tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151713952024-03-07T06:40:28.534+00:00Martin WicksMartin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-90418157596138662642007-06-14T13:39:00.000+01:002007-06-14T13:40:07.460+01:00I have moved sitesI have moved to <a href="http://martinwicks.wordpress.com/">http://martinwicks.wordpress.com</a>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-87425471431499961082007-05-29T17:18:00.000+01:002007-05-29T17:33:32.194+01:00<span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Email to John McDonnell</strong></span><br /><span class="fullpost"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;">Dear John<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Real life is different. You said in your last blog posting, assessing your campaign:<br /><br />“More importantly the vast majority have expressed real determination to continue the campaign for socialist advance within and beyond our movement.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Fraternally<br /><br />Martin Wicks<br />Swindon</span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-61903113999177620732007-04-11T18:51:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:33:33.008+01:00<span class="fullpost"><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Private Equity – what response from the trades unions?<br /></strong></span><br />Until a few months ago ‘private equity’ meant little to anybody other than economists or investors. However, the prospect of take-overs by PE firms of major companies such as Sainsbury’s and Boots has prompted a discussion in the media about the nature of the private equity (PE) phenomenon and the implications for the economy overall. At the same time the GMB’s campaign highlighting the impact of private equity take-overs on workers has helped to put these companies on the defensive, protesting against being labeled as “asset strippers”. GMB members in the Automobile Association, Birds Eye, and National Car Parks, have all suffered high levels of job cuts, and intensification of work, contrasting with fantastic financial rewards for small numbers of managers.<br /><br />To show what reasonable people they are the British Venture Capitalists Association conceded in March that there was a ‘genuine recognition’ of a need for a greater level of disclosure in relation to PE-backed deals. The signatories to their initiative said they believed there would be ‘real benefit’ to all ‘stakeholders’ if a regime of more effective disclosure was introduced. Hence the BVCA has formed a working party under the chairmanship of Sir David Walker, a former chairman of the Securities and Investment Board, to draw up a voluntary code on a ‘comply or explain’ basis to address the transparency of the industry and levels of disclosure.<br /><br /><strong>Barbarians at the Gate</strong></span></span><br /><span class="fullpost"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></span><br /><span class="fullpost"><span style="font-family:arial;">PE is not a new phenomenon. In 1988 there was a great deal of publicity over the acquisition of Nabisco by a private equity company for $21 billion dollars. The event was the occasion for a book and a film: The Barbarians at the Gate. The growth of PE, however, suffered as a result of the dotcom collapse and there was little money put into the private equity market. Over the last few years, however, there has been a phenomenal increase in the scale of the PE market and the size of acquisitions. In the US for instance, in 2001 there were just three deals over $1 billion dollars and none over $10 billion. Yet in 2006 there were 57 deals over $1 billion and nine over $10 billion. The latest record acquisition was a $45 billion buy out of TXU, the Texan utility company.<br /><br />It is the scale of the growth in this market and the level of “leverage” (debt) used to make these acquisitions which has worried even supporters of ‘the market economy’. The Financial Services Authority report in November 2006 raised concerns as to the dangers of the level of debt associated with PE buy-outs, for the economy overall. In its assessment of the risks the FSA said:<br /><br />“We reached the view that it was actually pretty much inevitable that some of these private equity backed companies would actually go bust. The more debt that is inherent in a company, the more likely it is that any major change in interest rates, any major rise in interest rates, or change in the economic circumstances of the country, could actually cause that company to get into distress.”<br /><br />In particular the levels of “excessive leverage” associated with these deals gave the FSA cause for concern. </span></span><br /><span class="fullpost"><span style="font-family:arial;"><br />The big increase in the amount of credit associated with PE transactions, “may not in some circumstances be entirely prudent”, said the FSA with masterful understatement. So much so that “the default of a large private equity backed company or a cluster of smaller private equity back companies seems inevitable”. The FSA expressed concern that in “extreme circumstances” this would have negative implications for the financial stability of the UK economy. The amount traded may “substantially exceed” the amount of underlying assets.<br /><br />A common ratio for PE acquisitions is 20% equity (money raised directly by the company taking control) and 80% debt, borrowed from financial institutions. When a company is bought it is common for the new owners to take on additional debt to finance large dividends through “dividend recapitalization”, enabling them to very quickly recoup a large part of their initial investment. For example KKK, Carlyle and Providence paid themselves a $250 million dividend in October 2004 a month after putting $550 million into a $4.1 billion deal for PanAmSat Corporation. This is not productive investment in plant, machinery or infrastructure. It simply burdens a company with a debt which has only one purpose – to hand over money to the PE firm.<br /><br />Peter Rossman, Communications Director of the International Union of Foodworkers gave a briefing to a meeting of union sponsored MPs in the House of Commons, in which he said:<br /><br />“What this means in practice is that the real economy of goods and services has been subordinated to the competitive logic of global financial markets. Food companies, for instance, are no longer simply competing in yogurt, or carbonated drinks, or processed meats. They are competing on global financial markets to deliver the fastest and biggest possible rates of return to these new impatient, financial investors.”<br /><br />These methods lead to the saddling of acquired companies with massive debts which threaten to sink them. Permira (which took over the AA) bought the Germany chemical company Cognis in 2001 for $2.5 billion dollars, using only $450 million of their own money. In 2000, the company had an after-tax profit of €109 million. Despite rising sales last year it lost €136 million and has begun laying off workers. Yet Permira and Goldman Sachs have taken out €850 million.<br /><br />Across the Irish Channel Eircom, which was privatized in 1998 was acquired by PE consortium Valentia in 2001. Eircom paid for the loans by issuing bonds which raised its debt from 25% to 70% of the value of its assets. As a result capital expenditure by the company fell from €700 million in 2001 to €200 million in 2004, the decline undoubtedly related to the €400 million dividend it paid to Valentia.<br /><br />Ratings Agency Standard and Poor’s has said that PE funds that load take over targets with huge amounts of debt to pay management fees and dividends to investors, had contributed to a decline in the credit ratings of European companies. Their report announced that the amount of debt rated as “junk” (a rating which indicated a speculative investment with some risk of not getting repaid) rose to 17.2% in 2006 as compared with 1.2% 15 years previously. (It’s interesting to note that the proportion of junk-rated debt in the USA reached 50% at the end of last year.)<br /><br /><strong>Regime of Bullying</strong><br /><br />The consequence of this is that repayment of increased debt levels and dividend payments leads to increased pressure to drive down wages and cut staff. GMB members in the AA experienced this, a kind of employers’ class war regime, which led to 3,500 job cuts and a regime of bullying. The company utilized a scab ‘union’ led by a former GMB official, to derecognize the GMB.<br /><br />In Hull Birds Eye workers were made redundant when the company was taken over by a PE company.<br /><br />In the case of NCP (where strike action by GMB members recently won a recognition agreement), PE firm 3i was appointed by ‘venture capitalists’ Cinven (who acquired NCP in 2005) to run the on-street business which provides parking wardens, vehicle clamping and removal services to 31 local authorities. Staff are under great pressure to ‘perform’ by issuing a certain number of parking tickets every day. 3i sold NCP to Australian Bank Maquarie in a deal which produced a profit of £245 million in just 18 months!<br /><br />As Peter Rossman points out the impact of PE is not limited to the companies it acquires. “The funds have gotten so big that virtually every public listed company is now a take over target.” The response of stock market listed companies resisting a take over is usually to slash costs and staff numbers.<br /><br />“A pre-bid environment hangs over the economy as a whole, meaning short-termism is institutionalised, bringing more job cuts and more attacks on wages and working conditions and more attacks on trade union rights.”<br /><br />The PE industry insists that it creates value and creates jobs. However, they do not have to report in the way that listed companies do. So secretive are they that the Work Foundation, in preparing its recent report (</span><a href="http://www.theworkfoundation.com/Assets/PDFs/private_equity.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial;">http://www.theworkfoundation.com/Assets/PDFs/private_equity.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">) could not get a single private equity company to disclose information on job cuts in the companies they took over.<br /><br /><strong>Vulnerable to systemic shocks</strong></span><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The Work Foundation report confirms what Rossman says:<br /><br />“PE companies are highly vulnerable to systemic shocks and changes in interest rates due to the leverage model they employ. The exponential growth of PE in recent years exposes a greater proportion of the economy to these very real risks; the potential of greater instability exists as a result.”