arts and heritage will be hit for cash. It may not have an impact in the short-term but on future commitments. It seems to me there will be inevitable cuts.

Central government will be contributing a staggering £6billion to this 2-week jamboree. This London based elitist event will inevitably deny the majority to participate.
Jowell again argues, “We hope that you consider that this represents a fair approach to funding such an important national event” …

Hmmmm. Fair? An important national event? Who is she trying to kid? Jowell would prefer to see countless voluntary orgs fall by the wayside due to a slashed budget and no matter how much she promises that cash won’t be diverted it won’t be the case. They continuously have to raid various public purses to bale themselves out of the mire.

Btw: There is a debate in Parliament planned for the 6th June to discuss the impact on arts and heritage of the diversion of lottery funding to the 2012 London Olympic Games.

Where Next for McDonnell supporters?

2007-05-31T10:44:00.000+01:00

A good outcome from the McDonnell leadership campaign is that it has put a lot of the Labour Party left into active contact with each other, and I recommend the new collective blog, Labour Left Forum , that has got off to a good start. In particular I found the post Which Way Forward for the Left quite realistic and sensible.

But how it strikes me as an outsider is that the Labour Left seems to organise around Labour Left Briefing, and through the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) and the McDonnell campaign, which are structures that are actually OUTWITH and independent from the Labour Party, but as a peculiarity they require LP membership to participate in them.

To really operate as a Labour Party left they have to organise WITHIN the Labour Party structures, seeking to control wards and CLPs, getting union branches to send left delegates to the CLP, get on the council, forming a left caucus of councillors in town halls, having a left block on the NEC (which means breaking from the Brownites in the Grassroots Alliance). Have a clear left slate for the National Policy Forum elections, with alternative policies that they want to pursue. Forcing their issues onto the conference floor.

I think the argument about whether socialists should or should not be in the Labour Party is a futile one: comrades are going to come to their own conclusions one way another based upon their own experience. However much hot air and ink is expended on the issue, we are not going to convince each other. The approach of the Socialist party and Respect to say McDonnell’s defeat shows you are wasting your time come and join us, is unhelpful in the extreme, But similarly the approach from some of the Labour left, that all of those who have decided not to be in the party are incorrigible sectarians and ultra-lefts is equally unhelpful.

If the Labour Left is going to build on the McDonnell campaign they need to build practical activity. They must work to develop specific left policies and campaigns, sometimes in cooperation with the socialist left outside the Labour party: then these can be promoted through the movement, the unions and the single issue campaigns.

But they also need to promote them through the Party. Only if they can demonstrate success in winning commitment to left policies from the Labour Party, and then implementing left policies in local councils under left control, can they demonstrate that work in the Labour Party is effective. I see that John McDonnell is writing a position paper to discuss where next for his supporters, I will be interested to see what practical strategic steps this spells out.

To be frank comrades, the rhetoric of “its hard but we just have to keep beavering away till it gets better” is wearing thin.

Psychiatric ASBOs coming to you very soon...

2007-05-30T22:54:00.000+01:00

“Ensure that people with full decision making ability cannot be forced to have treatment imposed upon them against their will”. (One of the six amendments from the Lords scuppered by the Government)

I wrote recently about the Mental Health Bill specifically Community Treatment Orders. The Government and the Lords were locked in a battle over safeguards. Patricia Hewitt and Rosie Winterton were hostile to the proposals made by the Minister for Health Services).

The Bill has been going through committee stage and unfortunately every single amendment proposed by the Lords has been overturned. But what is more surreal is this latest research commissioned by the Dept of Health states:

"This review has found very little evidence of positive effects of CTOs in the areas where they might have been anticipated. None of the nine experimental studies found evidence suggesting that CTOs reduce either hospital readmission or length of stay, or that they improve compliance." (Rachel Churchill – International Experiences of Community Treatment Orders)

Even New Labour’s mental health Tsar, Louis Appleby, admitted that the review had “not reliably demonstrated the effectiveness of CTOs”…

And many others aren't too keen either on this Bill most recently the psychiatrist Suman Fernando has stated he will not accept the OBE in protest to this Bill.

"It seems most strange that the Government say they want to recognise my services to BME Mental Healthcare at a time when they are trying to push through legislation that would make things worse for black people caught up in the mental health system, in spite of strong objections by many people (including myself) expressed both publicly and in private to Government ministers."
“Failure of mental health services to meet the needs of BME communities results from institutional racism and injustices are evidently mostly in the experiences of black Caribbean people who are disproportionately sectioned and subjected to inappropriate – often damaging ‘care’”

New Labour is rushing this draconian Bill through at break-neck speed, wilfully ignoring and junking academic research and professionals. The Bill will be coming up for its 3rd reading but if it gets Royal Assent in its current state it will mean compulsion and containment. The Manic Depression Fellowship (MDF) carried out research in the late 1990s and found that 1 in 5 of respondents said that if CTOs were introduced they would be too frightened of the consequences to seek help from professionals. And who can blame them as trust and support will be replaced by coercion.

The Government will get their psychiatric “ASBO” which will revolve around that great panacea, “medication”, “medication, “medication”. Nowhere in this Bill is there any attempt to focus on alternatives to medication instead New Labour panders to the populist belief that people need to be “protected” from the “mad, bad and dangerous” to know by dosing them with a chemical cosh to make them compliant.

Hewitt has the audacity to argue that this Bill strikes a balance between the user and public safety. The rights of the user have diminished to nothing added to the continued stigmatisation, victimisation and oppression but as long as the public are “protected”…

New Labour believes it should be beyond legal restraint. The Mental Health Bill lacks safeguards, rights and principles. Who will make the decisions? Will someone on a CTO be allowed to appeal? How will the CTOs be monitored? Who will do the monitoring? Where is the accountability and transparency? It is one continuous attack on civil liberties, self-determination and autonomy. A trend and pattern is emerging with various measures introduced by this authoritarian Government such as the raft of anti-terrorism laws, ASBOs, and the latest attack on civil liberties from Reid arguing for a 'sus' law.

Unfortunately, come late June one ex-PM desperate for a legacy won’t be having his freedom curtailed charged as a war criminal and doing a stretch in Belmarsh.

BNP - Griffin faces leadership challenge

2007-05-30T13:46:00.000+01:00

.

This month’s Searchlight contains the fascinating story that BNP Führer Nick Griffin is facing a leadership challenge from hardline Nazi Chris Jackson, formerly the party’s North West regional organiser (pictured)

The local elections in May were pretty disastrous for the BNP. Despite standing many more candidates their share of the vote fell, in many places dramatically. In the East Midland in 2006 their candidates got 28% of the vote, one year later this fell to 18.5%; in the North West the vote fell from 20.6% to 14.9%. In every region the vote was down. The national average vote fell from 19.2% for 363 candidates last year to 14.7% this year, for 742 candidates.

The won 9 seats, but lost eight they were defending, and one BNP councillor in Stoke has left the party since the election.

Had they been predicting just holding on, they might have been philosophical, but they were confident of doubling their number of elected councillors from 49 to 100.

Of course the BNP vote is still troublingly large, but they are cherry picking favourable seats, and their ability to get a reasonable protest vote at local council level does not translate into sustained and stable electoral support.

Jackson’s leadership challenge would probably not have happened if Griffin’s strategy was paying off. As I wrote last year : “Knowing that the BNP is decades away from forming a government, Griffin is hoping to play the long game. It must seem very galling that a post-fascist like Gianfranco Fini can be deputy Prime Minister in Italy, while Cambridge educated Griffin is talking to 20 numbskulls in a pub skittle-alley in Keighley. In the medium term if the BNP could win a swathe of councillors across the country, it might be able to shift the political agenda so that race and immigration are part of mainstream debate. If it could distance itself from its fascist past it might be able to join coalition administrations in councils, it might get MEPs, and members of the London Assembly elected. With this higher profile it might become a permanent part of the political landscape, a much better foundation for launching a future openly fascist party.”

But why should hardline nationalists put up with Griffin’s attempt to water down their message of race hate in order to position the BNP as a post-fascist party like Fini’s Alleanza Nazionale, if it isn’t even working?

Again, as I wrote last year: “Any sustained organisation requires a cadre of activists that are motivated by an ideology. The current leadership and cadre of the BNP come from fascist backgrounds, and have the criminal records to prove it. This creates a complex difficulty for Griffin. To turn out the existing cadre to work in elections requires sufficient concessions to them that the BNP is not just a racist, but an active race-hate organisation, which is an obstacle to gaining greater respectability. What is more, the party is unable to have a truly candid debate about the need for a shift without revealing the Nazi ideology of many of its supporters, and even exposing them to prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred. The fascist core of BNP supporters are correct to fear the possibility that the BNP could become what it is pretending to be. If Griffin could get elected to the European parliament he would be mainly interested in sustaining his own electoral career.”

So Jackson’s leadership bid is significant. He is standing on behalf of the Reform Group, a small network of Tyndall supporters, and he is seeking to reach out to those fascists that have been excluded by the Griffin regime and are now huddled in the National Front, England First, and other miniscule groups.

As such, his base within the BNP is very limited, but he may tap into a wider discontent with the arbitrary and capricious way Griffin runs the party. Searchlight speculates that the BNP's cultural officer, Jonathan Bowden and elections officer, Eddy Butler, may back Jackson. Anything less than a convincing victory for Griffin, with 80% or more of the membership vote, would seriously damage his authority.

Certainly Griffin’s strategic choice to steer the party towards the political mainstream is problematic. As I argued before: “It is important to understand that the BNP are an openly racist not an openly fascist organisation. The interplay between its fascist and populist elements is a source of weakness for it.”

If Griffin fares poorly in the leadership election this will strengthen the open fascists in the party, weakening the electoral strategy, and increasing the party’s image problem. On the other hand, if Griffin wins a convincing victory, then the fascist cadre of the party may walk out, strengthening the mood that the party has lost momentum, and reducing the number of committed activists prepared to do the donkey work.

What a feat for the British!

2007-05-29T23:58:00.000+01:00

.

The Morning Star has printed a really interesting article by FIDEL CASTRO, president of Cuba, about Britain's new Astute class submarines. The cost of these terrible weapons would have been sufficient to train doctors to care for 150 million people

FIDEL CASTRO writes:>

THE press dispatches brought the news. The new nuclear submarine belongs to the Astute Class, the first of its kind to be constructed in Britain in more than two decades.

"A nuclear reactor will allow it to navigate without refuelling during its 25 year of service. Since it makes its own oxygen and drinking water, it can circumnavigate the globe without needing to surface," was what shipyard boss Nigel Ward told the BBC.

"It's a mean-looking beast," said another.

"Looming above us is a construction shed 12 storeys high. Within it are three nuclear-powered submarines at different stages of construction," reported yet another.

Someone said that "it can observe the movements of cruisers in New York harbour right from the English Channel, drawing close to the coast without being detected and listen to conversations on mobile phones."

"In addition, it can transport special troops in minisubs that, at the same time, will be able to fire lethal Tomahawk missiles for distances of 1,400 miles," a fourth person declares.

The Chilean newspaper El Mercurio emphatically spread the news.

The Royal Navy declares that it will be one of the most advanced in the world. The first of them will be launched on June 8 and will go into service in January 2009.

It can transport up to 38 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes capable of destroying a large warship. It will possess a permanent crew of 98 sailors who will even be able to watch movies on giant plasma screens.

The new Astute will carry the latest generation of Block 4 Tomahawk torpedoes which can be reprogrammed in flight. It will be the first one not having a system of conventional periscopes and, instead, will be using fibre optics, infrared waves and thermal imaging.

"BAE Systems, the armaments manufacturer, will build two other submarines of the same class," AP reported.

The total cost of the three submarines, according to calculations that will certainly be below the mark, is £4 billion.

What a feat for the British! The intelligent and tenacious people of Britain will surely not feel any sense of pride. What is most amazing is that, with such an amount of money, 75,000 doctors could be trained to care for 150 million people, assuming that the cost of training a doctor would be one-third of what it costs in the United States. You could build 3,000 clinics fitted with sophisticated equipment, 10 times what our country possesses.

Cuba is currently training thousands of young people from other countries as medical doctors.

In any remote African village, a Cuban doctor can impart medical knowledge to any youth from the village or from the surrounding municipality who has the equivalent of an A-Level education.

Using videos and computers powered by a small solar panel, the youth does not even have to leave his home town, nor does he need to be contaminated with the consumer habits of a large city.

The important thing is the patients who are suffering from malaria or any other of the typical and unmistakable diseases that the student will be seeing together the doctor.

The method has been tested with surprising results. The knowledge and practical experience accumulated for years have no possible comparison.

The non-lucrative practice of medicine is capable of winning over all noble hearts.

Since the beginning of the revolution, Cuba has been engaged in training doctors, teachers and other professionals. With a population of less than 12 million inhabitants, today we have more comprehensive general medicine specialists than all the doctors in sub-Saharan Africa, where the population exceeds 700 million people.

We must bow our heads in awe after reading the news about the English submarine. It teaches us, among other things, about the sophisticated weapons that are needed to maintain the untenable order developed by the United States imperial system.

We cannot forget that for centuries and until recently, England was called the Queen of the Seas.

Today, what remains of that privileged position is merely a fraction of the hegemonic power of her ally and leader the US.

Churchill said: "Sink the Bismarck!" Today, Blair says: "Sink whatever remains of Great Britain's prestige!"

For that purpose - or for the holocaust of the species - is what his "marvellous submarine" will be good for.

Dear John

2007-05-29T21:08:00.000+01:00

John McDonnell failed to get sufficient nominations to get on the ballot for Labour Leader. His campaign was not a personal vehicle but a challenge to the neo-liberal programme of the government. Where does it go now? John is producing a consultation paper. Here is an email I sent him dealing with the question of how socialists inside and outside the Party might continue to work together.

Dear John

I will be interested to read you consultation paper referred to on your latest blog entry. I think there have been two types of response to the fact that you failed to get on the ballot paper. On the Labour Left we have heard something along the lines of ‘we did all right, keep on keeping on’. Outside the Labour Party it has been seen as confirmation that you should all leave, e.g. the letter in the Guardian from Dave Nellist and the CNWP.

As somebody who is not about to rejoin the Labour Party, I still believe that a socialist alternative to Labour is necessary. However, such an alternative is not a prospect in the short term, owing to the sectarianism of the main socialist groups (such as the SWP and the SP) and as a result of the collapse of the electoral base of the Scottish Socialist Party. That is a discussion which no doubt will continue.

However, I think the most productive approach in the current situation, is to examine ways that socialists inside and outside the Labour Party can work together to build resistance to the attacks of the government on the working class.At the same time the fact that the overwhelming majority of union sponsored MPs nominated Gordon Brown, the author of the government’s neo-liberal ‘reforms’ of the public sector, raises the question of why they are sponsored, and what the unions get in return.

This surely highlights the need to be more selective in sponsoring MPs and candidates. The GMB policy for instance, even if not yet vigorously applied, is that the union will not automatically sponsor Labour candidates, but only those who support the broad outline of union policy; above all, opposition to privatisation. I believe that this is a key issue on which socialists in the unions (be they Labour Party members or not) can collaborate. What is the point of our members’ money being handed over to MPs/candidates who do nothing to further their interests, but support job cuts, privatisation, and refuse to support even the not very radical Trade Union Freedom Bill? We require a major campaign across the affiliated unions on this. Let's only support candidates and MPs who support our members.

What framework is there for socialists inside and outside the Labour Party in which to work together? I’m not sure that the Labour Representation Committee is the vehicle for the simple reason that you have to be a Labour Party member to join it. OK, you can have associate membership (but no vote). This presents an obstacle probably to some thousands of socialists who are not members of the groups, would like to work with you, but will not join/rejoin the Labour Party, especially since most local parties are empty shells. Ironically, the RMT and FBU, both of which are affiliates of the LRC have supported candidates standing against Labour, yet they remain as participants. If this is no obstacle to these unions why present an obstacle to individuals? It does not make sense.

To attract such people you would either have to turn the LRC into an organisation which was not an internal Labour Party group, or consider another organisational vehicle.

Ironically, within the Labour Left there does exist some sectarianism in which acceptance of the ‘correct’ position on the Labour Party (to ‘reclaim’ it, or turn it into a vehicle for socialism) is seen as the key test for socialists. Those who ‘fail’ this test are seen as hopeless people who tend to be lectured.Real life is different. You said in your last blog posting, assessing your campaign:

“More importantly the vast majority have expressed real determination to continue the campaign for socialist advance within and beyond our movement.”

The last phrase recognises the need to reach out beyond the Labour Party. Just as many people outside the Labour Party supported your campaign, they would be happy to continue to work with you and the left in the Party. However, if they are presented with the ultimatum that they must agree on the Labour Party question, then all the Labour Left will succeed in doing is isolating itself. We must find a means and a framework for uniting socialists in campaigning activity in order to rebuild the labour movement and to challenge the neo-liberal policy of the Brown government, and most importantly developing policy alternatives to neo-liberalism.

Fraternally

Martin Wicks
Swindon

THE NHS – SAFE IN OUR HANDS

2007-05-29T11:43:00.000+01:00

Margaret Thatcher:
"The NHS is safe in our hands. The elderly are safe in our hands. The sick are safe in our hands. The surgeons are safe in our hands. The nurses are safe in our hands. The doctors are safe in our hands. The dentists are safe in our hands.

David Cameron:
"it's not just a question of saying the NHS is safe in my hands. My family is so often in the hands of the NHS - so I want them to be safe there."

New Labour. UNISON, labour link news - june 2007
"THE NHS – SAFE IN OUR HANDS"

Thanks to John Nicholson, for bringing this to my attention

This is England

2007-05-29T10:04:00.000+01:00

.

My God yes, this is England: not the only England, but one England among many. It is certainly an England I have lived in.

What Shane Meadows does brilliantly is capture and express a specific time and place, and root his story in the real experiences of working class life. Skinheads rejoiced in how the English often see ourselves, as hard drinkers and fighters, brave men who “can meet with Triumph and Disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same.” It was a youth sub-culture born of cultural impoverishment, but also rebellious, exuberant and cheeky. Being a skinhead meant being part of a gang that approved of you, and the values of being a skinhead were generally ones celebrated in English culture (I am not saying that is a good thing!) This is underlined by the frequent references to the Falklands war.

Thomas Turgoose turns in a fantastic performance as Shaun, the troubled 12 year old brought into a local gang of skinheads, attracted by their camaraderie, and the way they boost his self esteem. What the film does very well is show how precarious and out of control life is when you are young, as the gang changes around Turgoose’s character, and the bond of loyalty to the gang becomes more sinister and explicitly racist.

Stephen Graham as Combo, the racist skin just out of nick is electrifying. The review in the Guardian described Combo as “deeply objectionable”, but that soooh misses the point. The truth is that anyone who has ever been in a youth sub-culture has had mates like Combo. Older men who, like Peter Pan, shelter from life’s disappointments by being the respected elder in the gang. He is objectionable from the point of view of a Guardian journalist, but from the point of view of a 12 year old on a council estate, Combo is quite glamorous.

The contradiction that Combo was both a violent racist, but also conscious of the multi-racial origins of Skin culture was convincing. Back in the 1970s I had friends very sympathetic to the NF who would listen to ska music, and thought Desmond Dekker was like unto a God. This is part of a very contradictory world view that understands class grievances, but articulates them through racism. So there is an ambivalence about black people who share the same class experience.

Indeed, in the late 1970s and early 1980s most (white) working class teenagers knew people in the NF. I found the NF meeting in a tatty pub completed convincing, and I liked the way the film showed the NF as reasonably attractive for these alienated lads, while at the same time most of the skins saw through it as a pile of shit.

There are some lovely touches in the film. The fact that combo only has a provisional driving licence is comically deflating in an understated way, and the indignity for Shaun, that DMs don’t come in children’s sizes!

There were some things I was not too sure about. I think the film tried too hard to explain why Combo was a loser, whereas I think the audience could have been trusted to work that out without the Oprah moments. I am also not entirely sure that skins in 1983 were listening to ska so much , as opposed to the Cockney Rejects and Angelic Upstarts. There was also a political problem, that in 1983 the NF would not have been talking about Englishness, but Britishness, and it would have been the Union Jack, not the Cross of St George behind the NF speaker.

But generally, this is a great, and very English, film.

More debate in SWP's international

2007-05-28T22:13:00.000+01:00

.
Back in March this year, I made a post on this blog asking where the SWP’s international group, the IST, was going, and pointing out that there had been a series of splits in most sections. This post caused a lot of debate, including contributions from Canada, France, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand from members of IST affiliates, and from the groups with similar politics but outside the IST.

The need for an open international debate about the IST is clear, given the fact that there seems to be little principled political difference between the groups within and without the IST, although there are differences of strategy and tactics, as you would expect in any living political tradition.

Earlier this month, the New Zealand affiliate of the IST, Socialist Worker(NZ), published a statement calling for the IST to have a more positive alignment towards the Venezuelan revolution, and querying some organisational changes proposed by the British SWP’s Alex Callinicos (pictured above reviewing the troops).

Today, the Socialist Worker(NZ) have issued the following call for a debate on their website, UNITYblog. They want “to start a debate among all serious socialists and revolutionaries, inside and outside the International Socialist Tendency, on how we should be responding to the Bolivarian revolutionary process in Venezuela. Please send your contributions to UNITYblog . All serious contributions to the debate will be published. Silly and/or sectarian stuff will be binned with a grin.”

This follows the reply by Alex Callinicos, which they have also published . In view of the fact that UNITYblog have issued this call for a debate about Venezuela, it seems much better that the debate is carried out there rather than here, so I will make no further comment about the specific issue of Venezuela.