<br /><br />The FSA expresses concern about the impact of private equity on the ‘public’ markets. According to them PE firms raised more funds in the first half of 006 than firms listed on the stock market (£11 billion compared with £10.4 billion). The UK equity market capitalisation shrank by a net £46.9 billion in the first half of 006 and has not grown since the last quarter of 004, according to the FSA.<br /><br />Whilst the PE industry can point to some companies that have ‘grown the business’ they have taken over, even some of their supporters have said it is difficult to get an overall picture given the lack of transparency in the industry. The Work Foundation report underlines what is clearly a central feature, especially of “highly leveraged” deals: the level of exploitation of the work force is driven up and wages are depressed for the main body of the work force.<br /><br />So how should the unions respond to this growth of private equity and the ‘pre-bid environment’ which Peter Rossman refers to? Industrial action is an obvious component to defend the wages, jobs and conditions of service of their members. But government policy is a factor as well. The GMB is right to demand of Gordon Brown that he end tax concessions which encourage the take over of companies by PE outfits. Why should these companies be allowed to create debt solely to provide big up-front dividends for a small coterie of managers? Why should they be allowed to invest as little as 20% of their own money, saddling a company with what may well prove to be unsustainable debts? The amount of debt being used to fund these buyouts has increased from an average of seven times earnings (of the acquired company) to over nine times in 2006.<br /><br />According to the BCVA its members contributed only 5.4% of their revenues in tax for the year 2005-6. PE companies have been able to gain advantages via the tax-deductibility of interest simply by reason of the vast volumes of debt that they take on under their business model. Executives and partners in PE funds are able to gain a huge tax break by the treatment of their profits as capital gains rather than income. Compare this with the treatment of people who cannot receive many state benefits because they have the paltry sum of £16,000 or more savings!<br /><br /><strong>Pensions</strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The Work Foundation report further highlights a couple of important issues. Firstly pensions. Members of pension schemes “would be among the major losers if the PE train ever came off the rails”. It would be interesting to know how much money in PE acquisitions comes from pension funds. The trades unions should surely campaign against pension funds risking the money of their members in “highly leveraged” take-overs.<br /><br />The Work Foundation says there is “a major potential conflict of interest for company managers who can see a huge personal gain for agreeing to a highly leveraged take-over.” Such transactions should be open to public scrutiny, of course.<br /><br />They are certainly right to say:<br /><br />“It cannot be allowed that a large portion of the private sector is immune from proper public oversight – especially as the risk-exposure levels involved in private equity may pose potential risk to the wider financial system.”<br /><br /><strong>TUPE</strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Another issue they highlight relates to TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment). TUPE does not apply where undertakings are transferred through share purchases. We should obviously demand that TUPE should apply to these deals.<br /><br />More fundamentally, what does PE tell us about the economic system under which we live? PE appears to be a means of overcoming the historical decline in the rate of profit which occurred after the end of the post-war Bretton Woods system. It is part and parcel of an international system in which most of the money that is made is from gambling on the stock markets; over 90% of which activity is unrelated to production. Making money out of money is easier than making money out of producing and selling things. What seems to be relatively new about the growth of private equity is that these ‘venture capitalists’ or PE kings are prepared to saddle companies they acquire with unsustainable levels of debt for which the work force must pay the price, and service provision worsens.<br /><br />Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary, writing in the Financial Times called for rapid international action “to stop private equity providing mega-bucks for a few at the expense of the social contract that ensures at least stability and equity.” He complains that companies are treated simply as “collections of assets to be bought and sold, not as social institutions or long term wealth creators.” You have to ask, where has Brendan been for the last 20 years? Since when did ‘public’ companies place the social interests of their workers before what the Americans call the bottom line?<br /><br />The probable crash/crashes that the FSA believes inevitable may lead to a big collapse in the PE market. current PE mania is the product of an economic system in which ‘investment’ has been in large part detached from the productive economy. “Creative destruction” may well be, says Barber, “an inevitable part of the market economy”. Yet this ‘creative destruction’ actually destroys lives, impoverishes people, and ruthlessly exploits labour. Witness the ‘creative destruction’ of factories and the rush to China and other places where working conditions read like Engels writing on the condition of the English Working Classes in the 19th century.<br /><br />Brendan Barber says that the growth of PE is “a way of getting round the social contract at the heart of our market economies”. At the heart of ‘modern economies’ is “a balance between the undoubted prosperity which markets deliver and measures to protect against the instability and damage that they can also wreak. That is why we expect companies to pay tax, to be transparent in the way they operate and why we regulate markets to guard against stability.”<br /><br />What ‘social contract’ is this he’s talking about? It is a figment of Brendan’s imagination. He is well aware of the boasting of Brown and Blair about the low tax, light regulation regime that they have arranged, and the level of tax evasion by big corporations. PE is an extreme form of profiteering which is carried out at the expense of the workforce and the service provided.<br /><br />A reversal of the ‘light regulation’ regime would be a step in the right direction. However, instead of counter-posing the lack of transparency of PE with Public Limited Companies, the unions should be exposing the fact that PE is an extension of the globalised financial markets, the purpose of which is to make profit unrelated to productive economic activity. Instead of seeking to ‘make globalization work for everyone’ (an impossibility) we should be challenging ‘globalization’ which was not the result of some natural evolution, but of political policy and practical decisions designed to free capital from all social and political contro</span>l.</span><br /></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-70799699758799511352007-03-28T12:55:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:27:09.858+01:00<span class="fullpost"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"><strong>Home ownership falls</strong></span></span></span><br /><span class="fullpost"></span><br /><span class="fullpost">An interesting piece of news in the Guardian yesterday. Home ownership in England fell last year for the first time since 1953. There are 14.62 million owner occupied homes in 2006, 25,000 fewer than the previous year. There are 8.2 million mortgage holders.<br /><br />If many people are being ‘priced out of the market’, some people are doing alright; there was a rise of 71,000 in the number of those buying their home outright. Home ownership stands at 70%, below the peak in 2000 when it rose to 71%.<br /><br />David Stubbs from the University of the Bleedin’ Obvious (actually the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors), said that the key issue behind this was affordability. First time buyers are finding it harder to “get on the property ladder”. Since 1997 when the Reverend Blair moved into his new house (and started increasing his personal property portfolio) prices have increased by a staggering 11% a year. The problem has been exacerbated by the fact that “a strong buy-to-let sector is competing with first time buyers for property”.<br /><br />In another stunning use of deductive powers Mr Stubbs added that the first fall in overall ownership was probably partly driven by rising inequality of income in Britain.<br /><br />The figures undoudtedly also reflect the pressure that mortgage lenders are under. Mortgages today are based on five or more times the income of the mortgagee. Lenders are not too careful these days about checking the real income of individuals. This is the equivalent of what in the USA are called sub-prime mortgages (in which sector there is a crisis – 13% of borrowers are behind on their payments, and 30 of America’s sub-prime lenders have closed in the last 3 months); that is mortgages that people cannot really afford, and on which there is a good chance of default.<br /><br />News recently emerged of a mortgage being given to a 102 year old – a 25 year mortgage!<br /><br />This news probably indicates that home ownership has reached its limit. Moreover it underlines the need for a Council Housing building programme to address the housing crisis, something which the Blair government is ideologically opposed to. Since his government began in 1997 numbers on Council House waiting lists have increased by 1.5 million. However, need is undoubtedly much higher than that because many people will not have bothered to put their name on the list since they stand no chance of ever getting a home.<br /><br /><br /><br /> </span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-14414338965889519082007-02-19T19:03:00.000+00:002007-04-14T11:27:40.980+01:00<span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Living in the Ghetto?</strong></span><br /><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;">I did not realise it but I live in a ghetto. Will Hutton, that doyen of the English middle class ‘progressive’ liberals says so. It must be true. Even worse I inhabit a ‘living tomb’.<br /><br />“The truth is that council housing is a living tomb. You dare not give up the house because you might never get another, but staying is to be trapped in a ghetto of both place and mind.”<br /><br />The context of these wild assertions of Hutton is the debate sparked by the spate of teenage murders in South London and the UNICEF report which put Britain at the bottom of the ‘league’ for children’s well-being. Step forward Hutton for the prosecution. The cause of these social problems is, according to him, the Council housing estate.<br /><br />Curiously Hutton fails to even broach the question of why Council estates have ended up the way they have today, in contrast to what they were before Thatcher’s assault on them. If you visited a Council estate up to the 1970s you would have met a cross-section of working class life, from the engineering worker to the shop or office worker. Unemployment was very unusual then amongst tenants. This was a world in which people generally treated each other with respect. The degeneration of many estates dates from the time that Thatcher sought to launch her social engineering project. She wanted to undermine the electoral base of support for Labour which most council estates were. She introduced ‘the right to buy’, combined with an end to the building of new council houses. This was her 'property owning democracy' (as if you should not get a vote if you were not an owner).<br /><br />The result was that the better-off Council tenants bought their houses at give away prices. Councils were left with the worst stock. The only people who did not buy were those who were too poor to afford even the low prices offered and the small minority of people who refused on principle to buy their house because they considered it collective, socially owned property.<br /><br />In the absence of new housing being built, over time only the poorest people were left in Council housing, many with social problems. Hence something like 75% of tenants are eligible for benefit of one sort or another. To accumulate the points necessary to qualify for the decreasing number of units, applicants have to have large families, serious health problems, and/or serious levels of social deprivation. That is why there are 1.5 million people on Council housing waiting lists.<br /><br />Despite this, Hutton’s generalisation that Council estates are ghettos is too sweeping a generalisation. The area I live in has its problems but I do not feel like a prisoner and I do not want to be ‘freed’. It is a quiet area. It is certainly no Peckham. On the only occasion when somebody tried to rob our house in the past 23 years, they escaped only with a pair of gloves, evidently disgusted that they did not find a TV or a coin metre for gas or electric. The rumour that they left a £10 note because they felt sorry for us is only apocryphal.<br /><br />Hutton bemoans the fact that the “aspirations and expectations of the rest of society are not for you” if you live in a Council estate. On the contrary it is the “aspirations” which Thatcher encouraged and Blair views through the same prism as the “Iron Lady” in which resides the problem. Council housing was a collective solution to a social problem – poor and overcrowded private accommodation for those who could not afford to buy a house. Some of the post second world war council housing was neither well built nor well-planned. But for many of the generation of people who grew up before the Second World War, Council housing was a liberation. It provided them with cheap and decent accommodation in place of the poor and often unhealthy conditions that many working class people had to suffer. It did not have double-glazing or central heating but not much British housing did then.<br /><br />Hutton wants me and other tenants to be freed from a ‘living tomb’. For what; the privilege of having a mortgage that I cannot afford in order to fulfil the ‘aspiration’ of being a home owner? There is nothing natural in the desire to own a home, as many other European countries show. They do not share the seeming British infatuation with home ownership. Contrary to myth, such an aspiration is a social phenomenon which has been engineered.<br /><br />The Blair government’s contempt for Council housing and Council tenants is part and parcel of their abandonment of the collectivist outlook of the labour movement. It rests on the same prejudices as those of Thatcher who famously said there was no thing as society. The ‘aspirations’ which the Blairites worship are those of the self-interested individual who wants to ‘get on’ and is disinterested in the collective interests of working people. That is why for them any conception of a working class movement is completely alien.<br /><br />For the middle and upper classes housing became very much an ‘investment’ rather than a place to live. From the 1980’s the rocketing prices meant that small and large fortunes were made as people moved from house to house, to take advantage of the inflated values. But current unprecedented levels of debt are the inevitable product of these inflated values. Millions of people struggle month to month to earn enough money to pay mortgages which they cannot realistically afford, at least without working themselves into the ground. The banks used to lend individuals around two and a half times their wages for a mortgage. Today they lend five times or more. This is unsustainable. It causes stress and illness amongst wide swathes of the population.<br /><br />Many people who would previously have put their name on a Council house waiting list are today <em>forced</em> to take out a mortgage because they have no chance of getting council accommodation. In pre-Thatcher times there was no social stigma to living in a Council house. Today you are seen as a ‘failure’ if you live in Council accommodation. That is partly because the absence of new building means that less people live in them. For many people their view of Council estates is produced by what they read in the newspapers or see on the TV. If Hutton wants to visit this one he might recognise that his vision of a ‘tomb’ is preposterous.<br /><br />He might also consider this question. Why if life is so uniformly appalling on Council estates have we seen the repeated experience of Council tenants voting against having their housings sold off, rejecting the propaganda of the government that breaking the link with a Council landlord will remarkably transform their lives? It is not because they love their Council. They often have problems with bureaucratic structures. It is because they fear private landlords or ‘not for profit’ Housing Associations, because of historical and more recent experience.<br /><br />Hutton offers one ‘controversial option’, repeating the idea which Ruth Kelly has floated, allowing tenants to own ‘a fraction of the value of their home’. Ten per cent was the figure that Kelly suggested. This is presented as ‘the first step on the housing ladder’. Currently you can ‘buy’ as little as 25% of your home.<br /><br />If up to 75% of tenants are on benefit how are they going to afford to pay a part-mortgage, on top of their rent. What would the motivation be? How could it be a first step when the chances are that even if the individuals concerned are working, often in part-time work, they are going to be earning low wages. As one mortgage broker quoted in the Observer says:<br /><br />“You have to ask whether someone who can only afford a 10% stake should be getting on the property ladder in the first place. The whole point is that you increase your stake over time, with the aim that you eventually own the property outright. That is a struggle if you initially buy a 25% stake; it is near impossible with a 10% stake.”<br /><br />The housing crisis in Britain results from the lack of what is called ‘affordable housing’. The ‘market’ so beloved of Blair will not deliver housing which low income families can afford to buy. For Kelly to propose a 10% stake in Council housing is remarkably stupid. Moreover, if you live in a ‘ghetto’ why would you buy 10% of your house? The government has failed to address the lack of ‘affordable housing’ because of its ideological prejudice against Council housing. Why does a government for whom ‘choice’ is a mantra deny Councils the right to invest directly in Council housing even when tenants have rejected government policy and voted to stay with their Council landlord? I suspect that to a large extent this is because if there was a major Council house building programme embarked upon this would tend to drag the price of private houses down because there would be less pressure on people to take out a mortgage.<br /><br />Thanks Will and Ruth, but I don’t want to own 10% of my Council house; nor 100% for that matter. When I shuttle off this mortal coil I know that somebody who <em>needs</em> it (that’s different to demand in the market – human needs as opposed to the ability to pay) will become the new tenant. Indeed I have a friend who could afford to buy a house and decided to buy one because he and his partner thought they earned too much to justify living in a Council flat. So instead of earning a fast buck by buying it from the Council at a give-away price, they did the right thing and gave it back to the Council to put in a new tenant who <em>needed</em> it. They put this principle above their personal interests, a sentiment which is unimaginable for Blairites.<br /><br />Like my friend I consider this house as social property which was not built to enrich individuals but as public provision in response to social need. That’s why I would not buy in on principle even though it would be in my interest to do so, if I was solely self-interested. Ironically, if Will were to wander around our estate, he would see that quite a few of the worst houses were one’s bought under ‘the right to buy’. It was too good an offer for some to refuse. It was cheaper to buy than to pay the rent. Yet many tenants did not think it through. They did not think about the cost of the upkeep of their house, of the cost of repairs, never mind the cost of modernisation.<br /><br />That was what Thatcher wanted – tenants to see them selves as individuals with no other consideration than their personal interests. One of the founding tenets of Blairism was that the Labour Party had been wrong to oppose ‘the right to buy’. Blair consciously transformed Labour into the Party of the aspiring individual.<br /><br />Hutton finishes his piece by saying that it is not ‘British civilisation that ails’. It is British Council estates. “We made them. Now we need to unmake them.” This is a staggering summation, for Hutton appears to have forgotten even some of the things which he himself has written. Council housing was not responsible for mass unemployment. It was not responsible for the worship of success, of the encouragement of naked self-interest. It was not responsible for the Blair government copying their beloved American economic and social template.