However, one comment by Callinicos is especially illuminating:
“As we put it in our ‘International Perspectives 2005’ …the most important front in the struggle against US imperialism is in Iraq.’ It is the resistance in Iraq that is in the process of inflicting the most serious defeat American imperialism has suffered since the Vietnam War. By tying down the Pentagon’s military machine in Iraq, the resistance has made a decisive contribution to creating the space that has allowed the resistance in Latin America to develop and, in the cases of Venezuela and Bolivia, to develop a more explicitly anti-capitalist dynamic. Therefore we believe that the most important single internationalist task of revolutionaries today is to build the international movement against the ‘war on terrorism’. Defeating the Bush administration’s imperialist offensive is critical to the success of every struggle against neoliberalism and capitalism, including those in Venezuela and Bolivia. This is particularly important for revolutionaries in the advanced capitalist world since it gives a task that relates directly to the politics of our own societies rather than merely leave us to cheerlead for Latin American revolutions.” (My emphasis)

It is entirely characteristic of the SWP to overemphasise the significance of the Iraq war, and to overestimate the degree of political radicalism which opposition of the war engenders.

In fact, the war is not even the most important issue on domestic British politics, as housing and job insecurities are the biggest cause of friction between New Labour and its traditional electoral supporters; and pensions and privatisation are the biggest friction between the trade unions and New Labour. A correct strategic orientation in Britain on how to reverse the neo-liberal consensus would therefore be concentrating less on Iraq, and more on the issue of public ownership, and council housing. The victory of the right over these issues has largely been because of the idea, as Thatcher argued, that “there is no alternative”. The significance of Venezuelan solidarity work is of course that it demonstrates that there is an alternative. The Bolivarian revolution has started to turn the tide.

Callinicos’s comments about the IST itself are also illuminating.

He says: “The SWP in particular has argued that Seattle opened a new period of anti-capitalist struggle that has created major opportunities to renew the revolutionary and radical left. We have accordingly been pursuing dialogue with other currents and exploring the possibilities of regroupment on a very extensive scale.”

Seattle was a long time ago. What is more, the social forum movement is becoming increasingly attenuated. An Italian friend of mine who attends the European Social Forum meetings (ESF) observes that the SWP’s policy of opposing the Social Forums in Britain, while simultaneously attending the ESF meetings as the British delegates, has now given way to there being no participants from Britain.

Furthermore, within Britain the SWP wound down the regroupment exercise of the English Socialist Alliance, in favour of a creature that excluded the rest of the activist left, Respect. This process was described succinctly recently by Charlie Pottins : “As for the Left, having gathered some strength (including former Labour Party actvisists) around in the Socialist Alliance, the SWP was quick to liquidate it so they could form a local Respect, though so far it has been almost a non-runner, and at best an also-ran. The sad thing is that some of the local SWP actvists are old-campaigners, better known and respected in the area under their own flag, whereas people just scratch their heads or look away when they turn up as Respect.”

In contrast, Callinicos describes Respect thus: “Our domestic experience has demonstrated, positively with Respect and more negatively with the Socialist Alliance and the Scottish Socialist Party, this process involves opening out to more than the established revolutionary left.”

I was recently discussing Respect with anti-war activists from Bristol and Oxford, both non-members of the SWP, but positively inclined towards them. They told me that in Bristol, none of the former labour lefts who were active in the SA have joined Respect, and the comrade from Oxford resigned from Respect because all decisions for the local branch were taken in advance by the SWP caucus, and if the Respect branch reached a decision about something that the SWP had not previously worked out their position on, then it would be overturned by the SWP at the next meeting. This is not what we mean by regroupment!

Callinicos then says: “The IST has a very simple structure. It consists of organizations sharing a common tradition and approach to revolutionary politics. Its meetings are devoted largely to political discussions, with very few decisions being made. These decisions are normally taken by consensus: the only real exception was the exclusion of the ISO (US) in 2001, which followed the ISO intervening to help to engineer a split in our Greek sister organization, SEK.”

We are entitled to ask, why was the ISO allegedly trying to cause a split in the SEK an offence requiring expulsion. Whereas Tony Cliff boasts in his autobiography that he split the German and French groups? And Callinicos himself sought to engineer a split in the ISO(USA). why is there one rule for the goose, and another for the gander?

We are also entitled to wonder whether this consensual model is true, given that Callinicos also says that one of the tasks of his proposed committee is “addressing problems in specific groups”. That is interfering in the internal lives of other affiliates, as Cliff used to do, and Callinicos did with the American ISO.

Callinicos claims that hitherto, the leadership of the IST has been run from London because “the British SWP … has far greater resources and partly because of the political authority its leadership has enjoyed in the Tendency.”

But on what basis has the SWP greater political authority? Surely not on the basis of achievement, as they are a fraction of their former size, with a much reduced influence in the unions and workplaces, and their activities in the Socialist Alliance, Respect and SSP have earned them enormous distrust from other socialist activists.

Indeed, the reduced authority of the SWP is one of the reasons why so many organisations that share their basic politics, such as the American ISO, the Socialist Alternative group in Australia, or the Socialisme Internationale Group in France are outside the IST.

The debate that is being opened up is an entirely welcome one.

Deputy leadership hustings

2007-05-28T16:02:00.001+01:00

.
Last Saturday six of us from Swindon joined the Stop the War Coalition protest outside the Labour Party deputy leadership hustings in Bristol. We were expecting Gordon Brown to be there, but I don’t think he turned up. It is always nice for me to go to Bristol and meet up with comrades who I worked with in the past.

There were about 40 people present outside, and unfortunately the policing was unnecessarily heavy (Peter Hain is Northern Ireland secretary). Although, I estimate only half were members of the SWP, the fact that there were too many Socialist Worker placards and paper sellers gave the impression that it was a SWP protest, which is a bit of a counter productive image to project if trying to have a relationship with the Labour Party, and more than one non-SWP member expressed discomfort about it to me.

The logic of standing against Labour in elections has also seemingly undermined the strategic understanding that SWP comrades had about the Labour Party. As one Asian labour councillor drove past he was castigated in hostile terms for the fact that he had stood on an anti-war ticket to get elected, but was not active in the anti-war movement. This seems exactly the wrong tack to take: he should be encouraged for standing as an anti-war candidate, which is in itself a form of participation in the peace movement, even if he doesn’t go on demonstrations.

According to the report in the Morning Star 250 trade unionists attended the hustings. This seems unlikely to me, I had a chat with one of the stewards from Amicus and had a look at his list, and from that I estimate attendance nearer the 100 mark.

The most unequivocally right-wing candidates, Alan Johnson and Hazel Blears, are both stressing their links with the trade unions, but not calling for any change in policy. Bizarrely, the Shop workers union, USDAW is backing Hazel Blears, seemingly simply on the basis that she is an USDAW member. But USADW also claims that: “Gordon Brown’s … brilliant management of the economy and undoubted leadership skills [show he] is the right choice to build on Labour's achievements since 1997 continuing to build a prosperous Britain and secure a fourth term Labour Government”. Britain’s fifth biggest union, with 360000 members, USDAW is clearly sending a message by backing Blears that there needs be no change of direction. Privatisation and PFI, growing inequality, no repeal of Tory anti trade-union laws, deregulation, attacks on civil liberties, wars of aggression, a housing crisis, and Labour’s vote falling to its lowest ever level are all signs of success for USDAW.

The other deputy leadership candidates are all to one degree or another wooing the activist vote. Hilary Benn has called for new legislation to bridge the pay gap, and improve flexible working rights, and has on that basis been backed by the tiny ceramics union, Unity, which has only 9000 members mainly in Stoke on Trent.

Peter Hain is being backed by ASLEF, BFAWU and UCATT. Hain himself is playing a funny game, both backing and opposing privatisation of the NHS for example. “As a very general principle I believe public services should be publicly provided unless there is a very good reason why not. For instance in Northern Ireland I used the private sector to clear a massive waiting list backlog, and that was absolutely the right thing to do”

Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas is backed by UNITE, the newly amalgamated T&G and Amicus. Unite joint general secretary, Derek Simpson said: "Jon Cruddas' stated policies mirror our members' desire for better job security, decent pensions, affordable housing and public services provided by the public sector. Jon is unlike any other candidate standing for the deputy leadership - he alone is calling for a change of direction in order to reconnect with the Labour party's core supporters."

There has been some criticism of UNITE for backing Gordon Brown, and interestingly I seems to have been a decision of only the GEC of the T&G and not Amicus who agreed to do so: “The Unite amicus section's political committee agreed .. that they would back Mr Cruddas, while the Unite T&G section's decision to nominate Cruddas and Brown was taken by its General Executive Council.”

Too much can be read into union leaderships supporting Brown, as I wrote back in February : “The union leaders want influence, and also want a change of direction. They will reason that backing Brown keeps them close to him, and they could maximise pressure on the new PM by backing a deputy leader closer to the unions’ agenda. As has been shown at the last two party conferences, the union leaders are very disciplined (or spineless, depending on your perspective) at sticking to their own agenda, and not supporting left initiatives over Iraq, etc. Cruddas himself has a good prospect of being not the “left candidate” but the “unions’ candidate”, in the same way that Callaghan was for leader. I think those union leaders wanting to pull Labour towards their own agenda may back Brown and Cruddas.”

Perjury investigation and the fragrant Mrs Sheridan...

2007-05-27T11:45:00.000+01:00

And now the "fragrant" Mrs Gail Sheridan is being investigated by the police. Police are now said to want access to Mrs Sheridan's phone records.

Two Viceroys and a loyalist

2007-05-26T22:53:00.000+01:00

The establishment, the best word to describe the individuals concerned, apologies for haters of clichés, has got together a commission to decide what should be done with Iraq. Apparently leaving this up to the Iraqi people is boring. The grandees who help to rule Britain and the southern area of Iraq are maybe feeling miffed that their opposite numbers in the US are enjoying cooking up “Iraq study groups” and “benchmarks” with which to dictate to the government of Iraq what they should be doing i.e. hurry up with the oil law to let the US/UK oil companies get their hands on the oil reserves that currently belong to the people of Iraq.

The commission is chaired by a Tory former viceroy of the statelet of Northern Ireland Tom King, Lib-Dem Lord Ashdown, former viceroy of Bosnia and Baroness Jay. Apart from voting against the Government on some votes on House of Lords reform the Baroness has loyally voted New Labour time and time again. This includes voting through the super draconian powers the government decided that it wanted for “fighting terrorism” and for bullying people through the mental health system.

Baroness Jay said that “The Iraq Commission aims to produce a long term strategy for Britain’s role in Iraq”. You can bet a month’s salary that this long term role will not include getting out and staying out. There are eight “Commissioners” who will help the barons and baroness. These are various luminaries of the foreign policy elite spiced up for the Guardian reading classes with Maeve Sherlock, Asim Siddiqui and Brian Brivati.

Sherlock is the former Chief Exec of the Refugee Council but is perhaps more notable as a New Labour apparatchik and former NUS president. Though she won’t feel too alone as another former NUS president will also be on the commission, Stephen Twigg…

Asim Siddiqui is a British Moslem who is allowed in as he is a City slicker. Brian Brivati is an academic from the Unversity of Kingston. Brivati seems to live in a particularly high ivory tower. He thinks that history will come to regard Tony Bliar as a truly great statesman (I am not joking) and that you can have such a thing as a humanitarian war.

No one from the Iraqi community in Britain.

No one from the anti-war movement.

No one with an ability to think for themselves.

NB: Paddy Ashdown in today's Observer about the Iraq Commission

California Green Party to split?

2007-05-26T22:20:00.000+01:00

The train wreck that seems to be threatening the California Green Party has been very little discussed on the British left, but is of some significance. I have not been following events closely myself, and welcome corrections and clarification from those who know more, and understand better.
The following two blog articles give some background, here and here including some debate from all sides in the dispute.

Why does it matter? Well firstly the California Green Party is relatively large for a progressive party in the English speaking world, with some 40000 members, and has had modest but significant electoral success, despite the fact that the American political system discriminates against minor parties even more than the British system.

Secondly, some of the issues in dispute are relevant to debates in the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW) about structure and accountability, and are also interesting for the left as showing both the opportunities and problems for the socialist left orienting on the Green Party.

At one level this appears to be a left/right conflict. The supporters of former Santa Monica councillor Michael Feinstein, are arguing for fusion with the Democrats, or allowing Democrats to be endorsed with the Green party ticket. On the other hand, Peter Camejo, a former member of the Socialist Workers Party (an organisation with a different political tradition from the British SWP) is seeking to rally the left. Camejo is a major player, and was the running mate of Ralph Nadar for the 2004 presidential elections. Itself somewhat confusing as Green party leader, David Cobb was himself running against Nadar.

On the plus side, the American Greens have succeeded in a modest way in building a broadly progressive electoral base for a left of centre party, and also one that has been relatively open to allowing socialists to work within it. The British SWP’s former sister organisation, the ISO, also orients on the Greens now, but from what I gather in a way that is felt by other activists to be a bit of a raid.

However, the difficulties for the Greens have been compounded by a culture of seeking consensus and being seen as nice and woolly. Bizarrely every Green party meeting in California has a moderator, who shouts “Vibes!” if they sense that someone is becoming too passionate or committed to a non consensual point of view! I know that some people on the British left find the GPEW’s culture refreshing compared to the sometimes competitive culture of the far left groups. But Camejo points to Jo Freeman’s classic feminist text, The Tyranny of Structurelessness, to show how consensus doesn’t work.

As Freeman argues: “structurelessness becomes a way of masking power [and ] is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not.) For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit.”

Certainly anyone who ever had any dealings with Ian Bone’s Class War anarchist group in the 1980s will tell you how its lack of formal leadership structures was completely undemocratic.

The Consensual culture of the California Greens requires that if full consensus cannot be reached then an 80% majority is required, leading to paralysis of concerted action.

The tyranny of assuming that ideological and political differences can be subsumed into consensus also leads to lack of transparency and accountability of the leading bodies in the Party. In Los Angeles County, 20000 members were led by a single committee of six, five of whom were Feinstein supporters. What is more, there are serious allegations of financial impropriety of cheques made payable to the Green party being paid into Feinstein’s personal account, with an alleged embezzlement of some $30000.

Clearly there is no suggestion of financial or political impropriety with the GPEW, but I helped a friend recently who was standing as a local Green candidate, and I was shocked by the lack of democratic culture or structures in the party at local level, where democratically agreed leaflets were rewritten without consultation, and candidate selection does not seem to be through a transparent process. This would not be tolerated in, for example the Labour Party.

Voice goes fortnightly

2007-05-26T20:50:00.000+01:00

.

Due to the financial impact of losing representation in the Scottish parliamant, the SSP is reluctantly switching their excellent paper to fortnightly publication. SSV is one of the best English language socialist publications, often carrying articles that you wouldn't find elsewhere, for example in this week's issue there is a fascinating discussion of how Cuba has excelled at organic and sustainable agriculture since the fall of the USSR.

Above all the paper reflects the humanity and sense of humour that are always evident from the SSP. I would urge all socialists, and those in England and Wales in particular, to take out a subscription to support our Scottish comrades.

The editorial team has issued the following statement:

It’s only human to look for silver linings, but sometimes a cloud is just a cloud.
After a horrific two years of internal battles, centred on a shabby pantomime court case, and the splinter of socialism in Scotland, topped off with electoral wipe out for all the forces now representing the left - we found ourselves in a pretty dark and dreary place.
The financial impact of our heavy defeat in the elections sees the Scottish Socialist Party with little choice but to cut back on staff. All the party staff have discussed the situation along with the Executive Committee and agreed on redundancy.
There will be a reduced number of staff across the whole party, including the Voice, and that means, for now at least, we have to scale back to fortnightly production.
There’s no denying that’s a big setback. The Voice went weekly six years ago, in May 2001, having already established itself over four years as Scotland’s only socialist newspaper.
It was a huge achievement for the SSP - for the first time in 50 years a weekly socialist paper, printed and published in Scotland, was for sale on our streets.
It’s been a hard task maintaining that achievement over the last few years. The SSP’s star burnt brightly, a burst of light on the Scottish political scene so sudden that the party’s finances have sometimes struggled to fuel it.
At times, just three full time staff, with the sterling help of volunteer contributors, have pulled the Voice together and kept it coming out, week after week.
And the conditions haven’t been easy either. Everyone involved in the SSP has felt the stress and frustration of the tumultuous times the SSP has been dragged through.
The Voice, however, has remained dignified, political and focussed outward - on campaigning, on raising ideas to change the world.
Because all the time, struggle burnt on the streets of Scotland and the Scottish Socialist Party was involved, and the Voice was there to report. And that will remain just so.
In the current period, fortnightly production will still be a big challenge for the remaining staff - and they’ll need the support and help of everyone who values the Voice.
If you can contribute in any way, whether you’re up for writing stories, taking pictures, or just have some ideas you think the Voice should cover, please get in touch.
Or if you can offer to help out with any of the labour intensive administrative tasks, which make sure we’re not just talking to ourselves, you would be a proper hero.
Keeping the Voice coming out as regularly as possible is the driving force in maintaining our socialist campaigning presence in our communities.
The Voice won’t be changing its style or its content - it’ll still be your unmissable guide to the battles undertaken by people fighting against injustice, from Pollok to Peru. We’ll still be a space for the voices, ideas and aspirations of ordinary people, unmitigated by the whims of a millionaire owner or the pull of big business’ advertising budgets.
We need everyone to muck in, and we are sure you will.
The members of the Scottish Socialist Party have stood united through an appalling time and defended the integrity and principles of our party. New people have joined us too, inspired by our ideas, our actions and our downright temerity.
We have held together, and together now we face the future.
The thing about clouds is, they’re never permanent - the skies are always changing.

RCTV: Chavez defends the revolution

2007-05-25T22:58:00.000+01:00

In 1992 the British government ended the licence of Thames Television, which since 1968 had broadcast to London. The government had changed the franchise rules in the 1990 Broadcasting Act, which minimised the requirement of a high quality of service, in favour of allowing bids to be decided by money alone.

There was widespread discussion at the time that the Thatcher government had been politically motivated in changing the rules specifically to enable them to end Thames's licence because of the award winning 1988 documentary, “Death on the Rock” where Thames TV exposed the British government’s murder of three Irish republican volunteers in Gibraltar in 1988.

The Thatcher government recognised that there is no such thing as free speech, and acted in their own class interests. Nevertheless, there was no international outcry about “censorship”, or claims that Thatcher was a dictator.

Thames TV’s licence had come to an end, and the government, who was responsible for issuing licences, had exercised its legal right to award the licence for the next period to a different broadcaster, Carlton.

The Venezuelan government has now decided not to renew the TV licence of the channel RCTV. It has not banned the channel; it did not even cancel their licence prematurely. They have simply exercised their right as a sovereign nation, as the British government did in 1992, not to renew a public broadcasting licence, through an entirely transparent process. Nor is this unusual, since 1969 the American Federal Communications Commission has closed three stations: WLBT-TV in Mississippi, CBS affiliate WLNS-TV in Michigan, and Trinity Broadcasting in Miami.

Nevertheless, despite acting legally, and within the international norms of a public broadcasting licensing body, the Venezuelan government are being accused of dictatorial conduct and censorship, an accusation being echoed by some of the more superficial voices on the “left”.

The question of free speech is being raised. However freedom of speech is not an abstract concept, but one rooted in social and political conditions.

Trade unions offer no right for management to speak at trade union meetings. It is even normal practice in British trade unions for management grades to be organised in different unions or at least different branches, because we seek to keep management out of meetings so that those they supervise are not intimidated by management’s point of view. These are both restrictions on an abstract freedom of speech, but are obviously unexceptional.

The RCTV channel not only encouraged and promoted a military coup in 2002 that briefly overthrew the government, but during the so-called oil strike of 2002-2003 (actually an employers' lock-out of employees who wanted to work) the station repeatedly called upon its viewers to come out into the street and help topple the government. As part of its continuing political campaign against the government, the station has also used false allegations, sometimes with gruesome and violent imagery, to convince its viewers that the government was responsible for such crimes as murders where there was no evidence of government involvement.

But RCTV has also been guilty of various financial irregularities under the Venezuelan criminal law, such as the withholding 0f six billion Bolivars of national insurance contributions.

Venezuela is a country in the middle of revolutionary change. Power is being disputed between on the one hand the radical popular movement, rooted in the workplaces and communities, and on the other hand the boss class, the corporations, and the imperialists. The Chavez government is a progressive one, that is helping to roll back the idea that there is no alternative to neo-liberalism, and is seeking to encourage and build the popular movement.

In these circumstances, the debate about freedom of speech is not an abstract one, it is a question of whether the state defends the interests of the popular movement and the working class, or whether it allows the boss class to undermine the revolution through their ownership of a tatty tabloid TV station. The question is in which class interest is the state acting, and in Venezuela the government has acted in the interests of the working class by revoking RCTV’s licence. Well done Chavez!

The following 25 minute documentary clarifies the issues very well (Spanish with English subtitles)

Cruddas: We have to return to class politics

2007-05-24T23:54:00.000+01:00

.
Thursday's Morning Star carries the following very interesting interview with Dagenham MP JON CRUDDAS, who is the only Labour deputy leadership contender who isn't in the Cabinet. As I have argued on this blog, trade union backing has turned Jon into a strong candidate. His campiagn is significant as being the vehicle by which the trade unions can express their disatisfaction with the government's current course

Morning Star editor, John Haylett Writes:

ALONE among the Labour deputy leadership hopefuls, Dagenham and Redbridge MP Jon Cruddas does not want the job to come gift-wrapped with the deputy prime minister label.

"I don't see the job as a stepping stone to the baubles, country houses and so on," he makes clear.

In his opinion, there are too many people in positions of influence in the Labour Party whose vision is of a "virtual party, a message delivery system," which concentrates, US-style, on a tiny proportion of swing voters and key constituencies located in the mythical country of Middle England.

"They regard the ideas of a political party and membership mobilisation as old-fashioned, believing that the future should be decided like a market strategy."

Cruddas is also the only contender who has not sat in the heart of the Cabinet loyally parroting the new Labour neoliberal and pro-imperialist line, although, for a current outsider, he began as an insider, working in 10 Downing Street during the first Blair government.

"I recall sitting in Downing Street in 1998-9 when BMW pulled the plug on Rover and one of the advisers said that this was marvellous news - 'a great opportunity to move from the old industrial economy to the new knowledge economy,' based on new technology."