<br /><br />What is needed is not the destruction of Council housing but investment in it; investment in social facilities. The partial atomisation of the working class, which was conscious policy on the part of Thatcher, produced social conditions whereby sections of the poorest within society war against each other rather than seeing that their collective interests require building a labour movement which defends those interests. Individuals can ‘get on’; some can escape from their ‘ghetto’. Yet as America has shown, the free market solutions which are worshipped at the shrine of Blair (and Brown) allow individual success but cannot disguise the reality that in a competition of each against all, for each successful individual there any many more who are thrown into an impoverished existence, both materially and culturally. That is what the labour movement was formed to address. Addressing the social problems which Hutton refers to requires collective solutions, of which Council housing is one. We can discuss its weaknesses on the basis of experience, the need for greater tenant involvement and so on, but Hutton’s ‘solution’ is nothing more than a variant on the Thatcher/Blair outlook. It is out of the camp of rampant individualism, where everybody survives by their individual initiative, often at the expense of others.</span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-2092492273780158322007-01-17T15:35:00.000+00:002007-04-14T11:29:54.032+01:00<span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Blair’s government declares: the right to strike is not a ‘fundamental social right’!</strong></span><br /><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><p><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;">The British government has declared that strike action is not a ‘fundamental social right’. The government, represented by QC David Anderson (on January 11th) was giving evidence in the European Court of Justice in relation to strike action by Swedish trades unionists when the company Laval brought in Latvian workers to build a school in the Swedish town of Vaxholm. Laval is claiming that the union broke European law. The action was against paying Latvian wages rather than Swedish union negotiated rates for the work.<br /><br />Also currently before the court is a case brought by Finnish company Viking Line against the International Transport Workers Federation. The case related to the <em>threat</em> by Finnish workers to strike when the company tried to register a liner in Estonia to take advantage of 60% lower wage costs. They were defending the wage rate for the job (negotiated by the Finnish Seamen’s Union) irrespective of the national origins of the crew. As it happened strike action did not take place.<br /><br />In August 2004 Viking applied to the UK Commercial Court in London for an order to stop the ITF and the FSU from taking any action to prevent the re-flagging of the Rosella on the grounds that it would hinder their 'fundamental right of establishment and freedom to provide services'. Whereas the Commercial Court considered that the proposed action of the ITF and the FSU were contrary to European law, the UK Court of Appeal, in a judgement given on 3 November 2005, decided that the case raised important and difficult questions of European law and subsequently referred it to the European Court of Justice (see below). The judgement of the ECJ will become part of European law and apply to all EU members.<br /><br />Hence these cases will potentially determine whether businesses can relocate to take advantage of cheap Eastern European labour without the threat of strike action, and whether EU law overrides national laws protecting workers from exploitation. Countries such as Finland, Denmark and Sweden have constitutional protection for trade union rights. A ruling in favour of Viking or Laval would mean EU law overriding domestic laws.<br /><br />This would have disastrous implications for trades unions, effectively opening the way to using migrant labour at the rate for the home rather than the host country. This issue was a major source of dispute in the EU Services Directive which originally included the right to employ foreign labour at ‘country of origin’ wage rates rather than at the union negotiated rates in the country where the work was taking place.<br /><br />Of the 15 countries making submissions to the European Court, the UK was <em>the only one</em> to state that strike action is not a fundamental social right. In effect the government is supporting the ‘right’ of employment of cheaper foreign labour to undermine trades unions. It is also supporting the ‘principle’ that free movement of labour is a more important right than the right of workers to withdraw their labour in order to defend their wages and conditions of work. This is nothing other than ‘free market fundamentalism’ of the worst kind. Perhaps Blair had this in mind when speaking of the ‘shared values’ which Britain is supposed to have in common with the United States.<br /><br />Every Labour MP, especially those sponsored by the unions, should be put on the spot over this issue, with the demand that they express oppose the government's psoition. Any sponsored MP who refuses to support the unions in relation to such a fundamental issue should have their support stopped by Labour affiliated unions.<br /><br /><strong>The ECJ will address the following questions:<br /></strong><br />· Should Member State ‘social models’ and labour law as determined in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity be made subject to the economic freedoms of the EC Treaty (Articles 43 & 49) i.e. in this case the Finnish constitutional right of workers and their organisations to negotiate collective agreements at an appropriate level of pay and to take industrial action in cases of conflict?<br /><br />· What should determine the balance between guaranteeing economic freedoms (Title III) on the one hand and fundamental rights (Title XI & Charter of Fundamental Rights) on the other?<br /><br />· Should the ECJ be the arbiter on matters of industrial action, expanding the EU's sphere of competence in this area and potentially impinging on national sovereignty?<br /><br />· Should all industrial action that has the effect of restricting the freedom of movement be justified by trade unions before the courts, and ultimately before the ECJ?</span></p>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1163587709494369732006-11-15T10:44:00.000+00:002006-11-15T10:55:18.330+00:00<strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">National Shop Stewards Network</span></strong><br /><em></em><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">A national meeting called by the RMT attended by 250 union reps has agreed to launch a 'National Shop Stewards Network'.<span class="fullpost"> </span><br /></span><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;">At a national meeting organised by the RMT and supported by major unions including the TGWU, PCS, FBU, UCU and NUJ, it was decided to organise a delegate conference next year to launch a ‘National Shop Stewards Network’. A steering committee of 10 people was elected to organise it.<br /><br />Bob Crow in his introduction said that the organisation of workplace reps had always been a barometer of the general health of the trade union movement.<br /><br />“If we are to roll back the tide of privatisation and war…rebuilding the grassroots of the movement is an essential part of that process.”<br /><br />Barry Camfield for the TGWU said:<br /><br />“We need to change the centre of gravity towards shop floor reps if we are to create the conditions for change.”<br /><br />Paul Mackney for the University & Colleges Union spoke about the need to rebuild a ‘cadre’ of workplace activists.<br /><br />A statement drafted by the RMT was agreed. It said:<br /><br />“We recognise that our ability to protect and advance these values (workers rights, solidarity, equality and unity) and to achieve our shared goals – such as the implementation of the Trade Union Freedom Bill – will be assisted by the development of the broadest possible unity of grassroots trade union activity at the workplace and between workplaces.”<br /><br />The title ‘shop stewards network’ was shorthand for workplace reps; these could obviously include health & safety and other reps. So the Network would be comprised of workplace reps from TUC affiliated unions. Whilst full-time officials could participate they would only have observer status, with speaking rights.<br /><br />The aims of the Network would be:<br /><br />To offer support to TUC affiliated unions in their campaigns and industrial disputes;<br />To offer support to existing workplace reps and Trades Councils.<br /><br />Obviously this is only a framework. To the extent that such a body developed it would determine and develop its agenda.<br /><br />Such a Network could be an important development in the light of the crisis facing the unions. Aside from the loss of 5 million trade union members, the decline in workplace organisation has been steep. Despite ‘organising’ efforts there has yet to be a significant rise in union membership. This is not only as a result of a generation of defeats. It also results from the so-called ‘service model’ with its concentration on individual services, creating a culture of a passive membership with no understanding of their responsibility for building their own organisation.<br /><br />In many industries shop stewards have been trained in the methods of ‘social partnership’, identifying the interests of the workforce with market ‘success’ of ‘their’ company. This has meant that the drive for profitability and productivity has been seen as primary, and some unions have collaborated in the destruction of jobs.<br /><br />Aside from the obvious role of building support and solidarity, a Network could play a role a key role in developing a serious discussion about rebuilding workplace organisation. It could enable activists to exchange experience and to draw on positive organising efforts in other workplaces.<br /><br />Jeremy Dear, NUJ General Secretary, speaking at the meeting reported on the experience of NUJ members at the Daily Star. They managed to stop the production of an article entitled the ‘Daily Fatwa’, a supposedly satirical piece directed against Muslims. They took action completely outside the framework of existing employment legislation, a rare event these days, and they got away with it.<br /><br />Probably the only industry where the example of solidarity action has survived is the Royal Mail, where there is a tradition of refusing to touch mail coming from an area on strike. Challenging the anti-union laws, of course, depends on strong workplace organisation.