Such people, who had the Prime Minister's ear, saw the new Labour government as ushering in a new epoch, which would remove the Labour Party from the working class, creating a new economy and new support base for the government.

Cruddas points out that only about one in five jobs is in the knowledge sector, with 80 per cent still taking a traditional form, although, increasingly, based on low skills, low wages and done by women.

"To move forward, the first step is to look at the economy as it is, not at some kind of dream world," he says.

"They have this idea that the government should remove itself from the economy and we have to confront that debate and return to class politics," Cruddas declares.

Deindustrialisation has certainly hit his own constituency, with car assembly at Ford Dagenham ending in 2000 and causing a huge effect on attitudes and voting patterns.

"There has been a big decline in support for Labour and the largest drop has been in social groups D/E, whose attitudes are coloured by insecurity in work, a shortage of council housing and problems in accessing public services," he explains.

"Those who backed new Labour and still do are social groups A/B, many of whom are the new knowledge economy professionals."

Since Labour won the 1997 election, it has shed 4.5 million voters, the vast bulk of whom fall into four main groups.

• The manual working class, which has seen well-paid jobs exported to low-wage economies

• Public-service workers, who resent private-sector penetration and government "reforms"

• Black and ethnic minorities, who have reacted against the Iraq war and ministerial racist scapegoating

• Urban intellectuals who have switched, largely to the Liberal Democrats, over the war.

A recent YouGov poll revealed that 15 million people self-identified as Labour voters, but one-third of them said that they would not vote Labour under present circumstances.

"The important point is that these voters are not switching to the Tories, which means that it is possible to rebuild the Labour Party as a modern, pluralist, federalist democracy," Cruddas insists.

However, he is aware that, in a number of areas, including his own, disillusioned working-class voters are switching to the racist British National Party.

"About 10,000 people voted BNP in my area. That doesn't mean that there are 10,000 nazis. These are insecure and vulnerable people, for whom, as far as they are concerned, the Labour Party has failed them," he states.

Unlike neighbouring MP Margaret Hodge, whose response to this phenomenon was to wallow in the gutter with the BNP by proposing discrimination in housing against recent migrants, Cruddas has worked the streets with a broad coalition of anti-racist groups.

In response to the lies peddled by the BNP, he has delivered the excellent factual newspapers prepared by Searchlight, the anti-fascist organisation, door-to-door.

It is an uphill job, especially since, while the BNP concentrates its headline propaganda against Muslim religious symbols, there is a material basis for the refusal to vote Labour any longer.

"They won't vote Tory on class grounds, but they see the main parties as interchangeable," says Cruddas.

"We need to talk to people, change the debate and see how to re-enfranchise working people."

The scale of the problem becomes apparent when he reports on some of the problems coming into his regular constituency surgery and affecting the living standards of his constituents - a Lithuanian construction gang being fed stale bread and cold beans and paid £15 a day and a roofer whose rate for the job has fallen by £2.50 an hour in six months.

And there's even one man who has put a cooker in the shed at the bottom of his garden and rents it out to hot-bedding migrants working in the shadow economy.

"So, you have a combination of exploitation, abuse and criminality," Cruddas comments.

He is passionate about employment rights, not only for indigenous people but also for the large number of undocumented workers whose ruthless exploitation also drives down the living standards and expectations of everyone else.

He recalls with anger that, on the same Friday morning that 125 Labour MPs backed a Trade Union Freedom Bill initiated by, among others Cruddas and John McDonnell MP, former leftwinger and trade union official turned new Labour minister Jim Fitzpatrick filibustered to talk out a Bill on agency workers' rights.

The Dagenham MP believes that it is necessary to tighten regulation of employment agencies and to insist on the kind of public procurement clauses on fair pay and non-discrimination that Ken Livingstone introduced in the Greater London Council days, before the Tory government outlawed them.

Cruddas was among those who addressed the May Day amnesty protest in Trafalgar Square, calling for regularisation of undocumented workers.

"This is a huge problem. There are a third of a million people in London alone with no legal status. If we are not prepared to acknowledge their existence, they will be open to the worst abuses," he says.

So, what are the policies on which Cruddas will campaign for the deputy leadership and pursue his campaign to rebuild the Labour Party as a "modern, pluralist, federalist democracy?"

Apart from workplace rights, he insists on the need for an upsurge in council house building and notes ruefully that, at recent hustings, Cabinet members who have said nothing on the subject in years have jumped on the council housing bandwagon.

"We've passed motions on this at party conference for four years and had the door slammed firmly in our faces, but there are now 100,000 more on the council house waiting list in London since 2003 and a total of 1.6 million people on waiting lists."

Private construction companies constantly bank land, while complaining about "red tape" restrictions on where they may build, but they stick rigidly to building 170,000 units a year, guaranteeing a real-terms annual price rise.

"We used to build 200,000 council homes a year," says Cruddas, pointing out that the government's compliance with "the EU golden rule" of a borrowing limit of 3 per cent of GDP lies behind its determination not to increase the public-sector borrowing requirement.

In his view, this is "unsustainable. It has to change. It is an exercise in political will."

On public services, he wants a moratorium on the involvement of the private sector, saying that the necessary first step is to stop rigging markets in favour of the privateers.

"In the NHS, there is low morale and public support is in decline as a result of the internal market. Paper work, which used to take up 4 per cent of costs, is now 11 per cent and privately provided operations cost 11 per cent more than NHS operations."

His opposition to Trident is based on it being a "relic from a previous era, the cold war," which was useless to defend people on public transport targeted by terrorists on July 7 2005.

Cruddas voted for the invasion of Iraq, explaining: "I saw the case for removing a tyrant who was a threat because of his possession of weapons of mass destruction and who had already used them against his own people.

"I now state unequivocally that I was wrong, not only over the original premise but also on account of the consequences since," he admits.

"If the Democrats in the US can begin to debate a framework for withdrawal, why can't Labour in this country?"

So, if he stands on a left alternative to new Labour neoliberal orthodoxy, why didn't he sign up to John McDonnell's leadership campaign, which shared many of his policy priorities?

"I held out until a late stage, until it was clear that he wasn't going to get enough votes, since even Campaign Group members were signing up for Gordon Brown.

"There was a strong argument for a contest, but it wasn't going to happen."

Those who back Cruddas believe that he would have isolated himself by supporting a doomed McDonnell challenge and that the policy priorities that he champions would have been "drowned out" and discounted.

Whatever, the labour movement and, especially, the left have a choice - back a candidate who speaks out on many of the issues laid out by McDonnell or take part in a beauty contest of new Labour Cabinet members.

When you look at it like that, ruffled feathers and hurt feelings aside, it seems an easy decision to make.

Pakistan's Workers' movement fighting for democracy

2007-05-24T17:28:00.000+01:00

“Most widest and broadest gathering” in support of Advocates movement

Report by: Khaliq Shah

The advocate solidarity conference decided to stir up more public support for the advocate’s movement for an independent judiciary and an end of military dictatorship. It decided to brig more and more people in the demonstrations and rallies planned for future.

“Without participation of the working class, the movement can not achieve its real goals” was message echoed again and again.

Organised by Labour Party Pakistan in collaboration with Labour Education Foundation at Lahore Press Club on 23rd May, the conference was the “most widest and broadest gathering so far in support of the advocate movement” according to Sardar Asif Ahmad Ali, a former foreign minister and a leader of Pakistan Peoples Party. Asif Ahmad Ali was one of 35 speakers at the conference.

Over 60 radical organizations participated in the conference. It was almost all the radical forces of Lahore that got together. The president Ahsan Bhoon and secretary Sarfraz Cheema of Lahore High Court Bar Association, the main leaders of the movement, spoke in length about the movement and why they need all the help from the trade unions, radical social organizations and professional organizations.

Chaired by Talib Nawz, central president of Pakistan Workers Confederation, the main trade union body in Pakistan , speakers after speaker warned the participants that this is last chance to get rid of the dictatorship, it is matter of life and death, many commented.

Several commented on the most recent statement of the General Musharaf who said that he will not take of the military uniform and that he is so used to the uniform that it is like his skin and I can not take of my skin.

“The skin will be taken of like we do it during the sacrifices of the animal on Eid days, but we are not professional butchers, so there will be many cuts on the skin while taken it of, there will be a lot of pain for the General during this process, we are sorry for that but we will take it of in any circumstances, we will not tolerate the military uniform as the president of Pakistan” commented Sarfraz Cheema, the young and ever fighting secretary of Lahore High Court Bar Association.

The conference tone was very radical. It was a message of defiant. It was a full support for the movement of the lawyers that has inspired every one. It made it clear that we not only need to change the faces but also to change the system. Speakers made it clear to the leaders of the political parties and even to the leaders of advocate movement that any deal with the military dictatorship will not be accepted. It is to get rid of dictatorship.

The common declaration not only opposed the process of privatization but it suggested nationalizing all the denationalized industry. The declaration adopted unanimously demanded an end of neo liberal policies and a minimum wage of 10,000 Rupees (US$ 170) a month. It demanded an immediate resignation of Generl Mushjaraf, formation of a transition government under the representatives of civil society organization in consultation of political parties and a formation of an independent election commission. The transitional government must organize a general elections within three months and hand over power to the elected representatives.

The advocate solidarity conference, the first of its kind so for was attended by the following political parties, Pakistan Peoples Party, Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz Group, Awami National Party, National Workers Party, Awami Tehrik (Peoples Movement), Istiqlal Party, Labour Party Pakistan. These were the invited political parties and they all came.

The Ihsan Wain general secretary Awami National Party (ANP) was one of the main speakers at the conference. 26 members of ANP were killed in the Karachi May 12 incidents by MQM thugs, a semi fascist group in Karachi supporting military government when they were in the streets of Karachi to welcome the chief justice. It was a bloodiest day in the history of Karachi , over 43 was killed and many hundreds injured. He told the conference that I have fought against three military dictatorships during the past 50 years. I can say after judging the mood of the people that this military government will not survive either. “Join the movement, the days of the dictatorship are numbered, kick them hard, it is a fight of life and death” Ihsan Wain told the conference.

Sardar Asif Ahmad Ali categorically denied any deal of Benazir Bhottu with the military dictatorship. “I was in Dubai last week on the invitation of Benazir Bhottu, She has asked me to make it absolute clear that PPP will fight under the leadership of the advocates to get rid of this military dictatorship.

Choudry Gulzar Ahmed general secretary All Pakistan Trade Union federation and president Pakistan Workers Confederation Punjab, Yousaf Baluch chairman National Trade Union Federation, Mian Qayum, president All Pakistan textile workers union and several more trade union leaders asked the working class to join the movement.

Shah Taj Qazalbash convener Joint Action Committee for Peoples Rights, Gulnar of Women Action Forum, Rabia Bajwa a fomer finace secretary of Lahore High Court Bar Association, Nazli Javed of Labour Education Foundation, Azra Shad of Women Workers Help Line spoke of women participation in the movement and need to bring more and more women in the movement.

A joint Action Committee from the Lahore High Court Bar Association decided to meet every Tuesday at Lahore High Court with representatives of trade unions and social organization to coordinate the movement.

The massive presence electronic and print media showed the importance of the event.

The Messages of solidarity from international left organizations were handed over to the representatives of the advocate’s movement.

Jim Murphy and the role of trade unions...

2007-05-23T21:08:00.000+01:00

What does lurk in the mind of Work and Pensions Minister, Jim Murphy? In his speech today at the TUC’s Disability Conference, he’s states:

"Unions represented many workers in traditional industries who went straight from work onto incapacity benefit. I want to explore whether unions can contract with government to support those on benefit get back into sustained employment.
So I invite you today. Why not use those skills to become providers of welfare to work services? The attributes you possess are invaluable."

According to the logic of Murphy, to be able to achieve the most effective and efficient service, both private and public sectors will need to take a role in providing welfare to work programmes, and that trade unions have much to offer in terms of experience and expertise…..

This amounts to confusion by Murphy about the function and role trade unions play. The role of the TUs is to keep workers in their jobs and not sacked due to “ill-health”. Otherwise to make sure employers provide an environment in which people can work at meaningful jobs where the disabilities that they face are worked around in a practical way and not used as a means of bullying and victimisation.

To quote an oft favourite line from EastEnders: “Er, what’s going on...Jim”?

Union demands no smoking in prison

2007-05-23T13:11:00.000+01:00

.

The Prison Officers Association has always been a contradictory beast.

So at their conference this week, national chairman Colin Moses attacked 10 years of new Labour's broken promises, warning Prime Minister Tony Blair that he "should be ashamed of himself."

Moses told delegates that the government had treated the POA with "derision" since it came to power, and he pointed out that Gordon Brown, who had attacked officers' wages, was unlikely to give the union its trade union rights back when he becomes Prime Minister. "Enough is enough. We must demonstrate that this union has a voice and it must be heard. …. We will continue to campaign and we will take our fight to Europe, the government and the TUC. We will join with other unions for justice and fairness."

He also pointed out, in reference to the government's increasing use of the private sector to run Britain's jails, that "public services should not be run for profit."

So far so good, this is normal trade unionism, indeed the POA is backing the RMT initiated national Shop Stewards Network, with its next conference in July.

But the POA also represents those in the front end of enforcing the repressive role of the state, and often has less than enlightened views about prisoners’ rights.

The week POA conference attacked the government's decision to allow prisoners to smoke in their cells once the smoking ban in public places and at work comes into effect on July 1 in England and Wales.

The POA complains that the exemption gives prisoners more rights than prison officers. Staff at Wakefield's maximum-security prison were banned from smoking last year when it became the first to introduce a clean-air policy. Warders cannot smoke anywhere in the jail, but prisoners are still allowed to light up in their cells.

General secretary Brian Caton told conference that prisoners should not be allowed to smoke in jail. "They have broken the law and been sent to prison as a result. That was their choice and they knew the consequences of their actions … Prisons are not hotels and it is wrong that prison staff are being treated like second-class citizens.”

The equation by the POA is entirely false that it is unfair that prisoners can smoke while staff cannot. Staff can nip outside for a smoke, and can go home each day.

It is important that prisoners have as much control over decisions about their own life and welfare as possible, this is necessary for self-esteem. As long as smoking is legal in wider society, then it should be legal for prisoners.

The difficultly is that the shift in social attitudes towards smoking has led to a widespread exaggerated misunderstanding of the real risk of second hand smoke, which has fed into the POA’s attitude. This is the government’s fault as they have colluded in exaggerating the understanding of risk in order to promote an otherwise laudable public policy objective.

The balance struck by anti-smoking legislation itself is correct over this issue, but the way that the public debate was conducted in an atmosphere of moral panic has created an issue of potentially serious friction between prisoners and staff.

The state versus Andrew Murray

2007-05-23T10:59:00.000+01:00

Bristol City Council is prosecuting Andrew Murray, national chair of the Stop the War Coalition, in connection with posters that were flyposted onto walls in Bristol. The trial will be at Bristol Magistrates Court on 24th June.

There is no suggestion by the prosecution that Andrew Murray personally posted these up, or even that he was in any way involved in a decision to do so. He is being prosecuted as the head of the organisation allegedly benefiting from the Flyposting. I believe there are 14 counts, each of which carries a possible maximum fine of £2000.

This is the third high profile prosecution by the Liberal Democrat controlled Bristol City Council for Flyposting, and a previous prosecution was also against a different anti-war organisation. (Similarly, in Swindon where I live, it was the Lib Dem councillors who made a big fuss in the local papers seeking for anti-war Flyposting to be prosecuted).

This is a very dangerous precedent, if the leading figures of national political organisation can be prosecuted for events over which they have no control. Not only is it a restriction of the ability to effectively protest, and organise democratic dissent, but it obviously leaves individuals vulnerable to provocation, if opponents and enemies of our movement put up posters in order to get us prosecuted.

The legislation is clearly poorly drafted. Hopefully Bristol’s Lib Dems will see sense before the trial and drop the prosecution.

B52 Two not guilty

2007-05-23T10:40:00.000+01:00

Jury decides - not-guilty: intention to damage US bombers destined for Iraq was lawful

On Tuesday 22 May, at Bristol Crown Court, the trial of two Oxford peace activists Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch (known as the 'B52 Two') concluded with the jury returning a unanimous verdict of not-guilty- in less than three hours.

This was the first retrail of fairford disarmers, as all three earlier trials resulted in undecided juries.

The next retrial will be of Josh Richards, scheduled to start on 30 May, and Margaret Jones and Paul Milling – who non-violently disabled three tankers used for refuelling the bombers – from 2 July. All trials will take place from 10am at Bristol Crown Court, The Law Courts, Small Street, BS1 1DA. Please be there to support them if you can.

Philip Pritchard is 36 years old, and a self employed carpenter and father. Toby Olditch is 38 years old, and a self employed builder. They both live in Oxford. The two men were arrested inside the perimeter fences at RAF Fairford in the early morning of 18 March 2003, just two days before the bombing of Iraq started. They carried with them tools to damage the planes, nuts and bolts to jam the aircrafts engines, pictures of ordinary Iraqi civilians and paint symbolizing blood and oil. They also carried warning signs for attaching to any damaged planes which would help alert aircrew to their action. The two men acted nonviolently in a way which would not result in harm to anyone, including the military personnel at Fairford. They intended to stay with the planes and tell the operators what they'd done.

The two were charged with conspiring to cause criminal damage at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire on 18 March 2003 when they tried to safely disable US B52 bombers to prevent them from bombing Iraq[1]. The court heard the two men acted to prevent damage to life and property in Iraq, and war crimes by the aggressors.

The trial started on Monday 14 May 2007. This is the second trial for the alleged offence; the first in October 2006 ended in a hung jury, after 12 hours of deliberation spread over three days. The two accused were facing up to ten years in jail. There are two other similar cases awaiting re-trial, due to hung juries, at Bristol crown court.

The two activists maintain that war crimes were committed in the bombing as cluster bombs, which spread unexploded bomblets that kill and maim civilians (like mines) were used, as were 'bunker busting' bombs tipped with depleted uranium that fragments, spreading radioactive toxins which are harmful to civilians.

During the trial the prosecution accepted that even delaying the bombers would have prevented civilian casualties, as it would have allowed those fleeing cities more time to escape. In his hour and a half summing up today, Justice Crowther explained the legal tests that must be met for the prosecution to succeed, he reiterated the facts and summarised the evidence. A document 'steps to verdict' had been provided to assist the jury.

Toby Olditch said "We're overjoyed, and thankful for the good sense of the jurors, for the wonderful support we've received, and for the commitment and expertise of our legal representatives. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people have still suffered as a result of the Government's actions. It shouldn't have come to the point that people had to take direct action to try to check the abuse of executive power."

Phil Pritchard "I am delighted that the jury have returned a unanimous not-guilty verdict. Our action in trying to prevent illegal attacks on the people of Iraq in 2003 is vindicated. I hope war of this kind never happens again."

Remploy factories to close

2007-05-22T20:11:00.000+01:00

It was announced today that 43 Remploy factories will close. Remploy employs 5,000 disabled staff at its factories across the UK, which manufacture a variety of goods for firms. I was sent information regarding the closures as Unite T&G section represents some of the factories meant for closure as well as the GMB. And are also part of the Remploy Trade Union Consortium.

"The trade unions will now seek authority for a national official strike ballot in all 83 Remploy sites. The company and the government have taken no account of the advice given to them over the past 12 months".

What to me is utterly bizarre is the letter that appeared in the Guardian from organisations such as Mencap and MIND supporting these closures. And quite understandably TUs and workers alike are annoyed by this letter especially with the current attacks on welfare benefits and disability.

Whilst I know very little about about the other organisations who signed this letter, I do know MIND and when they say they represent and champion the rights of mental health users, don't believe the hype because they certainly don't listen to the demands and the needs of the very people they purport to represent!
I would be interested to hear what disability rights activists say and their take on this especially the organisation TUDA.

The French presidential election

2007-05-22T20:04:00.001+01:00

Here is another longer article, from Murray Smith.

MURRAY SMITH WRITES:

The French presidential election should be seen as a whole. It is of course possible to analyse the results of the first round (1) but they only take on their full significance in the light of the second round. What was at stake in this election was who would succeed Jacques Chirac as president. The candidate who was supported by the Medef (the French employers’ organization) and by the overwhelming majority of the French ruling class and their allies internationally, was Nicolas Sarkozy. Of course if Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal had been elected that would hardly have been a disaster for the French ruling class. Since the early 1980s Socialist governments have alternated with right-wing ones, both pushing forward the neo-liberal agenda of privatization, deregulation and attacks on social protection, as well as attacks on immigrants and democratic rights. The plural left government of Lionel Jospin from 1997-2002 was particularly effective in this regard.

Nevertheless, the ruling class wanted Sarkozy, and for reasons more than its usual instinctive preference for the Right. This was no ordinary election and Sarkozy was no ordinary right-wing candidate. He stood on a programme that was explicitly for change, for a break (“la rupture”) with the presidency of Chirac - who belonged, however, to the same party as him. And he defined very explicitly what he was proposing to change. He announced clearly that he was going to launch an offensive against what is left of the post-war consensus, of the gains obtained by working people at the Liberation. The London Economist, which has a fairly unerring instinct for the interests of its class in Britain and elsewhere, urged Sarkozy to be firm in “taking on unions, insiders [read: public sector workers and others who have some job security], pensioners and others with a stake in today’s over-protected system”. Which is just what Sarkozy has announced he will do.

Grim-faced, leading Socialist Party member Dominique Strauss-Kahn recognized on French TV on election night that the Socialist Party had suffered a serious defeat and pointed out that it was the third presidential election in a row that the party had lost – to the advantage of the Right. But this election was different. In 1995 Jacques Chirac won by promising to overcome the “social fracture” - and proceeded six months later to launch an attack on the social security system that provoked the November-December 1995 strike movement. In 2002 Socialist candidate Jospin was punished for his record in government by being eliminated in the first round. Chirac won the second round by a landslide, mobilizing a broad political spectrum against the far right National Front candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen. In both cases he won by presenting himself as something he was not – concerned with social inequality, a bulwark against the National Front – and in both cases his actions as president were in contradiction with his electoral discourse. This time Sarkozy won on an explicit and aggressively right-wing platform – neo-liberal social and economic policies only slightly nuanced by references to defending French industry and French interests in Europe, harsh law and order proposals and an aggressive assertion of the French nation and French national identity with strong racist undertones.