<br /><br />The Network which is being proposed will obviously be built at the national level. But its success will depend upon the building of networks in towns and cities, on a cross union basis. Trades Councils could play an important role in this regard. They should be able to participate in it. They strive, albeit under difficult conditions, to build a labour movement in a locality rather than leaving isolated individual unions ploughing their own furrow. A connection to<br /><br />The rebuilding of the unions requires a different culture to the one that has dominated them since the Thatcher years: the building of an active membership which understands that the ‘service’ which a union provides depends upon the collective organisation of the membership on the ground. The role of the Network would include striving to develop a consciousness of the need for independent, fighting, and democratic unions, controlled at every level by the members.<br /><br />As Dave Chapple said, “we need a democratic grassroots movement that is not dominated by any single party.” The Network should be a framework for practical work rather than an arena for flowery speeches, in which organisations compete against each other.<br /><br />When John McDonnell spoke in Swindon recently he said that we were on the verge of losing what remains of the gains of the welfare state. The idea that in the face of such attacks, the neo-liberal Blair government can be persuaded to abandon its programme, is pure delusion. Only industrial action will have any impact on it. Yet there is no sign of an industrial response, for instance, in relation to the destruction of the NHS.<br /><br />Building a Network of reps can play an important role in creating conditions in which the government’s programme is answered by struggle instead of the pleading of trade union leaders.<br /><br /></span><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;"></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1159441320322464092006-09-28T11:53:00.001+01:002007-04-14T11:32:16.113+01:00<strong><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">Fact and Fiction - what's happened in the SSP?<br /></span></strong><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The Scottish Socialist Party was viewed by socialists in Britain and around the world as a success story. The election of six MSPs to the Scottish Parliament was a breakthrough, taking advantage of a partial PR electoral system. The SSP united virtually all the socialist currents on the left in Scotland in a single party; a rare event in a country where fractious and warring left of Labour organisations had long been the norm. The conditions for this unity were created through a number of years of common work, which helped to overcome old hostilities. But today, that unity lies in tatters. The SSP has been split. Tommy Sheridan launched his new movement on September 3rd: Solidarity – the Scottish Socialist Movement. This brings to an end what has been described as “the most successful socialist unity project in Europe”.<br /></span><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The split resulted from Sheridan’s court case against the ‘News of the World’. Whilst it was a ‘sex scandal’ case centred on reports in this disreputable rag, the SSP leadership was effectively ‘on trial’. Eleven leading figures were subpoenaed to give evidence on the discussion which had taken place in the Party. Leading figures in the SSP gave contradictory versions of events. When Tommy Sheridan sacked his lawyers and took charge of his case he questioned these people and accused them of fabricating evidence against him. They insisted that they were telling the truth, which centred on whether or not he admitted, in a meeting of the SSP’s Executive Committee in 2004, attending the infamous ‘swingers’ club’ in Manchester.<br /><br />Logically, if Sheridan was telling the truth, then the 11 leaders of the SSP were prepared to lie in court, inventing evidence to “fit him up”. If they were telling the truth, then Sheridan’s case was an incredibly reckless and cynical action which threatened to destroy the party he had played such a large part in building, in order to defend his “reputation”.<br /><br />When you have two sides to an argument, telling different versions of events, and you weren’t at the meeting in question how can you possibly know who is telling the truth? This was the dilemma of socialists outside of Scotland, witnessing the crisis played out in court. How can you chart a course through these murky waters? All you can do is to examine the facts as you find them.<br /><br />What do we know that is not in question? Firstly, Tommy Sheridan, against the advice of the Party leadership decided to take the News of the World to court on the grounds that stories it had published on his sex life were fabricated. Many people have said that his private life is nobody else’s business. This is naïve in the extreme. To imagine a prominent political figure, especially a socialist, can simply ignore the fact that they are under the microscope is not serious. If you are a political leader, or indeed a ‘celebrity’ in Britain, the press will do its best to bring you down in order to sell more papers with ‘sensational’ content. If you are a political leader of a party which professes to be different to the mainstream parties, then you have to be very careful indeed in your personal conduct, to do nothing which will compromise your political goals (open you up to the charge of hypocrisy, failing to live according to your professed values) or give the press a stick with which to beat you and your organisation. It’s the same as being a shop steward, though on a grander scale. You have to be a good worker and do nothing to compromise your position. The management will always seize on the slightest mistake; likewise with political leaders. Unfortunately we don’t live in France where, for example, the fact that Mitterand had a daughter outside of his marriage was not disclosed until after his death.<br /><br /><strong>Scrutiny of the state</strong><br /><br />Tommy’s decision to go to court would have been reckless, even if there was no truth whatsoever in any of the material published by the NOTW. Those old enough will remember that when Arthur Scargill was accused of using NUM money for his own benefit during the miners’ strike, he chose not to take the Mirror to court, though the charge against him was ‘corruption’ rather than relating to his personal life. Taking on the very rich media in the courts is not just a question of the potential cost, should you lose, but it opens up individuals and their organisations to the scrutiny of the state.<br /><br />Given the fact that Tommy Sheridan had resigned from his position as convenor, and this had been debated in the SSP, then the NOTW would inevitably examine what had taken place then. The court case was always likely to be disastrous for the SSP, whatever the outcome. When events are subject to dispute in a court case, all participants are open to the legal consequence of being charged with perjury. Tommy Sheridan’s decision to defend his “reputation” in court precipitated nothing less than a civil war in the SSP and its break-up. His “victory” by a 7 to 4 vote appeared to have vindicated him and given credence to his assertion that a “plot” involving at least 11 members of the leading body of the SSP had deliberately tried to frame him with fabricated evidence. Undoubtedly a majority of the jurors voted against the NOTW and its methods, including the payment of some witnesses, though, of course, none of the 11 SSP members.<br /><br />The evidence relating to proceedings in the SSP, fabricated or not, centred on the minutes of a meeting at which the question of how to deal with the stories in the News of the World was discussed. Minutes were taken at the Executive Committee meeting and were agreed as a true record at the following meeting. At no stage around this time did Tommy or anybody else contest the accuracy of the minutes. Subsequently the minute taker and the EC were accused of fabricating the content. But if the minutes did not exist, or were invented, why did supporters of Tommy propose a resolution calling for the minutes to be destroyed?<br /><br />One of the stories given credence by Tommy and his supporters was that a member of the leadership handed over the minutes, with a signed affidavit to the Herald. This was presented as a sign of the perfidy and unprincipled nature of Tommy’s opponents. The strange thing, however, is that there appear to be two copies of minutes, one of which, not in the hands of the Party, confirmed Tommy’s subsequent ‘denial’ of the club visits. This ‘version’ was ruled out of order in court. What is curious is why the Sunday Herald did not hand over its supposed copy of the minutes to the court. In fact it was the fake minutes sent in to the NOTW, apparently with initials of those present, which allowed the court to subpoena the EC members.<br /><br /><strong>Open Letter</strong><br /><br />In his Open Letter to members, issued to the mass media, Tommy talks about a ‘secret record’ of the EC meeting which was kept without his knowledge. This is blatantly untrue since not only was it proposed that the minutes be kept confidential, but the National Council voted to do so!<br /><br />It is ironic that those who Tommy has called “political scabs” were calling for defiance of the courts, on the grounds that the internal affairs of a workers’ organisation is none of their business. Indeed, his old friend Alan McCoombes was even prepared to go to prison to keep the minutes out of the court proceedings. Those now in the Sheridan camp were the ones who demanded the defiance be ended and that the minutes be handed over. Whilst Tommy talked of slurs from the “cabal”, the minutes indicate that he had admitted to attending a ‘swingers club’, and accepted he had been irresponsible, given the position he held in the Party.<br /><br />So what should those who were subpoenaed to attend court have done? One of the arguments for “supporting Tommy” has been that once he decided to go to court, even if you thought he was making a mistake, you had to support him or you were “supporting Murdoch”. However, those who told a different version of events to Tommy were not volunteering to go to court. They were obliged to go because Tommy brought the case, in the name of his personal ‘right’ to ignore the collective view. He was demanding that they give an untruthful account of events; that is to say, he was asking them to incriminate themselves, and open themselves up to perjury charges, should his assertions be exposed to be untrue at a later stage. Those who hoe the ‘Tommy or Murdoch’ line were asking the 11 to agree in court that Tommy was right, that they had been lieing about events at the EC. Were they to destroy their credibility as political activists in order to defend his?