Polarisation

The election saw a high degree of polarisation. Sarkozy fully mobilized the vote of the traditional right and most of the far-right vote – he took part of the National Front vote in the first round and most of the rest of it in the second round. But he made only very limited inroads into the left vote, which largely held up. Royal won 57 per cent of white collar workers and 59 per cent of blue collar workers – though Sarkozy won the votes of a majority of private sector workers, and also of the most low-paid workers. That is not a fact to be neglected, it may indicate a beginning of chipping away the sectors of the working class that are the least organised by the traditional workers’ movement, unions and parties. Among young people, Sarkozy won only 40 per cent of the votes of 18-24 year-olds (15 points less than Chirac in 1995). Indeed, Sarkozy had majority support only among the over-50s, with the notable exception of the 25-34 age group, of which he won 57 per cent. (2).

Significantly, Sarkozy gained his votes largely on a positive basis. According to the survey from which we have just quoted, 63 per cent of Sarkozy’s voters voted for him rather than against Royal, whereas 53 per cent Royal’s voters were above all voting against Sarkozy. Among those who voted for Royal, the sectors whose vote was most motivated by rejection of Sarkozy rather than commitment to Royal were blue and white collar workers.

As is often pointed out, the majority has changed at every legislative election since 1981, as voters rejected neo-liberal governments of both right and left. For presidential elections, the story is not quite the same. Mitterrand was re-elected in 1988, but that was after two years of cohabiting with a right-wing government and parliamentary majority. Chirac was elected in 1995 after two years of a right-wing government, but as we have pointed out, on a demagogic basis. Sarkozy, a minister in a government which has launched a series of attacks on workers, pensioners, immigrants and young people since 2002, and had many more victories than defeats, won by distancing himself from that government only in the sense of announcing a more thorough and consistent programme of attacks. Being elected in such conditions, especially if, as is highly likely, the Right wins a parliamentary majority, represents a break in the sequence of alternating left and right governments. Faced with the chronic incapacity of the Left to offer an alternative rather than just alternating governments, the Right has seized the initiative.

No surprise

If Sarkozy’s victory was bad news, it was no surprise. He led consistently in the opinion polls, both before the first round and between the two rounds. His first round score of 31.1 per cent was well ahead of Royal, who had just under 26 per cent. Furthermore, Le Pen won 10.5 per cent of the vote and another far-right candidate, Philippe de Villiers, won 2.2 per cent. Given that most of those votes were expected to go to Sarkozy, as they did, he approached the second round in a very strong position. What was Royal’s position? She had her own nearly 26 per cent of the vote. That was actually quite a high vote for an SP candidate in the first round. The problem, was, where would the missing 25 per cent come from? The reservoir of votes from candidates on her left who had been eliminated in the first round was far from sufficient, even supposing she won them all (she did win most of them). The total of the votes of the LCR’s Olivier Besancenot, Marie-Georges Buffet of the CP, Arlette Laguiller of Lutte Ouvrière, unitary alternative candidate Jose Bové and Dominique Voynet of the Greens came to just over 10 per cent. So the left total was about 36 per cent. One reason for the low reservoir of votes on the left for the second round was that many voters who actually had more affinity with the radical left candidates chose to “vote usefully” in the first round so as to make sure there was no repeat of 2002, with the Socialist candidate eliminated.

This left the third candidate, the centre-right François Bayrou, who falsely portrayed himself as neither right nor left, in a pivotal position. Bayrou scored 18.5 per cent, nearly three times his score in 2002. Apart from his core base, many people voted for him on the basis of his presenting himself as new and an alternative to the two main parties: others, even some well to the left, just felt that he was better placed than Royal to beat Sarkozy. Royal assiduously courted Bayrou and his electorate between the two rounds, to little avail. The most she got was a declaration by Bayrou that he would not vote for Sarkozy. In fact, Bayrou’s electorate broke down in the second round to approximately 40 per cent Sarkozy, 40 per cent Royal and 20 per cent abstention.

Before moving on to the left candidates, a word about the Royal campaign. Early on in the campaign, she expressed admiration for Tony Blair – not exactly a vote-winner on the French Left. She would no doubt have liked be to the French Blair, and probably still does – her campaign was certainly the most right-wing of any Socialist presidential candidate in the Fifth Republic. But she forgot that Blair was able to be Blair because of two things. First of all Thatcher had carried out the neo-liberal/neo-conservative counter-revolution in the 1980s and smashed working-class opposition. Secondly, Blair’s predecessor, the thuggish Neil Kinnock, had effectively purged the Labour Party. So neither within the party nor outside it did Blair have to deal with any serious opposition. That is not the situation in France. So Royal had to adjust her campaign, tacking tack a bit to the left and a bit to the right, and ended up looking much less coherent than Sarkozy.

In fact the only effective way to combat Sarkozy was frontally, with a programme that systematically countered his – anti-liberal, and capable of countering his law and order and nationalist campaigns.

Unity and disunity on the left

No one could have seriously expected that of any Socialist Party candidate. But following on the victory of the ‘No’ in the European referendum of 2005, a ‘No’ largely brought about by the campaign for a ‘No from the left’ which involved a united front going from the left of the SP via the Communist Party to the LCR and also involving many independents, global justice campaigners, trade unionists, etc., there was a new situation to the left of the SP. The unitary collectives set up to run the referendum campaign survived it and in fact developed even further in 2006 in the perspective of a united anti-liberal campaign for the coming presidential and legislative elections. At their height, the collectives involved about 15,000 people.

As everyone knows, it did not happen, and the result was several candidates. Was this inevitable, and what would have been the potential of a united campaign?

First of all, was it inevitable? Chronologically, the first to pull out of the collectives, in September 2006, was the LCR majority (a substantial minority of the Ligue remained). The reason given was that there was insufficient clarity about participation or not in a future SP-dominated government. This was widely felt outside the LCR - and by the “unitary” minority within it - to be an excuse to get out and stand Olivier Besancenot as an LCR candidate.

Very few of the many articles and documents dealing with the movement of the collectives and the attempt at a unitary candidacy have been translated into English (3) and as far as I know none of the main documents of the collectives have. It seems useful to quote the passages concerning an SP-dominated government from a key document entitled “Ambition-Stratégie” adopted by a national meeting of the collectives in September 2006.

"We will not be part of a government dominated by social-liberalism, which, by its composition and by its project, would not give itself the means of finally breaking with liberalism, would not respond to what people were waiting for. The Socialist Party, in particular, has adopted a programme which turns its back on a clear break with liberalism. It is out of the question, for us, to negotiate on this basis a contract of government whose action, letting people down once again, would lead ineluctably to the return of a harder Right"

And further:

"If we do not take part in the government, our group in Parliament will not take part in a majority made up to support this government, but will vote in favour of any legislative provisions going in the direction of the interests of the population. We will also use our parliamentary strength, along with all those who will take part in social mobilizations, to get a certain number of positive measures adopted or to get negative measures withdrawn; to translate our programme into law and reality. We reserve the right to judge and to discuss publicly how the government and its majority act in the course of the legislature".

In a document written in English to explain the point of view of the LCR majority (4), François Duval, a member of the Ligue’s Political Bureau, wrote:
“There was a single issue about which we were not ready to make a compromise. Not an unlimited series of pretexts: just one simple and single issue that needed - and still needs - an answer, a clear answer, an answer without any ambiguity. As you have surely understood it, the question we raised from the beginning of the process has remained the same: the question of the relationship with the SP, related to government and Parliament. And the answer we wanted to hear was: no, an anti-liberal candidate will not be member of a government led by the SP. No anti-liberal candidates for general elections, if elected as MPs, will either belong to the same parliamentary majority or support a government led by the SP.
We have not heard such an answer”.
And later on: “it [the document] does not clearly state that it will be impossible to join a SP government, nor to support it in the framework of a common parliamentary majority with the really existing SP, its programme and its leadership”.

I find it difficult to read the quotations from “Ambition-Stratégie” above and agree that “we have not heard such an answer” or that the document “does not clearly state”. No doubt the formulations could have been sharper, but they do not seem equivocal. That document was voted for by a broad arc of forces including the Communist Party, which certainly had reservations about it and sought to leave itself a way out. So it is true that as Duval says, “the leaders of the French CP have a double-faced speech”. But the formulation of the document represented the feeling of the collectives on the question> As Duval also admits: “the main problem was not the average mood of activists from the anti-liberal collectives. A significant number of them more or less shared our point of view, even when they thought that we were exaggerating the importance of that issue. The main problem was ¬ and still remains ¬ the political approach of the CP”. In fact, the LCR (and it should have known this) was never going to get a cast-iron guarantee that the CP would never, ever, under any circumstances go into government with the SP. Whether, after the damage participation in government in 1997-2002 did the party, it was actually likely that they would repeat the experience this time is another question. And one which is likely to remain academic, short of a victory of the Left in the legislative elections that would be little short of miraculous. In any case, it is far from evident that on the basis of what was adopted in September, the LCR could not have stayed in and combated the CP, as many independents wanted it to do. That could have led to quite a different situation when the CP tried is takeover in December, which we now come on to.

The role of the Communist Party

The second and fatal blow to a unitary candidacy was the attempt by the CP, in December 2006, to impose its own general secretary, Marie-Georges Buffet, as candidate of the collectives. After the disastrous result of Robert Hue at the presidential election in 2002 (3.37 per cent) following five years in government with the SP, Buffet pulled the party back from the abyss, on a line that combined demarcation from the SP with a readiness to open out and work with other forces. The first notable dividend from this orientation was the result of the list led by Buffet herself at the regional elections in Île de France in 2004, where, coming from behind in the polls, she distanced the LCR-LO list, in spite of the fact that this list was headed by Laguiller and Besancenot. The second success was the leading role the CP played in the referendum campaign in 2005 and the way the party worked loyally with other forces, even sharing its TV time with them. Subsequently the CP participated in the unitary collectives and appeared to seriously think that it could get away with having Buffet adopted as their candidate. When that failed, Buffet carried out a change of alliances. She broke with the refondateur current, with which she had worked throughout the unitary period – a current that is very much in favour of working with other forces on the left and even of moving towards a new movement or party of which the CP would only be one component. She then formed a bloc with the partisans of Hue, who are advocates of a strategic alliance with (really, satellisation by) the SP, and with the so-called “orthodox” current, which stresses the party’s identity but whose orthodoxy does not exclude opportunistic deals with the SP.

Why did Buffet do this? Like many other aspects of the debate around this issue, the answer you give depends a bit on where you are coming from. The LCR majority emphasizes that the CP wanted to have a free hand to negotiate with the SP, and couldn’t be confident with a non-CP independent (or even a CP refondateur) as candidate. That may have been a factor. But a determining factor seems to have been the need to avoid a serious internal crisis with Hue and the orthodox wing if there was no CP candidate – with maybe even the threat of a wildcat Communist candidacy. The LCR majority predicted that the CP would never agree to support a non-CP candidate and that they would stand Buffet, and they turned out to be right. But there was a choice to be made, and the many people who thought it possible that the CP would make a different choice were not being irrational. In the light of the result of the presidential campaign, it is far from certain that Buffet made the right one. If the aim of the candidacy was to avoid a crisis in the party, it only succeeded in putting it off until after the election. It can be argued that if the CP had supported a unitary candidate who, it is safe to say, would have got substantially more than the 1.9 per cent that Buffet got, the party would be in a better position today – including from the point of view of negotiating with the SP over the legislative elections.

Buffet felt confident enough of her position to have her choices submitted to internal ballots of party members. In November they were consulted as to whether the party should propose – not impose – Buffet as candidate of the collectives. The result was 59,103 for, 2.663 against. A month later, faced with the refusal of the collectives to accept Buffet, another ballot was held as to whether she should be a candidate anyway. The result was 42, 365 for, 9.937 against. So Buffet became the candidate of an “anti-liberal unity” in which the CP united with itself. Or rather with part of itself, since the nearly 10,000 who voted against became the basis for the “Unitary Communists” current, which now functions in an increasingly autonomous way.

The withdrawal by the LCR and the failed takeover by the CP left the collectives in disarray. It is this context that must be borne in mind when appreciating the Bové candidacy which began to emerge in January, and which we will come back to later.

The total of the four serious candidates to the left of the SP was just over 8.5 per cent. The total of the LCR, LO and the CP in 2002 was about 13.5 per cent. If you deduct the CP from the 2002 total – a not unreasonable thing to do, since the party was still in government in 2002 – the LCR and LO still got nearly 10 per cent, as against 5.4 per cent this time – to which can be added Bové’s 1.32 per cent. The fact that the LCR more than held its own in a difficult situation should not conceal the fact that the radical left as a whole lost ground – a fact that was commented on with great satisfaction by the bourgeois media, which attached much more importance to that than to the LCR’s relatively good performance..

Two questions arise? Why, and what else if anything, was possible?
First of all, why? This is another case where your answer depends on where you’re coming from. Roughly speaking, if you are coming from the LCR majority or the CP leadership, you emphasize the effect of the ‘useful vote’ for Royal (or even Bayrou). If you are coming from the unitary collectives, the minorities in the LCR and the CP, the Bové campaign, you emphasize the effects of the division on the radical left.

Both were factors. There is not the slightest doubt that the pressure to ‘vote usefully’ limited the vote for the radical left. That was, if you like, an objective factor, in that not even the best campaign could have completely eliminated it. But it seems equally obvious that the fact of having several candidates to the left of the SP actually magnified this tendency and that a united candidacy would have created a dynamic and got a better result than the sum of the parts. Not to everyone. Daniel Bensaïd has argued: “A unitary candidacy on a clear political basis would certainly have had a dynamic that would have been attractive for those who were hesitating, but experience proves that unity is not a simple question of addition, and that a part of the respective electorates of the CP, LO, and the Ligue would not have identified with a unitary candidacy. So we can seriously doubt that in the difficult conditions of this campaign such a candidacy would have had the cumulative result of 8.5 per cent” (5). I find the second part of this reasoning unconvincing. It is no doubt true that there were some sectors of the electorates of the CP, LO and the LCR who would not have voted for a unitary candidate, it is difficult to judge how many. But it seems reasonable to suppose that they would have been more than compensated by the number of hesitant electors who would have been attracted by a united campaign. I have never found convincing the wilder surges of enthusiasm by the partisans of unity, going so far as to predict that a unitary candidate could have got more votes than the SP. But I think he or she would certainly have got more than 8.5 per cent. Between 10 and 15 per cent seems a perfectly realisable objective. At that level, the relationship of forces on the left starts to change, and a serious marker is laid down for the future.

The candidates to the left of the SP

Let us look now at the candidates to the left of the SP. I leave out Schivardi as irrelevant and Voynet because the Greens may be on the left, more or less, but they are hardly to the left of the SP. So that leaves Besancenot, Buffet, Laguiller and Bové.

The most successful campaign was unquestionably Besancenot’s. He got 4.08 per cent, which was marginally less than 2002, but he gained 280,000 votes more because of the higher turnout. His meetings were big. Everyone’s were in this campaign because of the heightened politicisation, but Besancenot’s were frequently twice as big as in 2002 and sometimes bigger. He put across a clear anti-capitalist message, clearly independent of the SP, he was a very capable candidate, there was a professional campaign, an excellent web site, wide coverage in the media. Having decided to go it alone and run its own campaign, the LCR did it very well. In a situation where the overall vote to the left of the SP went down, it more than held its own. And it will no doubt recruit substantial numbers of new members. So in the terms set by its majority leadership, the campaign was a success. Whether from the point of view of building a credible alternative to social-liberalism it was the correct thing to do is another matter. It is worth noting the composition of the vote. It was high among young people – half his electorate was under 35, and he got 10 per cent among those under 25. He also got significantly above his national average among workers and the unemployed. But only 35 per cent of those who voted for Besancenot in 2002 did so again in 2007, 36 per cent of them voting for Royal, 17 per cent for Bayrou. However, Besancenot got 45 per cent of his votes from electors who did not vote in 2002. The rest of his votes mostly came from former LO or CP voters. While it is positive that he was able to appeal to new voters and those who did not vote last time, the high rate of turnover indicates that his electorate remains unstable.

Buffet’s campaign was a disaster for the CP. She came across as neither the candidate of anti-liberal unity she claimed to be, nor as clearly a party candidate. She lost both to the ‘useful vote’ for Royal and to candidates on her left. Vote against the Right? Might as well vote Royal in the first round. Anti-capitalist? Besancenot did it better. Unitary? Why not Bové? (In fact, leading party members campaigned for Bové). Within the party the result has been that Buffet’s new-found allies are turning on her, while her former unitary allies have organised themselves separately. An extraordinary party congress later this year is likely to be dramatic, but not necessarily decisive. The party is headed for a deepening of its chronic crisis, which Buffet only temporarily stemmed.

It is not worth spending too much time on the LO result (1.33 per cent). This very peculiar organisation, with all the characteristics of a sect, occupied for a period an important place to the left of the SP on the electoral level. It did so for a number of reasons, linked to the decline of the CP and the difficulties of the LCR at the time. LO made its breakthrough in the 1995 presidential election, when it got over 5 per cent. But its success did not change its character of a propagandist sect. It stood aside from the massive anti-Le Pen protests in 2002, denounced the European Social Forums and the global justice movement and did not take part in the campaign for a ‘No from the left’ in the European referendum. Its place has largely been taken by the LCR, which differed from it in all those respects and which puts across an anti-capitalist message that is more modern and less economist.

Finally there was the Bové candidacy – the most surprising and unexpected one of the campaign, which clearly irritated both the LCR and the CP. Bové had been one of the possible unitary candidates of the collectives in autumn 2006: he had withdrawn along the way – because he felt that he did not have enough support, because he knew that whatever happened the CP would veto his candidacy. In January there appeared an online petition asking Bové to be a candidate. The method has been criticised by quite a few people, notably Pierre Rousset and Daniel Bensaïd, as being fundamentally undemocratic. It certainly left something to be desired from that point of view. But we have to look at the context. The dynamic behind Bové’s candidacy in January was a lot of angry people from the collectives. I have never seen anything from supporters of the LCR majority or from the CP leadership which took into consideration the independents who had been left high and dry when those organisations decided to present their own candidates. What were they supposed to do? Go home and get on with their lives, choose between Besancenot and Buffet? Not much of a prospect. Whether these people represented a minority or a majority of the independent forces in the collectives is neither here nor there, though they won a majority at a national meeting in January They represented a force that was not ready to accept a fait accompli, and there were enough of them to launch the candidacy. And frankly, given the pressure of time, an online petition was one quick way, and maybe the only way, to break the logjam.

The first thing that was absolutely remarkable was that Bové obtained the 500 signatures of mayors and other elected representatives that were necessary in order to stand. His improvised campaign did in six weeks what it took the LCR and LO nine months to do. And it seems that only 15-20 of the signatures came from the unitary CP, and perhaps a few more from left Greens who supported him. What was the nature of his campaign? The LCR has sometimes referred to it as the “radical ecologist” campaign. That is somewhat inadequate – even Bové was a bit more than that, he was also a global justice campaigner, anti-liberal...And ‘radical ecologist’ really does not anything like cover the diversity of his supporters. The starting point of the campaign was to refuse the division brought about by the LCR and CP candidacies, therefore to be the unitary campaign. It was quickly described by the CP and LCR (including some of its minority) as just another candidacy or even a supplementary cause of division. That is going too far. The Bové campaign was not the unitary campaign. But it was a unitary campaign; It was the only one that brought together people from different backgrounds – part of the LCR minority, most of the Unitary Communists, dissident Greens, trade unionists, ecologists, militants from the collectives. The campaign showed the signs of improvisation, its web site was a nightmare, its communication in general was pretty erratic, but it got most of the main issues right, although Bové occasionally made somewhat eccentric statements, like proposing to appoint the freelance ecologist Nicolas Hulot prime minister... But the campaign had a definite dynamic. It won support from significant figures from immigrant communities and Bové spent a lot of time in the ‘banlieues’ where they live and which were the centre of the riots in November 2005. And especially towards the end, his campaign \attracted big meetings. To take just one example, the LCR rightly congratulated itself on attracting 4,000 people to its meeting in Paris in the last week of the campaign. But the same evening, Bové got between 4,000 and 5,000 in the southern city of Toulouse. Any serious analysis of the Bové campaign should look at its strengths as well as its weaknesses. In spite of its modest score of 1.32 per cent it would be a mistake to simply write it off as a failure. For those who read French, it is worth consulting the very frank and lucid balance sheet of the campaign by Jacques Perreux, Bove’s campaign director and long-time leading CP member (6).

Much has been made of the fact that Bové, between the two rounds, accepted a proposal from Royal to make a report on food sovereignty and that he made his call to vote Royal at a press conference along with her. He would also have spoken at the big SP rally at Charléty before the second round if his campaign team hadn’t stopped him. But his campaign team did stop him, and furthermore issued a communiqué calling for a vote against Sarkozy (not for Royal), stating that it had no illusions in Royal and pointing out it did not assume responsibility for Bové accepting the report proposed by Royal (7). Those who opposed the Bové campaign in the LCR and elsewhere largely publicised Bové’s statements around this time, which certainly show some political confusion, though nothing he did or said implies that he would have supported a social-liberal government. But the communiqué of his campaign team was virtually ignored.

After the victory of Sarkozy

There is now obviously a debate beginning on the French left on how to analyse of the situation after the victory of Sarkozy. Does it represent a move to the right? A change in the relationship of class forces? Is Sarkozy going to be the French Thatcher? It is perhaps useful to look at the original Thatcher. When she came to power in 1979, it was only five years since the last Conservative government had ended ignominiously, wounded and finally brought down by working-class opposition, of which the backbone was two national miners’ strikes. In the subsequent period class struggle remained at a significant level. The arrival in power of a government determined to take on the working class and the unions did not in itself change the balance of class forces. But it did give a serious advantage and the initiative to the most hardline sections of the ruling class. And it still took nearly a decade of class battles, which Thatcher won, taking on one section at a time and aided by the complicity of the Labour leadership. It was only when she took on the whole working class at once with the poll tax, and faced a movement largely led by revolutionaries, that she lost an important battle.

Sarkozy’s victory is not in itself a decisive defeat. There was no significant shift of left electors to the right, there was rather, as we have seen, a polarisation. But Sarkozy will use his position to push through his agenda and we have to look at the situation in which he will do it. It is no use just applauding the combativeness and the anti-liberal sentiments of French workers and youth. The balance sheet of resistance to neo-liberal policies is far from being only positive. A few victories, many defeats, some without a fight: overall the neo-liberal machine advances, we win the occasional battle, they are slowly but surely winning the war. It is surprising to read from the pen of Alex Callinicos, in an otherwise good article, that: “The last major attempt to push through neo-liberal measures in France was in 1995. It provoked a huge public sector strike that was the first in a series of social explosions that have stalled such plans” (8). Unfortunately, this is not quite the case: there have been constant attempts to push through major and minor neo-liberal measures and most of them have succeeded and have not been stalled by social explosions. The 2003 pension reform was a major attack and in spite of a movement that was broader if less intense than 1995, it went through. Its author, by the way, was François Fillon, who has just been appointed as Sarkozy’s prime minister. In a document written after Sarkozy’s victory, François Duval has recently written (in French) a very lucid and realistic contribution on the extent and limits of resistance to neo-liberalism and the relationship of class forces in France today (9).

In reality, after 25 years of attacks, the French working class is in a much weaker material position than the British working class in 1979. The big difference is on the level of political consciousness: contestation of the ruling class agenda, of neo-liberalism, is infinitely stronger, as evidenced by the 2005 referendum and also by the consistently high (over 60 per cent) level of public support for strikes and other movements of resistance. There is also much greater mobilisation and politicisation of young people. But overall, the situation is not favourable. And this mass anti-liberal consciousness has no credible political expression. In this situation, the ritual leftist rhetoric about the ‘third social round’ and general calls to resistance and defeating Sarkozy in the streets are of little use. There will be resistance to Sarkozy’s attacks, there is no guarantee that it will be successful. What is needed is to patiently build a social and political opposition to Sarkozy. Social and political. We will not just defeat Sarkozy in the streets, it is necessary to build a credible political alternative. In the first place, the lack of such an alternative makes social resistance harder. And secondly, if the only alternative to Sarkozy remains the social-liberal Left, then further disillusion and demoralisation are on the way.

Once the legislative elections are over, and assuming the Right wins them, the internal struggles the Socialist Party will start in earnest – they are already rumbling. Over and above personal rivalries, there will be a debate about the future of the party. Some will defend the status quo, some will argue for a thorough “social-democratisation” (really, bringing discourse into line with its neo-liberal practice) of the party and for an opening towards Bayrou and the centre-right. Some will argue for opening out to the non-Socialist left. The relatively weak forces which participated in the unitary collectives until last December are likely to be isolated, with little perspective inside the SP and no alternative that can act as a force of attraction outside it.

The forces of the radical left have a considerable responsibility. It is unfortunately far from clear that they are capable of assuming it. The legislative elections will see around 500 candidates each from the CP, LCR, LO and the Greens (there are 577 constituencies, including the overseas ones). The CP will save some of its 20 or so MPs, the Greens will have three or four, courtesy of a minimal agreement with the SP, the LCR and LO will have none, as a result of the highly undemocratic electoral system. The motivation for this multiplication of candidates (it seems there will be an average of 13 per constituency) is partly financial (state funding depends on how many votes a party gets) and partly just self-affirmation by the parties. But it is not an encouraging sign for the future. The unitary collectives and Bové committees will run about 80 candidates under the label ‘Alternative Left 2007’of whom they say about a third involve real unity with other forces, and will support about 50 other unitary candidates. The LCR will run 460 candidates of its own and support 40 unitary candidates, some of them under its own label. The number of unitary candidates is higher than might have been expected following the presidential campaign, but division prevails.

As for the future…It is difficult to see the CP having either the will or the ability to take any positive initiative in the near future. The LCR will undoubtedly be ready for unity in action against Sarkozy and may well be capable of taking some initiatives in this direction. But it seems unlikely, to say the least, that it will take any serious initiative towards building a broader anti-capitalist or anti-liberal force. The Ligue appears to be concentrating on recruiting from its successful presidential campaign, which it would be foolish not to do. Unfortunately, there appear to be quite strong tendencies towards de facto abandoning of the perspective of a broader party, or at least reducing it to just a larger version of the LCR. We will see over the next few months whether that is in fact the case, as the Ligue is also planning to hold a congress before the end of the year.

It seems unlikely that the forces of the unitary collectives and the Bové campaign will just disappear or disperse. There is a plan to hold a conference in the autumn. It can scarcely just reproduce the unity of a year ago, including the LCR and the CP, as if the presidential campaign had not happened – if for no other reason, neither the LCR nor CP leaderships appear to want that. Nor will it in itself constitute the unitary alternative that is necessary. At best, it may create a movement, a forum for discussion and action, open to members of the CP and the LCR and other organisations, as well as independents , which may be able to help bring that closer. But, overall, what might be called the “French paradox” – the contradiction between the level of social resistance and anti-liberal sentiment and the absence of a broad anti-capitalist party – is likely to continue for some time. But it is likely to become more acute as Sarkozy starts to apply his programme.

Murray Smith

20/05/07

(1) See (in English) Daniel Bensaïd: “Assessment of the outcome of the first round of the French presidential election” (introduction to “The French elections and our strategic project”) IV online 388, April 2007. www.internationalviewpoint.org. Also two articles by supporters of the Bové campaign: John Mullen, “The Presidential elections in France: Polarization and Crisis” http://perso.orange.fr/john.mullen/2007elections.html and Colin Falconer, “Radical left vote falls in French election” , April 28, 2007: http://le-poireau-rouge.blogspot.com. And Murray Smith, “Crunch comes in French presidential elections”, Green Left Weekly, 3 May, 2007 www.greenleft.org.
(2) The figures are taken from the article by Eric Dupin in Le Figaro, 8 May, 2007, Ánalyse: un clivage gauche-droite renforce”.
(3) Those who read French will find practically all the important articles and documents, from before, during and after the presidential election, on the sites www.alternativeunitaire2007.org and www.europe-solidaire.org/.

In defence of the Clash?

2007-05-22T12:29:00.000+01:00

.
I am returning to the issue of the Clash and punk, because I think this is a political topic of how socialists relate to mass culture. And in particular it is important to defend the proposition that culture enriched by mass popular participation provides a more fertile environment for individual talent, and which thus allows conventional cultural norms to be transcended.

In a comment to the post below about Punk, TWP defends the clash saying: "Have you ever heard Sandinista? The thing about the Clash is that they went beyond punk because they had the courage and musical interest to extend beyond the three chords. To me that's more punk than all the Sex Pistols put together. ... The point of punk was to do whatever you wanted to - not to fit into some "line" propogated by other punks - no matter how self-righteous."

I don't want to be unfair to TWP, and perhaps I am being by responding at length to a short comment of hers on this blog. Hopefully she will develop a longer and more considered defence of the political and cultural significance of the Clash, and their relationship with punk on her own blog, and we can continue the debate

I respond becasue I think she is actually making a dangerous argument: to defend the thesis that the Clash were a great "punk" band, and were "more punk than all the Sex Pistols put together", it is necessary to write the audience and popular participation out of punk. It is necessary to deny that punk was part of a wider social rebellion, spilling out into art, publishing, journalism and politics, and most importantly to deny that punk was about empowering young people.

Instead, the alledged individual genius of the Clash transcends the limitations of all us little people.

So let us look at the evidence - here is the Clash playing a song from the Sandanista album on American TV in 1981. I suppose whether you like it or not is a question of personal musical taste, but this is clearly a band totally at home in the context of corportate culture, and playing as rock stars to a passive audience.

In contrast, watch this clip below from X-Ray Spex in 1978, just three earlier. According to TWP, punk bands apart from the Clash were constrained because they didn't have "the courage and musical interest to extend beyond the three chords".

What we actualy see is a creative riot, bursting out of the conventional topics and style of popular music, spilling over into the audience who fully participate in the performance (it is worth persevering into the last three minutes, where we see confident, happy young women from the audience singing with Poly-Styrene) and involving a exuberant attack on consumerism and corporate values.

It was the relativley mass base of punk as a social and cultural movement that empowered such a diverse set of responses, including the genius of X-Ray Spex. The conclusion is inescapable that X-Ray Spex were empowerng, and the Clash were not.

Again, this is not a question of personal taste, this is a question of defending historical truth, that punk was a mass social phenomeon that encouraged a glorious flowering of talent. To diminish the experience by implying that punk was a constraining format and the Clash were able to transcend it becasue they had more courage and musical interest leaves the door open for elitest arguments, that seek to minimise the importance of mass popular participation in culture.

And another, shorter clip this time of the Lurkers, showing exactly what "Audience participation" meant in a punk gig. The key here is that there is that the band and the audience really are all jumbled up in a single creative event:

In any event, participation was not just gigs, becasue nearly everyone even touched peripherally by the punk scene was creatively active, making their own outfits, writing for and producing fanzines, organising and promoting gigs, being in bands, or acting as MC or DJ at gigs, or even spraying grafitti. If we allow punk to be redefined as simply a musical genre, within which the later Clash can be included, then the danger is that the real mass popular participation in cultural radicalism becomes just an audience, and not art of the creative process itself. Punk was a cultural revolution forged by participation.

(And in case you are wondering whether these performcnces were distorted by the TV cameras being there, they aren't. I saw both these bands more than once, and the Poly-Styrene clip is a pretty true picture of what X-Ray Spex and many other punk bands were like, and even by 1978 the Clash has pretty much fallen into the stale rock star mode we see in the clip above)

Smoking ban hits the most vulnerable

2007-05-22T11:03:00.000+01:00

.
Last night I was talking to the manager of a sheltered housing project which homes vulnerable young people, often with mental health issues, many of whom have difficulty socialising after experiencing abuse, and in some cases are asylum seekers.

New Labour’s ill conceived smoking ban is shortly going to have a serious negative impact on these vulnerable young people. (Thanks to one of the comments to this post, I have checked the legislatioon, and residential care homes where nursing or personal care is provided are exempt, but sheltered accomodation is covered by the act.)

Let’s be clear. I have no problem with a restriction of smoking in public places to provide non-smokers with the opportunity to live without being exposed to smoke. The problem is that New Labour have removed all choice, and not allowed premises that provide a choice for smokers. The cheerleaders for this ban seek to impose their own lifestyle choices onto others by law.

Residential housing projects have been categorised as public places under the act, and must enforce it or face a £2500 fine and a criminal record for staff members. The stupidity of the law has already led to a one year delay in its implementation into mental hospitals, but sheltered housing projects have to implement it from 1st July 2007.

Currently these homes have a smoking ban in the bedrooms, and provide two lounges: one for smokers, and one for non smokers. This is now illegal.

Bear in mind that these premises are home for their residents. Not only are they entitled to smoke if the wish in their own home but in fact most do smoke. Smoking rates are highest in the most socially marginalised parts of society, and to be honest the potential health risks of smoking are often the least of their problems.

Under the new law, the smoking lounges must be shut, and the bedrooms must now be used for smoking. So all that has happened under New Labour’s brilliant law, cheered on by so many on the left, is that the smoke has moved from one part of the building to another.

But this is not a change with neutral impact. There is now an increased fire risk, as it is much more likely that there will be a blaze from someone falling asleep in bed with a cigarette. What is more, the smoking lounges created a degree of socialisation for vulnerable and excluded people, who will now be sitting alone in their tiny bedrooms. It gets worse, the bedrooms are small, and my friend advises me that because soft furnishings absorb the smoke and stink, the rooms will gradually have the soft furniture, carpets and curtains removed, to be replaced with hard chairs, laminate floors and Venetian blinds. This is the austere environment that the New labour zealots wish to push vulnerable people, because the Islington dinner party set don’t approve of smoking, and wish to criminalise and exclude anyone who doesn’t agree with their choices.

The anti-smoking zealots said they supported a total ban on (specious) health and safety grounds, ignoring all evidence about the efficacy of extraction systems in removing any risk from second hand smoke. But for the most vulnerable in care homes, the smoking lounges had extraction systems, but the bedrooms will not. So for the most vulnerable and at risk the situation is worse.

The class bias of the legislation is also clear froom the fact that smoking is banned in the expensive nurseries where middle class parents can afford to send their children, but not in the homes of child minders where working class children go. An egalitarian approach would have insisted instead on air extraction systems for child minders' homes, and subsidised their installation and running costs. Parental choice is an inadeqaute solution, partly because the choices people can make depend on their income, and partly becasue parents who smoke are less likely to object to a child minder who smokes.

How any socialist can support this vindictive, class-biased legislation is beyond me.

Of course common sense could have prevailed and sheltered housing could have been excluded from the legistlation, but then so could private clubs. Instead a blanket ban is being imposed as a knee jerk, socially repressive measure.

Oh Bondage, Up Yours!

2007-05-21T16:44:00.000+01:00

As the last post was about punk, and the one before that about SM sex, here is a treat linking both themes.

X-Ray Spex from 1977. Brilliant:

I'm so bored with the Clash.

2007-05-21T16:02:00.001+01:00

.
The future isn't written maybe, but the past is being rewritten.

As Julian Temple releases another contribution to the revisionist Punk heritage industry, I feel obliged to say that the relationship between the Clash and punk is usually considered too uncritically. The character of Joe Strummer was especially problematic, using punk as a stepping stone to being a rock star.

Punk was a profound cultural revolution that has had lasting impact. The difficulty with the narrative put forward by Julian Temple is that it reduces complex social processes into the history of “great” individuals. So in the “Great Rock & Roll Swindle” McLaren was the Svengali who created punk, while in the “Filth & the Fury” it was Rotten who was the daddy.

Punk wasn’t even just about music, it was about self-empowerment and authenticity, in an anti-corporate culture, and it extended beyond music to street fashion, the visual arts, self-publishing and fanzine journalism, and of course people making their music and their own records.

Let’s go back to the 1970s. Even for those who experienced the period it seems extraordinary to look back on the degree of cultural conformity. There were just three TV stations, and no way of recording programmes, no videos, no DVDs. In most of the country there was no competition to BBC radio, and Radio One and Radio Two were both dominated by the utterly fatuous. In contrast to today’s diversity of genres and styles, there was a cultural monolith, symbolised by that insufferably smug piece of shit Bob Harris and the Old Grey Whistle Test. There were only the major record labels, and even if something alternative was happening then information about it spread largely through word of mouth and if something new was reported in the music press then you couldn’t even hear it or buy it because you were depending on your local record shop to stock it, and it was usually run by a hippy.

Punk self-empowerment meant that people made their own fashion, by spray painting second hand clothes, and chains and safety pins. People wrote their own magazines, and the influence of “Sniffin’ Glue” has had a lasting impact. Punk music also adopted its own aesthetic. And as another lasting impact, a whole series of minor labels were born, not entirely based upon punk, but riding on the wave of their explosion: Beggars Banquett signed the Lurkers, and Stiff signed the Damned. Bands also learned that they could press their own singles, and sell them. This was an important political and cultural space being claimed outside the control of the market.

Authenticity was also important, by which I mean an experience that has multiple potential outcomes. The closeness of a punk audience and the band, the invasions of the stage, and the general lack of deference meant that there was no passivity. The immediacy of making music, or writing fanzines outside corporate culture also brought songs and writing about acne, wanking, loneliness, sexual inadequacy and all sort of other taboo subjects.

Being a punk was rebellious in a way that no youth culture could be today. Our fathers or grandfathers had fought fascism, so wearing a Nazi armband (as I did) was a total rejection of their moral authority. The hippies, just ten years or so older than us had made a safe and personal rebellion in a time of full employment, and a period of political optimism. In the 1970s, British society was in crisis, political, ideological and identity crisis. There was no future in England’s dreaming.

The paradox that our own rebellion would be commoditised and sold back to us was always known and recognised. (And the genius of the Pistols is that they exploded in the faces of the record companies who signed them.) Looking back on the early days of punk it is remarkable how different we looked from the identikit punk-clones who later bought bondage trousers from shops and wore spiked Mohican hair dos. It was very personal, and for example I used a plastic coat hanger to fasten my jacket. It was even difficult to buy straight trousers – everyone wore flares everywhere. I pinched a pair of my dad’s old gardening trousers, and hid them at the end of the garden, so I would leave my house in flares and change in the shed! I also remember having to pierce my ears and cheeks with safety pins on the bus each time I went out, because it was simply not safe to have permanent piercings due to the reaction it caused. I was beaten up twice by strangers.

But quite apart from the Pistols, punk was happening anyway. The Hollywood Brats , a homegrown version of the New York Dolls (and rather better!) had first recorded in 1973, and ex-Brat, Casino Steel was involved with the Matt Dangerfield’s basement recording studio, which during 1975 and 1976 brought together a number of punks, and out of which grew both London SS and the Boys. In parallel, bands like the Lurkers were directly influenced by the Ramones and New York punk, and the Vibrators and Adam and the Ants grew out of pub rockers Bazooka Joe. (of course it is easy in retrospect to dismiss the Ants, but the later New Romantic version has almost no continuity with the art school faux fascism of the earlier band)

Former bank clerk, Mark Perry, was so influential, he had started the Sniffin’ Glue fanzine after seeing the Ramones, and co-founded Step Forward Records, which produced Sham 69, the Cortinas and Chelsea. But Mark also formed Alternative TV (pictured below), the best British punk band, and created by far the best album, “The Image has Cracked”, which confounded all expectations of the identikit punks by including Jools Holland keyboards, and a Frank Zappa cover-version. But it also showed with songs like “Splitting in Two” that great art could be made within the minimal punk musical aesthetic.

I used to think it was a bit sad that bands like the Vibrators, UK Subs, and others are still gigging round small venues 30 years later, or that bands like the Damned, the Adverts and the Boys play nostalgia festivals. But actually it is an achievement, they opened a space where they could make a modest living out of playing their own music, they did break forever the monolithic control of the corporate music industry.

Of course some individuals like Billy Idol and Adam Ant used their brief 15 minutes of fame to make as much money as they could, but they never pretended to be doing anything else, and why shouldn’t they. Of course the insufferable Paul Weller has become the new Paul McCartney, but he could only do so by breaking from Bruce Foxton and Rick Buckler, and reinventing himself.

But then there is the Clash. The only big name punk band to have an uncomplicated signing with a major label (Look at the trouble the Banshees had getting a deal). The only ones to become Stadium rockers. The only ones to aspire to being big international rock stars. Of course they succeeded because their ambitions were comprehensible and compatible with the big corporate ethos of the music industry. Their punk identity a thinner veneer. Of course they were more commercially successful because their music was more conventional and less innovative than many punk bands.

From my observation, the Clash never saw the potential of Punk as constructing a creative space outside corporate control, instead they sought to get the best commercial deal so that they could proselytise their ersatz lefty message and get rich trying. Look at the cover of their first album! It is as posed and contrived in designer clothes as any image created for Busted or Westlife!

The Clash’s relationship with its audience very soon ceased to be an empowering one, that was two way. I last saw them about May or June 1978, and many of the audience groaned and mocked them when they played “Garage band” (with no sense of self-irony) in the style of preening rock stars. Many punk bands sang songs with some integrity and authenticity about their own experience, but how could diplomat’s son Joe Strummer really be sincere that he hated the rich? How could they be sincere that they hated the USA, when they wanted more than anything to be a success there?

In "Alternatives", an open mike session on "The Image has Cracked" recorded in january 1978, Mark Perry says: "You all think we've won because bands like the Clash ... are on the Telly, but there's no way you've won brother, ok so I'm a communist, there's no way you've won sister, what you are getting is diluted shit".

Feminism: reclaiming sex

2007-05-21T13:35:00.000+01:00

One of my favourite quotes: "Don't scream penis at me, but help to change the world so no woman feels shame or fear because she likes to fuck." (Joan Nestle, A Restricted Country)

I am advertising this blog, to show my support and because I pleased to see these feminist bloggers coming together to open up a space for women to discuss SM (and I also think these four women bloggers rock!). I understand where they are coming from 'cos as a socialist feminist who is anti-censorship on porn I know all about the “Feminist Guilt” and know how it is so difficult to have an open, honest and democratic discussion about sex, sexuality, SM and pornography as the influence of radical feminism still looms large.

We need to be able to explore, examine and untangle these issues without the threat of being insulted, lectured and condemned. Women are sexual beings. I am sick of us being made to feel ashamed of our sexual desires and fantasies.

Things don’t change and when I first became a feminist 20-odd years ago porn was central and still central to the radical feminist thesis. I have been to feminist conferences in the past couple of years and the feeling of déjà vu is strong: “porn is the theory, rape is the practice”.

What I would like to see is women being able to talk about these issues freely without the condemnation, moralism and the immense feeling of guilt. Guilt, ‘cos you not a proper feminist as you indulge in “bad sex”. I am also sick of hearing that women who enjoy SM or any form of sex that isn’t typically vanilla coated being labelled as “brainwashed” by the patriarchal order.Or daring to experiment beyond the acceptable boundaries. And of course we are capitulating to patriarchy when we use those phallic shaped dildos/vibrators. And are you selling the sisterhood down the river if you enjoy looking at porn?

Well, you sure can use that argument regarding sex about anything under patriarchal capitalism. Are we really free to choose in any given situation?

All I am saying that we cannot judge women, make our own assumptions and come to rigid conclusions. Nor is it helpful to hold the belief that women are just passive victims of patriarchy to know what desire is. We are not just saturated with sexual imagery we are also saturated by morality.

Suppressing debate is bad news. It will stunt the growth and continue the fragmentation of feminism. And as a socialist feminist I don't want to see that. Nor was it the feminism I signed up for. For me the opposite is true. I want women to be able to discuss their needs, desires, sex and sexuality without the fear of any condemnation, in an open and free way.