<br /><br />With SSP members being instructed to attend as witnesses, there could be no outcome other than somebody being deemed to be lying before the court. In order to defend what he deemed to be his “reputation” Tommy put members of the Party Executive Committee in an impossible position. They could either lie for him about the discussion on the EC, thereby condemning themselves, tell the truth (and be denounced as “scabs”) or refuse to give evidence and end up in prison/lose their job.<br /><br />Ah, some say, wouldn’t it have been preferable to have a Sheridan victory rather than the NOTW winning? At the cost of destroying the SSP? At the cost of smearing most of the leading activists as being responsible for a “monstrous frame-up” of Tommy Sheridan? Would that be a “victory”?<br /><br />So they say, you would have been in favour of a ‘Murdoch victory’. No. Whatever verdict was reached it was bound to be a disaster for the SSP. This situation was created by the decision of Tommy to go to court despite the advice of his comrades. Tommy’s self-regard and ruthless pursuance of his individual interests, above those of the SSP and the working class, have made the job of building a socialist alternative so much more difficult than it might have been. Years of work have been thrown away in defence of his “reputation”. Whilst decrying people for “supporting Murdoch” he has opportunistically used the very self-same media when he should have been partaking in an internal SSP discussion.<br /><br />Those who want to paint “supporting Tommy” as “defending a workers’ leader against the bourgeois press” are actually supporting a tissue of lies. This is not somebody being prosecuted as a result of a strike. It is somebody who chose to defend his “reputation” and take the risk of losing in court, with dire financial consequences, and at the risk of discrediting the SSP. Tommy could have refused to be drawn on the stories. He could have said my private life is my own business, or whatever. Sadly he has shamelessly created a picture in the media of the “family man”: accepting, ironically, conventional mores – never for a moment would I be unfaithful, ad nauseam.<br /><br />If anybody believes Tommy’s version of events, they have to explain why the majority of the leadership, many of them his closest friends for many years, should act in such an outrageous way. This would constitute a barely credible change in the conduct of the SSP which has a tradition of open discussion and reaching decisions through democratic debate. Debates can be very sharp, as with the discussion on ‘50%-50%’ – the decision to ensure women had shared places on the top of the electoral lists – but they have remained for the most part fraternal.<br /><br /><strong>“I’ll destroy the scabs who tried to ruin me.”</strong><br /><br />Events since his ‘victory’ in court have shown that Tommy has not acted as a principled political leader. At least from the point where he issued his Open Letter, Tommy took his battle for control of the SSP into the very media that his opponents are being accused of supporting. Is there anything principled about denouncing them as ‘scabs’ in the Daily Record? After his 7-4 victory in court Tommy Sheridan and his wife were interviewed by the Record. It read like an issue of Hello magazine with Tommy telling the story of true love which will last to their dying day. He himself has confirmed he sold his story, reputedly for £25,000, justifying it on the grounds that it would give Gail time off work. Why would any socialist tell the intimate story of a relationship, smothered in romanticism? "I could never love anyone like I love her and she couldn't love anyone like she loves me. More than ever, we are cemented in rock. We will live and die together." What has this got to do with the future of the SSP?<br /><br />Even worse than this portrayal of the archetypal family, with its soft focus picture, was the recruitment of the New Labour supporting Daily Record to Tommy’s campaign to take back the leadership of the SSP. “Sheridan exclusive – I’ll destroy the scabs who tried to ruin me.” Tommy told the Record he thought he had two months to “save the party he founded”. Excuse me, I though there were some other people involved. Wasn’t it a collective effort?<br /><br />So disgusted were some of his long time friends with his use of the Record that six of them, who had previously refused to make any public comment, confirmed that Tommy had personally admitted to each of them his visits to the club and a relationship with Katrina Trolle, one of the witnesses and an ex-SSP member who he sought to destroy on the witness stand. Are these six lying as well? Why would they have joined in the “plot” at this late stage rather than joining in with the 11 earlier? Bear in mind that a lot of the anger and bitterness which has been created has been the result of Tommy’s treatment of women in court – examining their previous sexual history and so on. Talk by Tommy of a “gender discussion group”, as opposed to a ‘class party’, with no explanation, can only stir up prejudice amongst those who do not take seriously the struggle against women’s oppression.<br /><br />He told the Record there was a 50-50 chance of him standing against Colin Fox. Mind you, he wanted strong evidence of support from a majority of the members before deigning to stand. 10 or 15 branch nominations would not be enough. He wanted 25 to 30. The members had to measure up to his exacting standards. This is an extraordinary statement. The SSP has supposedly been taken over by a bunch of “political scabs”, yet he would only consider challenging them if he was happy with the number of nominations! It appears he got 9 nominations.<br /><br />In Tommy’s comments there is not even a hint of that little thing collective leadership which working class organisations require in contrast with the norm of the big party boss. He is apparently indispensable. “It’s me or oblivion”, screamed the Daily Record. Sadly, it is very difficult to draw any other conclusion than the man is a rampant individualist. His insistence on taking his case to court, despite the unanimous advice of the SSP Executive Committee, has proved to be a disaster.<br /><br />From the position of seeking to drive out the 11 from the leadership, and ‘democratising’ the Party (the ‘SSP Majority’ website has the strapline of “democratic renewal of the SSP”), very swiftly Tommy decided to abandon it, to take as many people out of it as he could. What is staggering about this decision is the ease with which it was taken, and the fact that two platforms within the party, quickly supported the break up of the SSP. To say that the political explanation of such a decision is shoddy is an understatement.<br /><br />What was probably a crucial factor in Tommy’s decision was the likelihood that he would not win top spot on the electoral list in the heartlands of the SSP. His declared position that the United Left platform would create a destructive internal environment after he had been elected Convenor, is hardly credible, since if he had won the election then it is a racing certainty that they would have walked out of a party which elected him despite his conduct.<br /><br /><strong>A split without a discussion</strong><br /><br />At a meeting of his supporters Tommy proposed to leave the SSP. The two platforms, the CWI and Socialist Worker went away to discuss his proposal, only to find that he had already told the mass media about a ‘new party’ before they had the chance to discuss it and come to a collective decision. They were faced with the choice of going along with Sheridan, or staying in the SSP. They were not going to break with Sheridan having denounced the 11 as ‘scabs’ or people who ‘supported Murdoch’. They agreed, therefore, to a split without a political discussion. This is always the worst circumstances in which a split can take place.<br /><br />The SWP in particular, since they had two witnesses in court, supporting the assertion that the 11 were framing Tommy, have taken a position where they cannot admit to the truth or else their people will be open to the charge of perjury with the threat of imprisonment. In order to justify the split they have cobbled together an argument about the ‘sectarianism’ of the leadership of the SSP. Even if there was a problem with sectarianism this would not be a justification for a split. And to listen to members of the SWP lecturing the SSP about its “bureaucratic” leadership is risible. This is an organisation (the SWP) which has only had one person stand for its leadership outside the ‘leadership slate’ in the past 15 years; and he was treated like a pariah. This is an organisation which was happy to take advantage of the right to form a “platform” in the SSP but denies its own members such a right.<br /><br />Nobody should underestimate the implications of what these two organisations have done. In supporting a lie they have provided the state with the opportunity of charging the 11 with perjury and locking them up. They have supported the misrepresentation of the 11 as organisers of a frame-up, when the frame-up was actually directed at the 11.<br /><br />Lying about anything of substance or importance is always a dangerous business, because the logic of the position leads to further lies to cover up the original one. You cannot build a political party which struggles against capitalism on such a basis.<br /><br /><strong>What next?<br /></strong><br />So now there are two competing organisations in Scotland, with not much in the way of discernable political differences between them. Hugh Kerr writing a letter to the Guardian said that there is room for two socialist parties in Scotland. There might be if they collaborated, but what chance of that now? There may well be dire electoral consequences. The six MSPs, now shared between the two organisations, may well lose their seats. Whilst this is not the be all and end all of politics, it would be a significant blow.<br /><br />What a travesty, calling an organisation Solidarity, when it is splitting the Party which has made the most significant advance for many, many decades, and denying the members the right to collectively decide its future.<br /><br />The political roots of the split will be the subject of debate (for which there is not space here). In the first instance it was the result of the rampant individualism of a leader who would not accept a collective decision. At the same time it has been supported by self-interested sectarian organisations. These organisations behave like religious sects which have the only true version of the faith. They could not work together in the Socialist Alliance. There is no reason to expect that they will be able to work together in ‘Solidarity’.