Good luck with the blog, which I will be reading!

Whatever happened to the awkward squad?

2007-05-21T12:38:00.000+01:00

What staggering hypocrisy. Woodley and Simpson have managed to get both wings of 'Unite' to support Gordon Brown, having opposed support for John McDonnel, in the Labour leadership contest. For Amicus it is "a pleasure" to announce its political committee's decision to support Brown, and their choice for Deputy, of John Cruddas.

The TGWU section of 'Unite' it is "proud" to have nominated Brown ( a deision taken by the General Executive Committee) and says it will give him "our full support as Prime Minister in working to tackle social inequality" and, of course, fighting for that all important fourth general election victory!

One again this stalwarts of what was once described as "the awkward squad" are facing both ways at once. Why? Is it lack of courage? Is it stupidity? Simpson says they are supporting Cruddas because he is calling for a change of direction". The joint press release says that Unite wants to see "a move ttowards an agenda which suoorts working people" yet supports a man who wants to press on with public sector "reforms" and the essentials of New Labour's neo-liberal programme.

It says it want to see "a halt to private sector involvement in public services" and NHS cuts, so the blindingly obvious thing to do was support the author of the government's privatisation programme!

It is difficult to see this as anything other than opportunism on the part of Woodley and Simpson. Perhaps they think by supporting Brown they can gain some influence over him. But to union members who are facing the consequences of the government's programme it will look like Turkeys voting for Christmas. In taking such a position they have once again placed the interests of the link with Labour above the interests of their members, and they have let off the hook all those union sponsored MPs who lined up to support Brown.

Interviewed on Radio 4 on their support for Brown, Woodley managed to avoid answering the question about the lack of evidence of any change of direction by him. The Trade Union leaders are going to plead with 'Gordon', of course, more in hope than expectation. The consequence of that will be that he treats them with the contempt that they deserve.

Zodiac

2007-05-19T19:49:00.000+01:00

Due to experiencing a bout of LP Leader/Deputy Leadership fatigue that has bordered onto the melancholic I decided to cheer myself up and lift my spirits by going to the cinema. So I saw the film Zodiac which is about a serial killer who was active in northern California during the late 1960s/early 1970s. Cheery indeed.

Actually, it was a very good film that deserves the positive reviews it has received. It's directed by David Fincher and frankly, he is back on form.

Unlike Seven which was high stylised with its blue/silvery hues that gave a dramatic chiaroscuro effect, dankness, drabness and the only time natural light is used at right at the end, Zodiac is grainy and gritty. Fincher is explicit in his attention to detail it has a 1970s feel to it.

A young man and woman are shot while sitting in their car. The man survived. A young couple are having a picnic by a lake when they are attacked by a masked man. The man survived. A cab driver is shot dead in his car.

The San Francisco Chronicle received a letter pertaining to be from the killer written in code calling himself "Zodiac". Some of the cyphers were cracked, others not. Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) a cartoonist and journalist Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jnr) follow the story and become dogged in tracking down this elusive killer. The cop on the case Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) is also determined to find the faceless killer. It is an exercise in obsession and the human cost.

The three work in very different ways but their dedication borders onto obsession especially Robert Graysmith who is utterly sidetracked by the case that his partner eventually leaves him taking their kids. But you get the feeling he doesn't really notice or care.

Avery spirals into alcoholism and drug addiction (not too much of a stretch for Downey Jnr) and leaves journalism while Toschi worked for years on the case. What is also depicted is the blunders made in the investigation, lack of communication and precious behaviour between police departments. Graysmith who was alway fascinated by the cyphers but was in the background at the Chronicle was brought into the forefront of the case by Avery. He took it up as own personal investigation when Avery and Toschi dropped it. Gyllenhaal conveys quite convincingly a man on a quest who lets it take over his life and cuts everyone else out of his life even when killer seemingly invades his life.

What I liked about this film was that it put the spotlight firmly onto these characters and how it impacted on their lives. Thankfully there's none of the usual cod psychobabble about what "makes" a serial killer, instead it revolves around physical evidence though they do originally involve a shrink played by Brian Cox.

Even when the years go by evidence degrades, memories are not as sharp, people move on, and the case goes "cold" but that didn't stop Graysmith who seems stuck in the past. He needs to know who it is, "I need to stand there, look him in the eye and I need to know that it's him". A suspect looms large in the film but it is based on circumstantial evidence.

The film's timeline is from 1969-1991. Graysmith's book "Zodiac" was published around the early 1990s (film is based on it).

The acting is realistic. All the characters are believable and all three main actors are good. The women in their lives are firmly in the background with the exception of Graysmith's partner, Melanie (Chloe Sevigny) and we don't get very rounded characterisations of these women. Gyllenhaal does oddly distracted well (Donnie Darko), Downey Jnr is believable at playing a journalist losing it and Ruffalo as the hardened cop who gives up. There is not the usual standard Hollywood denouement where all loose ends tied up into a nice neat bow. Instead the ending is left open as that corresponds to the real life events.

The film is 2hrs and 30 mins but it was engrossing, well written and accuracy impressive (though I am sure the eagle eyed will have spotted some mistake). The soundtrack is good as well and part of that timeline.

NB: What did have me in mass hysterics was watching a trailer for Die Hard 4.0 where a botox knackered looking Bruce Willis is saving the USA from the Bad Guys. Yippee-ki-yah!

Ken Livingston backs Cruddas

2007-05-19T18:32:00.000+01:00

.
Ken Livingstone has declared his support for Jon Cruddas to be Deputy Leader of the Labour party, praising the Dagenham MP's position against "Britain being saddled with the immense cost of developing a new generation of nuclear weapons".The London mayor also commended his stance on domestic issues including combating poverty, fighting racism, expressing support for better public transport and trade union links.

"I am delighted to give him my full support," Livingstone said. "He will be a fresh voice helping to renew Labour at this important time."

"Jon Cruddas has impressed me with his thoughtfulness and tenacity and I very much hope that Labour members will back him to become the next deputy leader of the party," he added.

Unite, the 'superunion' created by the merger of the T&G and Amicus, is the largest Labour Party affiliate with 1.39 millions members who will have a vote in the contest. It has announced it believes Jon Cruddas to be the best deputy leader candidate of the six, and will urge members to vote for him.

Joint general secretary Derek Simpson said: "Jon Cruddas' stated policies mirror our members' desire for better job security, decent pensions, affordable housing and public services provided by the public sector.

"Jon is unlike any other candidate standing for the deputy leadership - he alone is calling for a change of direction in order to reconnect with the Labour Party's core supporters."

Unite said it wanted a government agenda focused on supporting working people, a halt to private sector involvement in public services, an end to NHS cuts and improved rights for agency workers.

And it said it wanted to work towards 'Warwick 2', a successor to the 2004 deal between the government and the unions over labour policy and trade union law. (Although the fact that the original Warwick agreement has still not been implemented by the government may be of more relevance!)

Meanwhile it seems that the GMB and UNISON may well back Peter Hain. This is the feeling I am getting talking to officers of the GMB, and is due to the ill-advised remarks attributed to Jon Cruddas about reducing the union block vote at conference from 50% to 33%. I say attributed to Jon Cuddas, becasue I have not been able to find any original article or source where Jon Cruddas actually says this

Pensioner poverty

2007-05-18T12:05:00.000+01:00

Up to 1.6 million eligible pensioners are still not in receipt of pension credit, therefore £2.1billion is left unclaimed. Take-up of Housing and Council Tax benefits are also declining. And I am sure Gordon Brown is laughing all the way to No. 10 thinking of the savings and inviting his private equity pals around for drinkies.

One of the many reasons for the lack of take-up is probably due to the bureaucratic, unhelpful and complex nature of the benefits system. There’s also a lack of information, support and encouragement. Therefore this becomes a massive obstacle and disincentive for pensioners to apply or indeed anyone else who is entitled to benefits. And what is worse pension credit and many other benefits are means tested.

With the current attacks on welfare there has been the stoking of the flames perpetuated by New Labour with negative stereotypes of claimants ("feckless poor") and this will have a severe impact as it will scare, distress and ultimately deter people from applying for benefits they have every right to claim.

New Labour tackling poverty? Who are they trying to kid...

Tories versus New Labour: the ideological differences

2007-05-18T00:00:00.000+01:00

John Hutton was putting forward his proposals for welfare reform yesterday at the CBI Public Forum. CBI boss Richard Lambert who only recently was arguing that private equity is jolly fine idea:

"Private equity offers a new and compelling business model for the 21st century, free from some of the burdensome restraints of publicly-owned companies. It generates real benefits for the UK in terms of jobs, leaner and more efficient businesses, and wealth creation.”

Well, he should tell that to workers at AA, for instance......

But back to Hutton's proposals which are wedded in this idea of “rights and responsibilities”. This should be known as “guff speak” because it is meaningless spin. By creating incentives for companies getting claimants back into work, this will expose the increasing emphasis on how marketable we are for employment.

Even though Hutton warns companies from cherry picking the easier claimants it will be inevitable that they will indulge in “park and cream”, which means they will “park” people they consider hard to get into work while “creaming” off the profits of those will they consider easy to get into a job. Hardly treating people equally or responding to the needs of the claimants, is it? It will be also a complicated process as well.

But now we have Gordon Brown as LP leader who will push through reforms of the public services with further marketisation and privatisation, is he any better or worse than David Cameron? I would argue there is a distinct ideological difference between New Labour and the Tories. New Labour thinks that the working class can be integrated into corporate capitalist projects by using the state. The buzz phrase is the "enabling state". i.e. proposals about citizenship, for example.

Tories see the state retreating to a role of safeguarding property rights especially against the working class and those oppressed and marginalised by corporate capitalism (a kind of night- watchman state). Otherwise they view state activity and public spending as a fetter on capital accumulation. Low taxes and provision of the cheap and exploited labour and defending the rights of the bourgeoisie as a class.

The two ideologies can merge into one and distinction can be blurred but there is a significant difference. The Tories will accelerate and turbo charge their attacks for one thing. They don't have the contradictions and the pressure New Labour do and again the Tories have the interests of their own class to think about and supporting the poor isn't one of its goals.

I am not saying that New Labour are any better but they are an enemy with a fundamentally different approach than the Tories.

Ding dong: the bigot is dead

2007-05-17T12:41:00.000+01:00

The fire and brimstone reactionary bigoted misogynistic homophobic American nasty, Jerry Falwell, has fallen off the perch. Good riddance, says I. He was the founder of the Moral Majority who famously quipped that, "God is a Republican"

Gee and I thought God is a DJ and life is dance floor (well, according to the singer Pink).

One less fire and brimestone reactionary but there are still plenty alive to choose from. Ian Paisley being one.....

A crushing defeat.

2007-05-17T09:19:00.000+01:00

The next Prime Minister’s campaign manager, Jack Straw has said: "We are delighted that the party is uniting behind Gordon and giving him such overwhelming support."

Overwhelming indeed, with 308 MPs nominating him, and the speaker and deputy speaker of the house probably would have done, parliamentary convention prevented them.

MPs nominating Brown included fairly frequent left rebels like Bob Marshall-Andrews, and centre left rebel Kate Hoey nominated no-one.

Any sensible electoral strategy against Brown would have sought to split the centre away from the hard Brownite/Blairite right. But instead the hard left ran a campaign aimed only at their existing core constituency – an approach that was always unlikely to get sufficient MPs nominations.

In truth of course, there were few other options, as since the death of Robin Cook there was no credible electoral candidate for the centre left. Further evidence of the way the right in the party has structurally and irreversibly underpinned its dominance.

There was some truth in Michael Meacher’s rationale for putting himself forward on the basis that McDonnell could never get sufficient MP nominations, but he was in no better position. Indeed his policy platform was almost indistinguishable from McDonnell’s, and there are other issues that undermine his credibility with some activists.

Could the defeat for the hard left have been any more overwhelming? They have failed to achieve a contest, with a crushing majority of MPs rejecting them, and the right attracting the votes of even the soft left. This is an utter rejection of the Labour Left, even more remarkable after ten years of PFI, privatisation, inadequate pensions, imperial war, growing inequality and a terrible housing crisis.

McDonnell failed to achieve the support of any major union, and on the NEC, when a motion was moved to reduce the required number of nominations only two members voted for it. Even two of the left’s own members on the NEC voted against it. Indeed the apparently high votes of the left for the Grassroots Alliance for the NEC are shown to be illusory, because Anne Black who appears in their list is actually a right wing Brownite!

The Labour left need to seriously consider what their strategy is now. Strangley the last issue of labour Left Briefing before the leadership election was declared had no discussion of what they should do after the McDonnell campaign.

Part of the difficultly is that within the Labour Party the ideological victory of the right is almost total, that there is no alternative to neo-liberalism, privatisation and deregulation. What is more the constitutional changes in the party and reduced powers for local government make it very hard for the left to influence policy or debate or build a base.

The aspects of hope is that the Labour Party may have irrevocably been won for the right, but the political views of its electoral base have not followed and are now to the left of it. And the unions articulate political opposition to PFI, private equity and inequality.

We need to turn the tide of politics and rebuild ideological and practical opposition to the market. It is therefore vital that we work with our strengths and encourage the unions in finding their political voice.

John McDonnell: Another world is possible

2007-05-16T22:11:00.000+01:00

As it looks more and more likely that McDonnell won’t get the nominations to get on the ballot form due to a gutless tightly whipped PLP who won’t think for themselves, and also the high threshold makes it increasingly unobtainable.

A coronation ensues for one Gordon Brown therefore democracy has been bumped off by mass toadying by the PLP.

But hey, as they say, it aint over till it’s over.

Looking at Gordon Brown’s website. His priorities include:

Britain number one for education
An NHS that earns the trust of patients and staff
More affordable housing
Every child the best start in life
Stronger, safer, more cohesive communities
Tackling climate change
Better work-life balance
The challenge of terrorism and security

That makes eight priorities: are there priorities between the priorities. More to the point how is Brown going to achieve these goals and what do they represent? What is meant by “every child having the best start in life”? As poverty increases among working age people Brown will have workfare and lifelong debt waiting for these children. That’s assuming they do not get asbo’ed and sent to prison.

What of the future? Part of the problem is the Left is so fragmented. In the LP, we need a Campaign group that works together much more cohesively and orientates towards the activist base in the unions as well, with a counter whip if necessary. We also need people to emerge from their democratic centralist shells and to push forward struggles in as united a way as possible, whether the struggles are inside either wing of the labour movement or outside in campaigning organisations. We also need a clear ideological account of what the Left is and how to fight neo-liberalism.

Finally John McDonnell has proved himself as a leader of the Left who can open up political room for the Left to put forward its ideas. There is an opportunity still to build on what has been achieved.

Socialist Film Club

2007-05-16T14:21:00.000+01:00

.
Having a regular socialist film night has proven very useful to the left in Swindon, not only as a sociable way of keeping comrades in touch and generating some discussion, but it has also allowed us to organise joint events with other organisations, such as the Climate Change Action Network, Stop the War Coalition or even animal welfare activists, where out interests coincide.

We are just planning our programme for the next six months, and these are the films we have chosen.

it is often difficult thinking of films to show, especially as some very good films are only avialable in Region 1 format (USA) and the pub we show them in doesn't have a licence to show region 1 films. if you have any suggestions for future movies we would be very pleased, especially short documentaries by activists.

11th June - Commissar
Made in 1967 but banned in Russia for the next two decades for depicting anti-semitism, Askoldov's only film as a director is a beautiful, poignant meditation on war, religion, childhood and human nature. In it, pregnant Red Army commissar Klavdia Vavilova stays with an impoverished Jewish family during the 1917-22 civil war.

9th July - Ghosts
Famed documentary filmmaker Nick Broomfield's second feature film is a dramatisation of the events in which 21 Chinese illegal immigrants were drowned whilst fishing for cockles off the South East coast in February 2004. The title refers to the term the Chinese use to describe white westerners, but it equally applies to the legions of poorly paid, non-British workers who provide for British restaurants and supermarkets.

13th August - Battle of Algiers
Powerful, dispassionate account of the Algerian war of Independence which generated huge political and aesthetic ripples. With its gripping documentary-style realism providing a very believable immediacy, it’s a compelling indictment of colonialism. Aided by Morricone's score it's a film that grabs you by the scruff of the neck and doesn't let go. Could be 1957, could be 2003, 2004... 2007

10th September - North Country
A fictionalized account of the first major successful sexual harassment case in the United States -- Jenson vs. Eveleth Mines, where a woman who endured a range of abuse while working as a miner filed and won the landmark 1984 lawsuit.

8th October - Venezuela - Journey with the Revolution
A journey into the heart of the Venezuelan revolution. Meet the midwives, nurses, doctors, housewives, teachers, gay and disability activists, who are transforming Venezuela. Visit health clinics, soup kitchens, land committees,education and micro-credit programmes… The excitement of the revolution is contagious. If you want to find out what a revolution is, this is the film for you.

12th November - Iluminados por el fuego
A wonderful Argentinian film, directed by Tristán Bauer and loosely based on the real experiences of some young Argentinian soldiers that fought in the 1982 Falklands war. A deeply moving and poignant story

Our Sufferings in this Land

2007-05-16T13:08:00.000+01:00

.
On Monday our regular socialist film night in Swindon was lucky enough to be visited by Ed Hill from Bristol, who introduced his documentary Our sufferings in this land , which is currently DVD of the month for This Week in Palestine.
I have known Ed since we were both active in the anti-poll tax campaign in Bristol. I am pleased that we had 18 people there to watch the film, and it generated some good discussion, as well as practical suggestions for supporting the palestinians.

I have to say that as someone who has visited the West bank myself, this film is the best account I have seen for revealing the day to day oppression of Palestinians, and is also full of practical advice for activists. It doesn't assume any prior knowledge of the history or the current situation, but neither is it patronising. I strongly recommend that you buy a copy, and once you have watched it pass it round your friends.

In autumn 2005, Ed visited Palestine on a two-week olive harvest trip organised by Zaytoun (the U.K. cooperative that imports Palestinian olive oil) and the International Women’s Peace Service.

As well as visiting Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the group stayed in two small rural towns in the West Bank working with the farmers harvesting their olives. Ed also visited the northern town of Tulkarem to deliver money raised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign - Bristol to an orphanage there.

Using a pocket video camera, Ed has recorded his experiences and his film aims to present a complete understanding of the history, politics, geography, and culture of Palestine. It dramatically explains the construction of the Separation Wall, the checkpoints, the Apartheid system of passes, separate road networks, the continual military oppression and the creeping ethnic-cleansing, together with the spirited culture and resistance of a brave people.

Through interviews with farmers, teachers, activists, and ordinary people, woven together with the story of the trip, Ed presents an understanding of Palestine as a case-study which unlocks an understanding of world politics and the hypocrisy of politicians and the bias of the daily media. He encourages everyone to visit Palestine and his conclusion is that one cannot rely on anyone else for solutions - everyone has the power to make a difference.

This documentary film is a valuable resource in exposing Israel’s daily suffocation of the Palestinian people, and is an excellent tool in opening the eyes of those who are not aware of the suffering that the Palestinian people endure on a daily basis.

The DVD is available for purchase online at the film director’s website .

Pakistan - the mass movement spreads

2007-05-15T16:05:00.000+01:00

On the foot steps of advocates, till the end of dictatorship
By: Farooq Tariq

On 8th March 2007, no one in Pakistan would have thought of mass movement erupting in near future that with a potential to overthrow general Mushraf regime. A day later on 9th March, he suspended the chief justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan. He had the illusion that nothing would happen and business as usual would go on. He had done it in the past successfully.

But it was different this time. Immediately after the suspension, the 80,000 strong advocates’ community started agitation against the decision.

The peak of this agitation was on 14th May 2007. For the first time since General Musharaf took over the power in October 1999, whole Pakistan shut down. It was the first political strike in seven years. It was also the first political action that was not initiated by the religious fundamentalist forces.

On 14 May, Pakistan was united against military dictatorship and gangsters of MQM, (United National Movement) a linguistic party sharing power along with General Musharaf. From Karachi to Peshawar , all the shops were closed and there was a very thin traffic on the streets. In Lahore, the largest ever demonstration since 9th March took place from Lahore High Court to Governor House on the main Mall Road. Over 15000 participated.

The strike was a solid one and even traders associated with the military regime went on strike. A great anger was expressed against the killing of over 40 political activists who went to the reception of chief justice Iftikhar Mohammed Choudry on 12 May in Karachi . Over 200 were injured by the direct firing of the thugs of MQM who had announced that they will not tolerate the reception in Karachi .

“ Karachi is ours and we would not like the political parties to politicize the issue of chief justice” was declared by Farooq Sattar, the parliamentary head of MQM a day earlier. Karachi is in the control of this neo fascist organization that based itself on the immigrants of 1947 who speaks Urdu language. They control the local bodies and almost all the provincial and national seats from the largest city of Pakistan .

The 12 May saw some of the worst incidents of direct killings of innocent citizens and political activists from different opposition parties in Karachi . All the roads linkined to Shahrai Faisal, the main road to airport was blocked by massive containers and trucks. The purpose was to stop people coming to the main road for welcome.

Although there was hundreds of Labour Party Pakistan activists present in different routs to airport, fortunately, none of them was injured or killed. They were bringing the injured one to hospitals. Several buses load of LPP activists were snatched by the gangsters of MQM and they dragged the activists inside with their guns on their heads.

“I am at Awami Markaz hiding behind a pillar of the bridge, firing is going on from different sides, next to me are lying five person full of blood, they have been hit by bullets, there is no ambulance to take them to hospital, I am crying all the time, I can not help the injured one, and I may be hit as well” Azra Perveen, a Labour Party Pakistan activist told me on telephone on 12th May at 2pm. We tried to send the media and some ambulances, but no one was ready to go that place. It was only after two hours that the injured were rushed to hospital.

Sadly, three of them died later. Azra is in a state of shock for the last three days. She has seen the blood every where.