<br /><br />The launch of Solidarity rests on the ‘holy trinity’ of Tommy Sheridan, the CWI and the SWP, two of his most vehement critics in the past. It is a potentially explosive cocktail. The new organisation had barely been launched than Socialist Worker started distancing itself from Sheridan. In the report on the launch of Solidarity he was described as ‘downbeat’, whilst leading SWP member Dave Sherry expressed his disappointment at Tommy’s apparent failure to discuss what the new organisation needed to do over the next few months. Then we read from the lips of one member of the audience that he would probably join, but there needed to be more strong people around Tommy “to challenge him”. What they needed to challenge him on was not explained. However the inclusion of this material is not accidental. It’s like a message in Pravda giving the cadres guidance: they can read the code.<br /><br />Of course, it would be a mistake to see only virtue on one side and sin on the other. There will undoubtedly be people who join Solidarity because they have believed the cock and bull story about the 11. There is already a debate taking place in the SSP on how the crisis emerged and what mistakes were made. But the responsibility for the crisis rests on the shoulders of Tommy Sheridan and those who know the truth but support him nonetheless.<br /><br />As ever it is the working class which pays the price of sectarianism, and of leaders who place their own interests above those of the working class. ‘My leader right or wrong’ is no basis for building any working class organisation, be it a political organisation, a trade union or a community based one.<br /><br />In conclusion, I believe socialists in Britain should support the SSP against what is an unprincipled split. The inevitable struggle between the SSP and ‘Solidarity’ will not be determined in the media but on the ground, in working class communities, union branches and so on. From that point of view, the SSP, I believe, has deeper roots. They deserve the support of socialists who strive for a break from sectarianism and the Great Leader phenomenon, both of which have disfigured the British left for decades.<br /><br /></span></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1156781352659906462006-08-28T16:58:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:29:54.035+01:00<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Penalising 'Hard Work, Thrift and Enterprise'!<br /></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Stephen Byers is worried that inheritance tax is 'penalising hard work, thrift and enterprise'<br /></span><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">‘The rich shall inherit the earth. It is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of the needle than it is to find a camel in Swindon.’ <em>Not quite a quote from the Bible<br /></em><br />With so many Christian amongst the ranks of the Blairites you would imagine they would remember their Bible. Wasn’t it ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’? It is ‘easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to pass into heaven’. Apparently not. You may remember that ex-minister Stephen Byers was the man who famously leaked the idea of Labour breaking the link with the unions. Labour must be a party of the nation rather than 'the party of the working class'. Now he has drawn attention to the terrible plight of ‘successful’ people who suffer the indignity of having to pay inheritance tax. With so many ‘aspirant’ people having benefited from 9 years of a New Labour government they are, says Byers, being unfairly taxed given the increase in the value of houses. It is “a penalty on hard work, thrift and enterprise”.<br /><br />In fact house prices are not the result of ‘success’. Home owners have had to do nothing but watch the value of their houses rise. This is an example of making a fortune without doing a thing. One of the factors fuelling this phenomenon was the decision of the Thatcher government to stop building council houses and to give tenants ‘the right to buy’. This helped to create the housing shortage which has fuelled the massive increase in house prices.<br /><br />Inheritance tax is one of the last remaining features of the progressive taxation system which existed in the post second world war years, until Thatcher came to power. It used to be a social obligation to pay more tax the richer you were. But New Labour long ago abandoned progressive taxation and reintroduced means testing which not only demeans people, but wastes resources since it is very expensive to collect.<br /><br />Byers bid to reorient New Labour to win back middle England appears to have been rejected by the Treasury (aka Gordon Brown) though only on the pragmatic grounds that this would leave a £3.3 billion hole in the public purse.<br /><br />Rather than being the boon that New Labour believes it to be, home ownership for many people was not a choice, but a necessity, especially given the huge increase in Council House waiting lists. Home ownership for many is a terrible burden which means that people have to work long hours in order to scrape by, struggling to manage their finances from month to month. Mortgages used to be given to people on the yardstick of two and a half times their wages. Today, it is not uncommon for a mortgage to be measures on the scale of five or more times a person’s wages.<br /><br />A couple of years ago, a Labour councillor in Swindon complained that there were some people living on my council estate who were the third generation to do so. This apparently showed their lack of ‘poverty of ambition’. It never occurred to him that people like living there. Home ownership is part of the rat-race in which collective interests are abandoned for personal salvation.<br /><br />There is nothing natural about wanting to be a house owner as opposed to renting. Indeed a recent survey by Shelter showed that a large majority of people in need of housing wanted a decent, affordable home, whilst ownership was well down the list of priorities.<br /><br /><br /></span></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1154111469070123302006-07-28T19:26:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:34:10.162+01:00<strong><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">John McDonnell Campaign<br /></span></strong><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><em>Left wing Labour MP</em> <strong>John McDonnell</strong> <em>has declared he will stand against Gordon Brown for Labour leader when Blair departs. You would imagine that given his record of campaigning for the trades unions and opposing the whole Blairite agenda that the affiliated unions would obiously support John McDonnell’s. Can they really support Brown who is driving the government’s neo-liberal agenda, privatising public services and destroying public sector jobs?</em></span><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;">The experience of 9 years of a right wing Blair government has driven vast numbers of members out of the Labour Party. So much so that most local parties are empty shells. Having promised to create a party of one million members Blair has merely succeeded in halving the membership. Many socialists will view the question of who takes over from Blair with indifference, not least because either Brown or any candidate supported by Blair’s clique will continue with the neo-liberal ‘free market’ programme of the current government.</span><br /><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;">John is appealing to people to return to the party to take part in the campaign. It remains to be seen how many do, but it will probably not be that many since nobody believes that he stands a chance of getting anywhere near winning.</span> <span class="fullpost" style="font-family:arial;">However, it would be a mistake if socialists in the affiliated unions took the view that the change of leadership is of no consequence. So long as the unions remain affiliated to Labour then we should demand that instead of collaborating with the Blair/Brown leadership they should argue for a fundamental change of political direction. To support Brown (as ‘the only serious candidate’) or to sit on their hands and passively await his ‘coronation’ would be a grave disservice to union members who are daily being attacked by this government.<br /><br />The affiliated unions should oppose any attempt to rig a ‘smooth transition’ from Blair to Brown. In the first instance they should insist on a democratic process in which a discussion takes place on policy questions. Secondly, if any of the trade union critics of the government accept a ‘coronation’ of Brown then union members could only draw the conclusion that their criticism of government policy was mere hot air. Brown was one of the authors of PFI and is the main driver of privatisation throughout the public sector.<br /><br />John McDonnell’s campaign for the leadership of the Labour Party should be seen as a welcome (if somewhat belated) challenge against the whole political programme of ‘Blairism’. One does not have to be a Labour Party member to support the campaign. Any member of an affiliated union has the right to demand that their union declare its support for McDonnell. We should not watch with disinterest if the union leaders line up behind Brown.<br /><br />Writing on the Labour Representation Committee conference which agreed to support his candidature John McDonnell talked of the choice which should be presented to party members in the leadership election:<br /><br />• between promoting public services or continued privatisation.<br />• between free education or trust schools and tuition fees.<br />• between increasing the state pension and restoring the link with earnings or forcing more people onto the means test.<br />• between allowing councils to build council houses once again or high rents, escalating housing costs, homelessness and overcrowding.<br />• between energy from green power sources, conservation, and British clean coal or the costs and risks of nuclear power.<br />• between promoting civil liberties and trade union rights or reactionary incursions into the right of free speech, assembly and trial.<br />• between a government committed to peace, withdrawal from Iraq and nuclear disarmament or backing Bush's wars and wasting £24 billion on Trident.