A private TV channel Aaj tried to show live the firing by the gangsters. So the semi fascist groups came there and fired at the TV channel building for over six hours.

The local police and rangers had given a free hand to “deal” with the opposition. The chief justice was blocked at the Karachi airport alongside with 25 advocates. They were held for nine hours at the airport. The state authorities wanted him to go by helicopter to Sind High Court building to address the Sind High Court Bar Association. This was to avoid the reception of the people outside on the main roads. He refused to go by this way.

While they stopped the chief justice at the airport, the private army of the MQM opened fire on all those who came in processions to receive and welcome the chief justice. Thus a firing drama lasted for over 14 hours, resulting deaths of over 40 till mid night.

After the incidents of 12th May, the MQM is neither united nor national. They are many resigning from MQM in Punjab and Karachi is not united anymore for MQM after nearly two decades.

The same night on 12th May, the conservative Muslim League Q had planned a “mass” rally in Islamabad in support of the sacking of chief justice. Muslim League is in power with General Musharaf. This was a rally planned weeks earlier to counter the growing sympathies for the chief justice and a growing demand of an end of the military regime.

All the state employees were asked to attend the rally. All the sanitary workers were forced to attend. The Muslim League had promised to give Rupees two to five hundred ($3.5 to $8.5) for every one who attends this “historic” rally with free mineral water and food. They are regular complaints printed for the last two days in the national media about ignoring the promises of such kind. Despite all the efforts, not more than 20,000 were in the rally. It was not a rally but a festival chance for many to see Islamabad .

Addressing this rally general Musharaf praised the MQM by saying that people of Karachi has come out today. Yes, they came out to be hit by bullets of the supporters of General Musharraf.

It all went against the regime. Their rally in Islamabad was a failure. Their strategy to stop the reception of chief justice resulted in bloodshed. They lost the support among the middle class, the traditional support for the military regime and MQM. The representatives of over 480 markets of Lahore announced and acted upon the call for a shutter down strike on 12th May. It was mainly announced by the former supporters of the Musharaff regime.

The movement of the advocates had started by the bar associations across Pakistan after 9th March 2007. The advocates historically have been in the forefront of every democratic struggle in Pakistan . They were the main force behind the movement against General Auyb Khan dictatorship in the sixties; they were also responsible for keeping the movement alive during General Zia dictatorship in the eighties.
Some of them have been cooperating with the military regime of general Musharaff. Some of them had illusions of the nature of the regime. They thought it might be a progressive military regime. But all that is gone with the wind.

The movement has developed from no where to every where. It is every where. People are talking about it. They are very angry about the bloodshed. They have all seen it on the TV by the live coverage of competing private tv channels. Mostly they have mobile phones that have helped to get the immediate information.

There has been numerous hunger strike camps, protest camps, small and big demonstrations mainly by the advocates during the first sixty days of the movement. The movement was built up slow but steadily. The consistency in the protests by the advocates convinced many ordinary Pakistanis to give attention to the movement.
The movement to end the military regime in Pakistan is in its second phase of repression. The first phase of repression was to suppress the advocates in the first week of the movement just after 9th March. Many advocates were beaten up by police and many were arrested. That did not work.

Then regime strategy was to exhaust the movement by opening up. They allowed the demonstrations to take place freely. That brought more people in the movement including the activists of political parties mainly Muslim league (Nawaz) Peoples Party, parties associated with Awami jamhoori Tehreek, the left alliance including Labour Party Pakistan, Awami National Party, National Party, Baluchistan National Party, MMA, the religious alliance and so on.

The second phase of repression has started from 4th May. This time it was mainly against the political activists. I was also detained for three days by Lahore police from 4th May to 7th May. This was to prevent the political activists arranging the reception of chief justice while he was due in Lahore on 5th May to address the Lahore High Court Bar Association. He reached Lahore from Islamabad in 25 hours instead of normal five hours. This was due to the massive turn out on the main GT road to welcome the chief justice.

Labour Party Pakistan saw the potential of the movement just after 9th March. It became part of the movement from the very beginning. Its poster “on the footsteps of the advocates till the end of dictatorship” was most hit poster among the advocates. It has printed leaflets in thousands to distribute among the communities appealing them to join the movement. It has organized public meetings and rallies to bring people part of the movement.

Who is this chief justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan who has initiated the movement? The chief justice Iftikhar Choudry was no exception than the other judges who has helped this regime to sustain. But in his two years of office, he took many sue motto notices of ordinary Pakistanis who were subject to human rights violations. He particularly helped the women victims of rape and conservative reactionary customary practices that make women half of man.

He also took notices of the irregularities of the privatization process of Pakistan Steel Mills in Karachi . He in fact stopped the privatization of this massive industrial unit of Pakistan . On the other hand, he has also given decisions against the trade union rights and so on and he has banned some strikes of the public sector.

So he was not a worthy hero of ordinary people of Pakistan , but some one who helps some times. He earned respect when he refused to resign on 9th March, when he was called at the Army House by general Musharaf in the presence of five military generals. The military generals’ immediately removed him from the post and put him under house arrest. This resulted in an absolute anger among the advocates who termed this act as an attack on the judiciary.

The movement is gaining momentum among the masses day by day. This is because of the implementation of neo liberal agenda at a faster speed. The privatization, the deregulation, the so-called free market policies meant an upsurge of the prices of every day use at a level never seen before. People were fed up of the regime but had no trust on the main political parties. So they were angry but not part of the movement.

The religious fundamentalists MMA who had the street power used this to gain more and more concessions from the regime including power in North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and sharing power in another province Balushistan. But they had come out to save the regime when ever it was in trouble.

Now the religious fundamentalist are trailing behind the advocate’s movement, in the hope to hijack the movement. They have lent their support to the advocate but that are not trust worthy. They can any time go along the military regime.

So is the Pakistan People Party. Benazir Bhutto admitted last month that it is in contact with the military regime and they are ready to share power with General Musharaf as president. This sparked a great anger among the advocates who are mainly led by supporters of PPP. But the deal of the PPP is washed away in the heat of the movement. Benazir does not say any more that she is willing to share power with General Musharaf.

The movement of the advocates is led by mainly young generation. It is their first experience and they are up to the mark. They do not act upon the advices of the seniors to go slow. That is the strength of the movement.

How and when Mushraf will step down, who will take over, will it be another general to hold general elections or a transitional government of some alliances, these are some of the question discussed in the movement. One thing is absolute sure that Musharaf is weaker to an extent never seen before. He can not last long as he had planned. Many have started counting the days. He is general on his last legs.

For further background see Lal Khan's article

GMB & UNISON act together on leadership

2007-05-15T15:57:00.000+01:00

Representatives of the political committees of UNISON and the GMB met in London today to consider the leadership and deputy leadership of the Labour Party.

Following the meeting Dave Prentis, General Secretary of UNISON, and Paul Kenny, General Secretary of the GMB, issued the following joint statement:

“The two unions, who between us represent almost 35% of the trade union vote in the electoral college, have agreed to co-ordinate the activities of both our unions around the election.

Both unions will also make nominations/ recommendations to our Labour Party affiliated members who will have a vote in this election.

Both unions will now draw up a list of issues that we will use to assess candidates covering privatisation, equal pay, employment rights, the NHS, public service workers pay and pensions.

Both unions will push for a new direction to enable the Labour Party to reconnect with the electorate to ensure that it can win a fourth successive general election victory.”

Germany - further advance for united left

2007-05-15T13:04:00.000+01:00

.

Debates in Britain about whether the Labour party has fundamentally changed its character can be a bit parochial. The interesting thing is that there is European wide phenomenon of the formerly social democratic parties wholeheartedly adopting neo-liberalism, and a space is opening for parties to the left of them.

The election results in Bremen last weekend were of historical significance. The Left party (Die Linke) won 23189 votes (8.4%) and for the first time gained representation in a regional parliament (Landestag) outside of the regions that comprised the former Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR). The German result also throws, light on the relationship between the left and the Greens, and how a successful hard left challenge can squeeze out the fascist vote.

Die Linke is currently a coalition between the WASG, (led by former SPD leader Oskar Lafontaine, and comprising social activists and trade unionists mainly in the West), and the PDS (the left social democratic party that has evolved out of the former ruling SED in the DDR, led by former dissident lawyer Gregor Gysi)

Currently Die Linke have 53 MPs in the federal parliament (pictured above) having won three seats under first past the post at the last election, and 50 more on the top up list. (Interestingly, given how controversial the issue of reserved seats for women has been for some on the British left, Die Linke has 26 women MPs)

Up till now their electoral support has mainly been in the East, the breakthrough in Bremen is therefore highly significant.

In five weeks time the two parties will formerly merge into one, and as Lafontaine says “Such a good result even before the merger is a certain sign that a united left can achieve more than either the former PDS or WASG can alone.”

Oskar Lafontaine is a most significant figure, with no obvious comparison in British terms. Imagine someone with John Prescott’s position in the government and the party, but with Tony Benn’s politics and reputation for personal integrity. So his split from the SPD was a major event.

Greor Gysi is clear that not only has the SPD changed its character, but this is a European wide phenomenon. “The Left Party is an important correcting factor in society. There are parties to the left of social democracy playing such a role in the whole of Europe. Our emergence make Germany normal. The SPD has become anti-social democratic. The unemployed and low paid (Prekariat) need a voice. There must be a left party that says, yes, we will not allow the weakest in society to be forgotten”

According to Linksruck, the SWP’s sister organisation in Germany, opinions polls showed that for most people in Bremen (69%), Die Linke was seen as the party that put social justice as its first priority, compared to 39% for the Greens and 36% for the SPD. In Bremen the SPD were in coalition with thr Tories of the CDU, and Die Linke seem to have taken most votes from the SPD, but significantly they also took votes from the fascist DVU.

Linksruck also includes a detailed break down of the vote, that is very interesting:

The overall left vote was 8.4%, but they were underrepresentred among women (7%) and first time voters (7%), and their strongest support came from the 45-59 year olds (13%). There is therefore opportunity for improvement with young and women voters, but significantly the age group that as most influence in the unions is well represented, and they have significnat votes from the age group who can remember the DDR.

Apparently the Greens vote went up to 16.%, their best ever result in a Landestag (regional parliament), representing a challenge to the left, and most new Green voters turned to them becasue of the environemental issue, particularly climate change.

But as Linksruck observes this actually represents a strategic oportunity for the left. Although the Greens are identified with combatting climate change, in Germany at least, they are also indentified with using market mechanisms to acheive that. In Berlin-Brandenburg the Greens have been clearly in favour of privatisation, and have engaged in red-baiting. Unlike the Green party in England and Wales, Die Gruene are a generally centre-right party.

If the left can develop over the next few years an anti-capitalist politics of ecological and economic sustainabilty then they can replace the Greens.

John McDonnell will be taking on Brown....

2007-05-14T19:32:00.000+01:00

The waiting has finally ended... Step forward John McDonnell. Thankfully Michael Meacher stepped down in favour of John. The media is making comments like, "hardly a household name", "just who is John McDonnell"? Well, unsuprising really but I have to say that I am very pleased John has got this far.

I saw John speak at the hustings at Labour Against the War and he was much more impressive than Michael Meacher. McDonnell at least talked about his vision for uniting the left over his campaign and to bring LP activists together while Meacher rattled off a shopping list of proposals. McDonnell was voted for unanimously. He has also got Tribune and Unison (Scotland) supporting him and by all accounts he did well debating at the Fabian Society last night.

To be honest, it will be hard work to get the nominations but fingers crossed. I will continue to support the campaign and hope comrades will do as well. At least this campaign highlights the Left, left -wing ideas and the bringing together of activists. And debate and discussion back into the public domain.

There was coverage of the Deputy Leadership contest as well on the news with bits on Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears ("she bores me to tears"..). Interestingly, there was a bit on Jon Cruddas and emphasis on his trade union backing..

I am off now to get drunk and to raise a toast to John McDonnell (well, that's my excuse)!

The Scottish Patient

2007-05-14T18:11:00.000+01:00

Having made the film version of the book the English Patient, should we make anything of Anthony Minghella making a film that shows Gordon Brown in a blindingly good light? The Scottish Patient, like the English Patient, tells the story of a man who has suffered horrible burn injuries (Blair happily fanned the flames, but the last embers are going out).

Will Minghella’s Scottish Patient make it through to the other side? I was of the opinion that Brown was a dead cert for PM. That was, however, before learning that Mumbles "Jack" Straw is Brown’s campaign manager. Now my money’s on McDonnell, possibly even Meacher, to beat Straw’s man.

I haven’t seen Minghella’s film, but I would hazard a guess that the Scottish Patient shamelessly makes political capital retelling the death of one child and the illness of another. All of which reminds me of the title of one of Chesterton’s five Father Brown novels: “The Scandal of Father Brown”. And with Straw as "campaign manager" another Chesterton title comes to mind: "The Innocence of Father Brown", having unfortunately not written one entitled "The Complete Lunacy of Father Brown".

Crucial battle in Royal Mail

2007-05-14T16:59:00.000+01:00

.
The Communication Workers Union (CWU)’s executive is balloting all members for strike action. If it goes ahead this would be the first national postal strike in a decade.

Interesting questions are raised by the build up to this dispute relating to New Labour's economic neo-liberalism, the failure of the unions to oppose this ideologically, and a new direction in the SWP's industrial policy.

Deputy General Secretary Dave Ward has said “Royal Mail has abandoned our agreed approach in favour of a short sighted Business Plan that amounts to a cost cutting frenzy, reductions in pay and a defeatist attitude towards competition. This Business Plan is designed to fail and demonstrates a real lack of vision by the people running the company”.

The agreed approach that Dave Ward is referring to is “Shaping the Future” by which the CWU agreed a shared framework with Royal Mail for dealing with the impact of competition and automation.

According to the CWU’s account: “a centre piece of the agreement was Royal Mail’s commitment to negotiate change, whilst focusing on higher basic pay and permanently raising the value and status of jobs by April 2007.”

Yet now, according to the CWU: “Royal Mail’s business plan will result in 40,000 job losses, attacks on pension arrangements, closures of mail centres and delivery offices and a reduction in pay for postal workers to ‘the market rate’. It will also result in a reduction and decrease in quality of service for the public. Royal Mail claim that postal workers are overpaid by 30%.”

The union is absolutely right to stand up to management, and should be actively campaigning for a YES vote for a strike.

But there is a need for serious questioning of the CWU’s approach, and how they have ended up where they are.

So-called “liberalisation”, opening up the publicly owned Royal Mail to competition, was introduced in January 2006, as a result of EU legislation, but the free market zealots of New Labour decided to deregulate three years earlier than competitor countries. The response to this from the CWU was revealing. Billy Hayes complained “We all know that postal liberalisation is coming, but the CWU cannot understand why a British regulator [has placed] the nation’s postal service at a competitive disadvantage” (emphasis added)

All along the CWU has accepted that liberalisation and competition could not be opposed, and therefore even if Royal Mail does stay in the public sector, it will be subject to market pressure. So it will be run as a business not as a public service.

Despite “Shaping the Future” being hailed as a landmark agreement by the CWU, literally before the deal had even been approved by the membership, the Royal Mail management were imposing changes in work practices outwith the agreement, in pursuit of profitability. So why did the CWU recommend acceptance?

The Executive Committee of the union had instructed the union’s leadership to ballot the members for a national strike, and John Farnham, a Postal Exec member claims that the unions leadership failed to carry out the instructions of the EC. This was a very serious situation, but in fact there was no seriousness about a fight at the top and all but one member of the EC voted to accept “Shaping the Future”, including two members who are involved in the SWP’s Post Worker publication. The SWP’s Jane Loftus failed to attend the EC on the crucial day.

According to one of Post Worker’s supporters on the exec, Norman Candy, the EC were aware that the mood of postal workers was up for a fight, but they conceded the strategic arguments over competition and profitability, in exchange for some debatable tactical gains over pay. As a Socialist Worker leaflet correctly explained, management had retreated slightly on pay, but the other "gains" were simply to allow the CWU to continue to organise as before, and an efficiency agreement that might bring more take home pay, but at the expense of jobs.

It seems remarkable then that the CWU exec approved it, and there is some talk that Billy Hayes had shaken hands on a deal with a government minister even before the EC met, which was why the ballot never happened.

But the real issue here is that the CWU needed to take a political stance against liberalisation, and demand that Royal mail continues to run as a public service. This is a long haul argument, but is one that the RMT has effectively mounted over renationalisation of the railways. The advantage is the not only can we start to turn the tide over the political idea there is no alternative to the market, but it would make the workforce more confident and inspired to defend themselves. It is never a good way to fight, to first concede that your opponent is correct in principle!

The role of the left in the union also needs to be examined. The SWP led publication Post Worker (PDF) took no position on the vital vote over “Shaping the Future”. Instead of a clear recommendation for a NO vote, Post Worker published a “debate”, giving most space to NEC members Norman Candy and John Farnan arguing in favour of acceptance.

In the face of the EC recommending acceptance, and no clear opposition coming from anywhere, not a single Royal Mail office voted against the deal.

The rationale behind the SWP’s “Rank and File” papers is that they bring together militants who are prepared to organise independently from the official union machine if needs be. Of course there is always a tension in that any genuinely independent grassroots group may disagree with the position of the SWP – as it did here. The SWP did oppose “Shaping the Future”. But there were several grassroots activists who wanted Post Worker to come out with a clear NO recommendation, and it seems the SWP stepped back from this because it would have meant breaking from theie supporters on the EC.

Over questions of tactics there is room for compromise and manoeuvre. But Post Worker should not have compromised on a question of strategy and principle and no ground should have been given to the idea of profitability and opening up Royal Mail to competition. If they had to break with some of their non-SWP supporters, then so be it. In actual fact, this seems a decisive break with the historical industrial policy of the SWP – but according to the reports of the SWP’s last conference, the industrial section heard no debate about this, although Socialist Worker did report how a postal worker has set up an anti-war groups at his sorting office!!

So the current dispute is a consequence of management pursuing profitability, which the CWU has already conceded in principle. Last year the issue was a bit abstract, and many posties may not have realised how “Shaping the Future” was going to affect them. This time around the issue is not abstract, it is a concrete and immediate threat to jobs, pay and conditions.

The CWU needs to work for the biggest possible vote for a strike, and the left in the CWU needs to consider how to raise the issue of opposing in principle the operation of the market.

This is a chance for the CWU, and the left in the CWU, to recover ground they lost last year.

More islamist attacks on Indonesian left

2007-05-14T14:00:00.000+01:00

Katarina Pujiastuti, international spokesperson of the Indonesian left party, PAPERNAS, has forwarded the following account of an attack by Islamists, this time also involving military personel.

There is currently a systematic campaign of intimidation against PAPERNAS by the islamists, seeking to stop the left party registering in time to participate in the next presidential election.

The last few days have also seen Islamists attack pro-democracy demonstrators and socialists in Pakistan, with deaths reported now at over 41.

"Around 50 members of Islam Defender Forum (FPI) arbitrarily burst into a house that is located in Jalan Walet 1, Tangerang-Banten, and a place where the conference of Banten Branch of The National Liberation Party of Unity (PAPERNAS) was taken place.

"On Monday morning, 13 May 2007, about 25 members of PAPERNAS Banten branch gathered in Lukman Hakim’s house to elect regional leadership. At 11.45 five intelligence visited the house and tell us to end the meeting due to possible attack from FPI. Police also took Lukman and Vivi to police resort.

"Knowing that the three pick-up car and the motorcycle convoying to the location, the conference was forced to be removed to other location. While some of the members guarded the houses. On their way to location they scream “end the communist”, “The communist are hiding in this village”

"Village-head tried to held-back FPI, but failed. In the house they met two of PAPERNAS members as well as Lukman’s wife and her 2 year-old daughter. They asked “where is everyone else? “

"Then they repressively entered the house and took picture of every corner of the house. When went out they talked and yield to the neighborhood who gathered surround the houses “must end communism”, “do not let them hide among us”

"It is clearly that there is coordination between the State-apparatus and the group. Firstly they have known earlier that there would be a possible attack from FPI but did not take any action to arrest them. State rather to protect the repressive group than to uphold the democracy. There is no single police appear in the location during FPI visit means police deliberately abandon the rights of citizen to have justice and protection.

"After returning from police resort, Lukman assembled the village-head and the neighborhood to inform what is really happening. There is no any objection on Papernas program and activity after hearing the overall explanation. Some of theme even said they clearly opposed such a repressive action, and ready to blocked them from doing repressive action.

"Military members were caught for attacking PAPERNAS office

"It is around 22pm Eko, Taufik, Iksan and Wira were in the National Liberation Party of Unity (PAPERNAS) office in Palu, Central Sulawesi. Suddenly a man called to Wira mobile phone ask to met in Campus. As he refused to mention his name, Wira refused to come. The man then said that he will come to the office.

"At 12.20 am two motorcycle parked right in front at the office. In ten minutes there are 5 other motorcycle. Few minutes later, more motorcycle gathered surround the office. Most of the man are well-built , short hair and wore boots. The neighboorhood even asked ” Will it be any catched, sir?” They did not replied and went direclty to the backside of PAPERNAS office office.

"Three people who were sitting in the motorcycle waved their hand to Papernas members who were sitting at terrace, and called ” hey, you come here”. Confused who was exactly to be called, Iksan replied, ” we better to talk here”

"Then they approached to PAPERNAS office. Seeing that three people approached eko went inside to get another chair and wira made a call. All of sudden they hit and kicked Iksan who stand allone in the terrace. Ikhsan run outside the office. But he met more people who swiftly swarm over him.

"Suddenly another man come from the right and back side of the office and swarmover wira and Eko. They took Ikhsan to STQ jalan Malabar. Because of this incident , Wira, Eko and Iksan are seriously injured and hospitalized. Police came to the location afterward and catched an attacker by tracing the mobile phone numbers. Pratu Makmur, a military members from Yonif 711 Rakastama unit is caught for involving in the attack."

St George as seen by Palestinian children

2007-05-14T11:29:00.000+01:00

.

The Leicester-Bethlehem friendship link recently organised a children’s art competition on the theme of St George and Al Khadar, to raise awareness of Palestine among the English children, and to give welcome contact with the outside world for the children of Palestine. You can see more of the pictures, and read more background here

In Palestinian tradition Saint George is often seen as one appearance of Al Khader, the mystical figure who also appears as an advisor to Musa (Moses) in the Qur'an Surah Al Kahf. In Palestine he symbolises Christian Muslim unity and shared Arabic culture.

It is interesting that the apartheid wall appears in so many of the pictures from the Palestinian children, they literally live in its shadow.

Meet the new Thatcher?

2007-05-14T10:42:00.000+01:00

.
According to Gordon Brown, the big problem with Thatcher is she didn’t go far enough in promoting private home ownership.

Gordon Brown speaking on Sunday AM: “A home-owning, asset-owning, wealth-owning democracy is what would be in the interests of our country because everybody would have a stake in the country. The problem is that even with the great ambitions of the 1950s or the 1980s, they did not succeed in widening the scope for home ownership to large numbers of people who want it”

So according to Brown, Thatcher failed becasue her great ambition of promoting home ownership during the 1980s, (acheived by banning councils from building new council houses, and forcing them to sell off their existing stock at a loss under "right to buy" legislation) was not ambitious enough.

How out of touch this is with the reality of the housing crisis for working people. House prices are so high that people simply cannot afford to buy, and many who do own their own houses struggle with huge debt. The answer is not promoting more home ownership, but a massive expansion of council housing, at affordable rents. It seems despite rumours circulating that Gordon Brown would increase council housing, in fact his priority is promoting even higher levels of private house ownership, and even more debt, with associated problems of stress and worry: expansion of social housing is mentioned only as an afterthought.

Assett owning is also code for share ownership. A clear sign that New Labour under Brown will be more of the same: PFI, privatisation, the rich getting richer and worship of the idea that greed is good.

Protest strike wave spreads across Pakistan

2007-05-13T14:54:00.000+01:00

.
The following report of a growing general strike is coming in from comrades in Pakistan. This follows the massacre if at least 34 pro-democracy protestors by armed thugs of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (Urdu speaking Islamist extremists), see reports below.

"Following a general strike call given by Awami Tahreek's (Peoples Movement) Central Leaders a complete shut down general strike is being observed in all major cities and small towns of Sindh ( Province Pakistan). The strike call was given by Awami Tahreek after the brutal murder of its central leader Nawaz Kanrani by MQM terrorists near Karachi Airport yesterday.

"According to KTN, Sindh TV and Aaj Tv reports general strike, sit-ins and protest rallies are carried out in different major cities and thousands of party workers of Awami Tahreek and its women and students wings (Sindhiani Tahreek and Sindhi Shagird Tahreek SST) and common citizens of Sindh have come on roads in different cities and towns of Sindh.

"According to TV reports complete shutter-down strike is being observed and rallies, marches and sit-ins have been arranged in cities and towns across Sindh.

"Thousands of Worker of Awami Tahreek and Sindhiani Tahreek with their RED & BLACK Flags marching in Hyderabad, Jacobabad, Larkana, Badin, Thatta and Dadu. More than 340 workers have been arrested in different parts of Sindh. According to KTN reports the City Police has just arrested 32 activists of SST (student wing) and Awami ahreek near Gul Centre Hyderabad.

"While addressing the rallies and marches the speakers said that the government was blatantly violating the fundamental rights and constitutional provisions and MQM (Ruling Party Mutahida Qomi Movement) has broken all its past records of brutality. They said under the directions of General Musharaf they are working for Emergency and Martial Law and deliberately the local police in front of armed terrorists was given only lathees. They said we salute the courage and firmness of Justice Iftikahr. They said Sindh and Federal Governments are responsible for this massacre of innocent Sindhis. Pakhtoons, Balochs and Punjabis and Supreme Court should take notice of this savage brutality as this entire episode has been planned by Mr. Musharaf, MQM and ML Q.

"According to sources, followed by the shameless attack on Aaj TV, MQM and Agencies once again have issued directions to Karachi based TV channels and Urdu media to not to cover General Strike News and Awami Tahreek Protest Day activities."

Eyewitness to massacres in Pakistan

2007-05-13T14:51:00.000+01:00

I have recieved the following eye-witness report of yesterday's massacre from the Labour Education Foundation (Pakistan)

"The whole population of Karachi was very enthusiastically waiting to make a historical reception of Chief justice of Pakistan on 12th May 2007. All major political parties, trade unions, civil society organizations and professional bodies had chalk out theirs plans to give rousing well come to the honorable guest .The vibrant mood of city was alarming for the ethnic organization who is very near and dear to General Musharaf and Company.

"They come to rescue their master through rein of terror which let loose on peoples of Karachi since 11th May night. They have started terrorizing and harassing activists of opposition parties and common citizens and forcing them not to attend the rallies in respect of the Chief Justice reception on 12th May.

"Just after the sun set on 11th May they started their ugly game with the all out support of Provincial and city government and army headed rangers. They took the control of all the roads and inter sections that lead toward the airport. They had started to snatch and scratch banners and posters and uproot the reception camps of different parties. The goons of ethnic party had made an attempt on life of Munier A malik, Lawyer of CJ and tried to kidnap Akhter Hussein Advocate, former president of Sindh High Court Bar Association from his home in Gulshan Iqbal area, just to spread panic in the city.

"They create an environment on fear all over the city and had made mid night knocked on the door of opponents and threaten them dire consequences if them did not follow them. They put hurdles on the roads; hundreds of buses laid on shahra Faisal, only road which connecting the city to the airport. All main points from where workers would reach the airport blocked by the trailers, big trucks and water tankers with punctured tyres. All these points where policed by the well-armed hardcore members of MQM along with army and rangers personnel. All the day they didn’t let the people towards the airport.

"The high command of MQM had ordered their workers to hijack hundreds of buses of Karachi University, NED engineering University, IBA, DOW medical College, Sindh Medical College on one hand and forcefully took away the buses of opponents and tortured them harshly. They attacked the Labour Party Pakistan workers with heavy firing at Awami Merkaz where three persons injured. After it the series of violence against the rallies participants converted into bloody war.

"They had started direct firing on thousands of participants of the rallies when they stared to reach near airport. The incidents of heavy firing with sophisticated weapons where reported and also seen by me at Awami Merkaz, Star Gate, Malir Halt, Natha Khan Goth, Drigh Road station, Goro Mandir Chowk, Nazimabad and near Baloch Colony bridge. The terrorists of MQM had torched the offices of “AAJ TV” and “Business Recorder” and put on fire scores of cars, motor cycles and other vehicles parked out side the office to show their rage on live coverage of terrorist activities of MQM.

"I visited Jinnah Hospital where I saw ten dead bodies and hundreds of injured at emergency. There are reports of 20 political workers’ death and more then 350 seriously injured till the filing of this writ up at 5.00pm, majority of dead and injured were ANP and ML (N) workers.

"Chief Justice is still stuck at airport, he refused to go with officials of governments and told them that he would go along with his hosts,the Sindh High Court bar Association. many lawyers are still missing, office bearers and more the 50 members of Malir Bar association were severely tortured by the MQM workers. The ten members including Zahoor Hussain Mehar, Voice president of Malir District bar association, who took refuge in Mosque, which was surrounded by the gang of terrorist, were rescued by the Labour Party Pakistan with the help of Asad But of HRCP.

"Situation is very much tense every where, city is in the grip of fear and uncertainty and ethnic tension is very high again. All democratic peace-loving forces come forward and fly high the flag of democracy, which is now become red with the blood of innocent workers. Today’s martyrs are heroes of democratic struggle, their blood will usher a new era of democracy, triumph just cause and ever lasting defeat of military dictators. "

Massacre in Pakistan - General Strike Monday!

2007-05-12T19:02:00.000+01:00

.

News is breaking through from comrades in Paksitan of a high level of government violence against democracy protestors. Appalling violence has been employed by the Mutahida Qomi Movement (MQM), (an islamist political party of Urdu speakers) supporting the military government of Musharraf. A least 30 people have been killed as right wing thugs attacked democracy protestors, shooting them dead.

Even Hospitals were attacked by armed government supporters. MQM gunmen firing at the hospital for about one hour from the roofs of adjoining buildings injuring some patients & several visitors. A hospital staff member said, "We were lying on the ground to avoid getting injured."

Sindhi and Punjabi Police Constables complained that they had only been issued with wooden trungeons (lathees) to deal with armed terrorists, saying to reporters: “This is a deliberate high level conspiracy”

Labour Party Pakistan (LPP) General Secretary, Farooq Tariq while holding Musharraf regime, Sindh government and MQM responsible for the killings in Karachi, has paid tributes to the political activists who laid their lives for the cause of democracy as well as independence of judiciary and valiantly faced the bullets.

He also announced to observe the Black day and appealed to the workers, trade unions and masses to observe a general strike on Monday. He said: ‘ The government and it’s political pet MQM have been hand in glove in perpetuating violence in order to derail the democracy movement further triggered by the dismissal of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’.

He demanded an immediate resignation of general Musharraf, Sindh governor and chief minister.

Farooq said hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy workers received Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on GT Road, dozens of rallies have been held by lawyers and activists all across the country since March 9 and nowhere even a stone was cast. ‘The blood is on the hands of federal as well as Sindh government and MQM leadership. A judicial inquiry should be conducted to probe the killings and culprits be brought to justice’, he demanded.

Paying tributes to the democracy martyrs, he said movements grow when watered by the blood of martyrs. He vowed to continue the democracy struggle on the platform of his party in collaboration with other democratic and progressive forces.

John McDonnell statement & interviews

2007-05-12T12:55:00.000+01:00

.

I publish above a brief clip of John McDonnell speaking to camera about why he is standing. If you double click on it and enter YouTube you can find a number of policy statements by John as well.

In a comment to the Michael Meacher interview below, a John McDonnell supporter challenged my claim that I couldn't find a John McDonnell interview on YouTube. So I am obliged to Owen Jones from John McDonnell’s campaign for sending a link to a longer interview from John. Watch it here

And here is the interview with John McDonnell on Thursday from the BBC:

Michael Meacher interviewed

2007-05-12T11:26:00.000+01:00

.

Another interesting interview, this time with centre-left leadership candidate, Michael Meacher.

Meacher actually comes over pretty well. He puts growing inequality as his highest priority, saying that he never expected there would be growing poverty alongide growing super wealth under a Labour government.

He also stresses the importance of the environment, and his opposition to PFI and privatisation, and the need for democratic renewal. He positions himself as representing the traditional Labour mainstream, rather than being the candidate of the left. In historical terms of course this is true.

He also addresses the issue of whether he is splitting the left constituency, and Meacher claims he is standing becasue he has a better chance of getting the necessary 44 nominations. In some ways he does have a point that McDonnell (as a hard left candidate) may not be best placed to attract votes from the centre of the party. Whether Meacher is better placed is another question.

Actually he does make a very interesting point about why a contest for leader is important in order to make Gordon Brown accountable, answering questions about why he is suitable, and what policies he will be following.

By the way, I notice that Lindis Percy, the brilliant peace campaigner, is supporting Michael.

Jon Cruddas interviewed

2007-05-12T11:00:00.000+01:00

.

Interesting interview with Jon Cruddas from Labour Home.

In particular he addresses the importance of the Deputy leader contest, not as a side show, but as an important arena for discussing ideas and policies.

Jon explains the importance of supporting the Agency workers bill, an important issue for the trade unions, and also the need for addressing the failure of the market in housing, including council housing.

He is quizzed about his past as a Blairite, and is not entirely convincing by saying that he hasn't changed his views, and the party has changed so his previously stance on the right has now become the left. This doesn't entirely ring true given he has moved to now oppose the Iraq war, his developed critique of New Labour as an electoral machine that inhibits progressive change, and his demands for a change of direction.

In policy terms Jon Cruddas does not represent a complete break with the failed policies of Blairism, for example he supports ID cards. However, he has led the opposition to University Top Up fees. He does dance around some issues, for example saying he isn't necessarily opposed to Academies, but saying he opposed one in his own constituency and believes there should be a level playing field, so that when local authorities refuse Academies they are not taken off of the capital building programme. (In effect this would kill the Academy priogramme stone dead, as local authorities only take them becasue they are not given choice).

It is important not to build Cruddas into something he is not. He is not a class struggle socialist - however he is arguing for a break with the policy agenda of New Labour, and for aligning policy towards delivering benefits for working people.

These are messages that the trade union movement should support, as part of articulating the political demands of organised labour. The main ideological oppostion to New labour is now coming from the trade unions, over PFI, over rights for agency workers, over Academies, over private equity.

In order to renew the political movement of the working class after the defeat of Blairism we need to take every opportunity to encourage the unions to develop their own political voice. Supportin JOn Cruddas is a good signal that under Gordon Brown, we want to see some changes.

FBU votes not to reaffiliate to Labour

2007-05-11T17:19:00.000+01:00

.
The Morning Star today reports that Firefighters union, The FBU, has voted overwhelmingly to remain disaffiliated from the Labour Party but pledged to return to the issue at next year's conference after "the widest possible debate and discussion."

FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said at their annual conference that it would be "premature to reaffiliate now. Rather, we ask for a period of discussion in which all sides can put their view. "Through engaging in such discussions, our membership will be more prepared to make an informed decision," he said. Mr Wrack claimed that disaffiliation has not "excluded us from the corridors of power and has not been as cataclysmic as some expected. We are still engaged in the political arena.

"Our relationship with FBU parliamentary chair John McDonnell operates on a number of levels and he has done outstanding work for this union. Our activists avidly read his parliamentary reports, especially on the trade union freedom Bill.

"And disaffiliation has not stopped us being involved in the campaign for a progressive Labour Party leader - the executive council has voted unanimously to support the McDonnell campaign," he reported.

Strathclyde delegate Jimmy Scott said that "our rulebook states that our ultimate goal is to bring about the socialist system of society. How are we furthering that goal by being affiliated to a party which has demonised refugees who are fleeing from countries that Britain has bombed?

"If we are to bring Labour back from the brink, we need to stand up and declare proudly and unashamedly that we are socialists," Mr Scott said.

Britain's biggest union backs Cruddas

2007-05-11T17:09:00.000+01:00

.
Britain’s largest union, UNITE, has pledged support for Jon Cruddas in his campaign to be deputy leader of the Labour Party. I believe that Ed Blisset, influential London regional secretary of the GMB is supporting Cruddas, the GMB as a whole will decide at Congress in June. Tribune has also voted to support Jon Cruddas.

As I have argued all along: The union leaders want influence, and also want a change of direction. They will reason that backing Brown keeps them close to him, and they could maximise pressure on the new PM by backing a deputy leader closer to the unions’ agenda. As has been shown at the last two party conferences, the union leaders are very disciplined (or spineless, depending on your perspective) at sticking to their own agenda, and not supporting left initiatives over Iraq, etc. Cruddas himself has a good prospect of being not the “left candidate” but the “unions’ candidate”, in the same way that Callaghan was for leader. I think those union leaders wanting to pull Labour towards their own agenda may back Brown and Cruddas.

So why does Cruddas suit the union leaders' agenda? It seems many on the left have missed the fundamental dynamic. The Labour Party has institutionally embedded neo-liberalism into its DNA, yet this places the Parliamentary Labour Party in a prolonged structural antagonism with the Party’s base of support within the Trade Unions. Triangulation also means that Labour Policies are not engaged with the priorities of working class voters in safe seats, which leads to apathy, disengagement and even some voting for the BNP.

Despite his background as a Blairite, Cruddas does understand this dynamic, and has spoken against it. In his epilogue to the Rowntree Trust’s report on the far right Cruddas wrote: “The originality of New Labour lies in the method by which policy is not deductively produced from a series of core economic or philosophical assumptions or even a body of ideas, but rather, is scientifically constructed out of the preferences and prejudices of the swing voter in the swing seat. It is a brilliant political movement whose primary objective is to reproduce itself – to achieve this it must dominate the politics of Middle England. The government is not a coalition of traditions and interests who initiate policy and debate; rather it is a power elite whose modus operandi is the retention of power. … … At root the gearing of the electoral system empties out opportunities for a radical policy agenda. On the one hand, policy is constructed on the basis of scientific analysis of the preferences of key voters; on the other, difficult issues and the prejudices of the swing voter are neutralised. Labour have become efficient at winning elections and being in government yet within a calibrated politics where tenure is inversely proportionate to change. As a politician for what is regarded as a safe working class seat the implications of this political calibration are immense. The system acts at the expense of communities like these – arguably those most in need. The science of key seat organisation and policy formation acts as a barrier to a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change.”

Get that: “a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change” It doesn’t matter whether or not Cruddas is sincere, or whether he will deliver. A vote for him is a vote for a change of direction from New Labour towards: “a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change”

The importance for the left is that it is the trade unions who are providing the main ideological opposition to neo-liberalism, against private equity, against PFI and in favour of immigrant rights. If the union leadserships and trade union branches and committees send a clear signal that they are opposed to the main thrust of Gordon Brown's agenda than that increases the chance of real opposition to the government.

Jon Cruddas on race, class and New Labour

2007-05-11T13:14:00.000+01:00

.

It was noticeable that Labour Party deputy leader candidate Jon Cruddas was almost the only politician to address the recent demonstration by immigrant workers in London, organised by the “Strangers into Citizens” campaign, that seeks to give a path to citizenship for those without legal immigration status.

On Jon’s website there is a very interesting essay that he recently published on the subject of migration.

It is a substantivce argument, and one worth reading in full. It is interesting that he attributes part of the success of the BNP to the fact that "New Labour has quite consciously removed class as an economic or political category."

The following are some extracts:

JON CRUDDAS WRITES:

Race, Class and Migration: Tackling the Far Right

Over the last few years, many of our communities have experienced extraordinary rates of change – primarily driven by mass migration, changing patterns in the demand for labour and the dynamics of the housing market. The policy issues thrown up by these forces have been diffi cult for the state to comprehend; not least because many of the people affected by the changes do not show up in the census and therefore do not exist for the purposes of public policy making.

Moreover, the communities undergoing these rapid demographic changes are often the most poorly equipped to do so, and maintain high levels of poverty, social immobility and poor public services. Poorer, low-cost housing areas, primarily in urban settings, are taking the strain in managing migration flows. The impact of migration on the labour and housing markets has triggered tensions and threatened community cohesion. In particular communities, the local population grows at a faster rate than the state's refinancing of public services, as decisions on funding are based on an out-of date formula for resource allocation.

Yet the configuration of the electoral system pushes politicians into dangerous territory when addressing race and migration. The preferences and the prejudices of the swing voter in the marginal constituency retain a disproportionate influence within our political system. As such, the modern politician seeks to neutralise – or triangulate around – difficult political terrain. There is no better example of this terrain than the current debates around race and demographic change.

Those negatively affected by migration perceive government efforts to tackle immigration as being woefully inadequate, as the issues which concern them are not sufficiently reported in the media and therefore are not commonly understood. This underreporting, combined with the strain placed on existing services by the recent expansion in migration, has led to disillusionment and caused voters to seek populist answers.

One of the key factors behind the emergence of the extreme right is this breach between the formal state perception of the borough and the day to day dynamics at work within the locality. The incremental investment in public services by the state on the basis of out of date population statistics cannot begin to deal with concerns that demographic change is occurring whilst resources are becoming scarcer.

Therefore, this has helped to form the perception that these changes are actually reducing the social wage. This perception could be expressed in terms of growing health inequalities, or reduced access to social housing or even declining hourly wage rates as the dynamic of migration triggers a race to the bottom of working conditions. As such, issues of resource allocation are seen by many as issues of race - which becomes the prism through which, for example, health, housing and wage inequalities are viewed. The most acute politicisation of resources concerns housing. Yet it is considered to be driven by race rather than systematic failure to provide low rent social housing units. It is here that the issue of working class disenfranchisement comes into play. New Labour has quite consciously removed class as an economic or political category.

It has specifically calibrated a science of political organisation – and indeed an ideology – to camp out in middle England with unarguable electoral successes. Yet the question remains as to whether the policy mix developed to dominate a specific part of the British electoral map actually compounds problems in other communities with different histories and contemporary economic and social profiles. It is not just about social housing, although this is the most concrete manifestation of the core problem. It is about the ability of the state to anticipate and invest in the poor urban communities that take the strain of rapid demographic change.

BBC poll - leadership contest

2007-05-11T12:56:00.000+01:00

Please take a moment to vote in the current BBC online poll about who should be the next leader of the Labour Party.

vote here

Gagging the truth: what the state don't want you to know about a cozy 'ickle chat between Bush and Blair....

2007-05-11T11:13:00.000+01:00

While the bourgeoisie were tearfully waving sayonara to Tony Blair, two men were sentenced to prison yesterday. Their crime is breaching the Official Secrets Act by disclosing minutes of a meeting between Bush and Blair over Iraq.

Dave Keogh, who worked in Whitehall’s communication centre, passed a four-page account of a meeting in the White House in April 2004 between Bush and Blair. He passed it to Leo O’Connor who gave it to his boss, Anthony Clarke MP.

The trial was heard in secret and the press were barred. The contents of the document were considered so sensitive that press could not report. Arguments used to shroud this trial in secrecy was that if the contents were made public then there would be a “substantial risk to national security”…

Now let’s look at that argument, the discussion took place in 2004. What were they discussing which would put “British lives at risk”? Would they be talking about exact troop deployments, radio frequencies or even military armour weaknesses? The level of discussion, I imagine, would be more likely be about policy in Iraq as opposed to operations. In April 2004 US troops were committing untold atrocities and devastating the city of Fallujah. And anyway, that was then and this is now. So, why keep it a big secret?

Keogh described the contents as “abhorrent” and “illegal”. These contents should be made public as this just smacks of further censorship, double standards and what really happened in Fallujah will remain a dirty big secret with the establishment peddling their own spin and lies.

If the contents amount to war crimes then the wrong two men were sentenced yesterday.

A judge has imposed a gagging order on the media BUT that doesn't include overseas press including the USA. So get surfing....