<br /><br />With the exception of the question of nuclear power the unions are fundamentally in conflict with this government’s policy. What sense would it make to support a candidate who would continue with the policies which the unions are opposed to and for which their members are paying a heavy price? Campaigning for the affiliated unions to support McDonnell is necessary to challenge the conciliators of New Labour at the top of the unions, who have given the Blair government an easy ride.<br /><br />The latest example of union leaders facing both ways – criticising the policy of the government but acting as if they were friends of the working class – was the GMB Congress. The Congress took some positive decisions, including breaking with the ‘partnership’ agenda so beloved on New Labour. Yet when Blair spoke he was given a standing ovation by many delegates, whilst the top table uttered kind words about this reactionary ‘free market’ fanatic whose government is privatising across the public sector and supporting a right wing Republican President in the international arena. You cannot stand up for union members and stand up for Blair.<br /><br />Many union leaders will no doubt say that John McDonnell is not a ‘serious candidate’. If they can find a more serious one then let them. But this is not the basis of their relectance to support him. They do not want to oppose the leadership of New Labour. Do they seriously believe that their powers of persuasion can miraculously transform New Labour into a union friendly party? This is self-delusion. Even Brendan Barber has said that a ‘fundamental change of direction’ from New Labour’s agenda is necessary. Pretending that the New Labour leaders are our friends is at complete variance with nine years experience. Year after year the unions have won policy at Labour’s conference, defeating the privatisation agenda. But, of course, the government has simply ignored those votes. Good arguments will not convince people who are ideologically committed to privatisation that they must abandon the entire rationale of their policy.<br /><br />Perhaps the calculation of some union leaders is that if they support a candidate against Brown this will burn bridges with him and mean they have no ‘influence’ with him. Such ‘influence’ is nothing more than self-delusion. The government has given away a few crumbs, but it’s overall political direction is fundamentally opposed to the interests of union members and the working class in general. Union leaders may see such an approach as ‘realism’. In reality it is the worst opportunism.<br /><br />It is the collaboration with the government which the union leaders have for the most part carried out, which has allowed it to get away with a programme of abandonment of the welfare state, privatisation of public services, and support for a right wing republican administration in the USA on the international level.<br /><br />In return for the Warwick Agreement the major union leaders have effectively agreed to restrain their members in order not to ‘risk’ the prospects of a fourth term for Labour. That has meant compromise in the pension dispute, abandoning the new generation of workers who will be on worse terms and conditions of service than existing staff, and failing miserably to develop any serious campaign against the government’s fracturing of the NHS and opening up of it to big business.<br /><br />Writing on his blog CWU leader Billy Hayes wrote:<br /><br />“Problems of disengagement from Labour are linked to the Government’s support for Bush’s foreign policy, and the neo-liberal attacks on the welfare state. Change the policies and make our Party worth joining again.”<br /><br />Billy has been one of the most vociferous proponents of the ‘stay in and fight’ line amongst the trade union leaders. It will be interesting to see, especially since the CWU is affiliated to the Labour Representation Committee, whether he seeks to win the CWU to supporting John McDonnell’s campaign. So far he has remained silent. But all of the union leaders are being put to the test now because the camapign for the leadership of the party puts them on the spot.<br /><br />Of course, the campaign has a very difficult job on its hands for it has to win the support of 44 Labour MPs in order for John to become a candidate. It is questionable as to whether such a large number can be pressured to openly support a campaign for a break with the political direction of New Labour. If it fails to get John on the ballot then even those such as Labour Briefing, which hangs doggedly to work in the Labour Party, may well draw the conclusion they have resisted to draw for so long, the need to build a socialist alternative to New Labour. That is the expressed view of Graham Bash, one of its leading lights.<br /><br />“If there were simply a coronation of Brown - without even an attempt to mount a left challenge - this would be yet another nail, possibly a final nail, in the coffin of not only the Labour left, but also the Labour Party as a class party. John’s brave attempt to raise the banner of core Labour and socialist values is either the beginning of the fightback or, if it makes little impact, the beginning of the end for the Labour Party itself.”<br /><br />Whatever the outcome, socialists in the affiliated unions should not allow their union leaders to talk out of both sides of their mouths, criticising the government but failing to seriously organise a struggle against it. </span><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Supporting John McDonnell’s campaign does not mean agreeing with the perspective of ‘winning back Labour’, it simply means that we do not allow the union leaders to go unchallenged should they propose to support Brown or some other creature of the Blairites. If they support the line of ‘staying in and fighting’ let them show us they are serious about fighting the government. If they were serious about overturning the politics of Blair they would have organised a candidate themselves. As it is John McDonnell offers the only chance <em>within</em> the Labour Party of challenging the political agenda for which our members are paying such a high cost. Brown is as much as enemy of the labour movement as Blair is.<br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.john4leader.org.uk"><span style="font-family:arial;">http://www.john4leader.org.uk</span></a> </span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1150806957225979452006-06-20T13:28:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:29:54.036+01:00<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Michael Wills is worried…<br /></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><em>North Swindon MP</em> <strong>Michael Wills</strong> <em>is worried. His speech to a fringe meeting at the conference of new Labour pressure group Compass, was reported on the front page of the Guardian in the lead article. Mr Wills is known to have a close friend by the name of Gordon. Perhaps this explains the prominence of his comments. At any rate he is warning of the prospect of electoral defeat at the next General Election. Whilst he recognises "profound disillusion and disnegagement" amongst Labour supports he fails to face up to the roots of this.<br /></em></span><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">North Swindon MP Michael Wills’ is worried, and you can understand why. Speaking at a fringe meeting at a conference organised by the new Labour pressure group, Compass, he claimed that at the General Election “every single Labour MP on the doorstep reported profound disillusionment and disengagement”. This does have the merit of trying to grapple with reality, whilst the Prime Minister and his coterie merely seem to want deny that such a thing exists. But when it comes to an appreciation of the roots of this “profound disillusionment” of traditional Labour voters, Wills cannot himself face the reality. The problem it seems is that the voters will not listen to New Labour’s “message”. It is they who are at fault not New Labour!<br /><br />“Unless we can get people to start listening to us, unless they are prepared to hear the message we are putting across, we are going to lose next time. There is no question of that.”<br /><br />There are none so blind as cannot see. There are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen! Wills is suggesting that the problem is one of presentation rather than substance. The electors refuse to see the reality of New Labour’s ‘successes’. How very irrational of them. What Michael Wills and New Labour cannot face up to is the fact that it is what the government is doing which has alienated vast swathes of its traditional supporters; and not just the Iraq war which he says lost him 3,500 votes. It is very common to hear the refrain from people who have voted Labour for many years, ‘they are no different to the Tories’. Whilst there are differences with the Tories Blair reconstructed the Party on the same ground as Thatcherism. This involved the abandonment of the welfare state, not its ‘modernisation’, and the progressive marketisation of public services. They have even introduced a market into the NHS in which hospitals have to ‘compete’ for patients. In Wiltshire this has led to an unprecedented crisis, with the decimation of services (see <a href="http://martinwicks.blogspot.com/2006/05/health-crisis-what-crisis-health.html">http://martinwicks.blogspot.com/2006/05/health-crisis-what-crisis-health.html</a> ).<br /><br />Wills is right when he says that the electorate does not ‘trust us’. And he recognises that the ‘Presidential style’ of the Prime Minister is a problem. But he cannot face up to the fact that it is the substance of New Labour which is the reason for the disillusionment of its traditional supporters and the decline of its membership.<br /><br />Wills is worried about losing his Parliamentary seat, of course. The crisis of New Labour in Swindon does not bode well for his chances. The Council, which was historically a Labour one for decades has seen a precipitous decline both in the Party’s organisation and in the number of councillors. Even in the Thatcher days the Tories did not gain control, even though they had the MP. Yet after 3 years of the Blair government Labour lost its majority on the Council, though remaining the largest party. In 2000 it had 28 councillors to 24 Tories. Today the Tories have 42 and Labour has only 12. Four Labour Councillors have defected to the Tories, one resigned and left local politics, and one broke with Labour over their support for increasing Councillors’ allowances at the same time as the Tories were cutting services.<br /><br />The dilemma of New Labour in Swindon was in part summed up by an article in the Swindon Advertiser by Michael Wills and South Swindon’s ultra-New Labourite MP, Anne Snelgrove, on the future of the town. What criticism did they make of the Tory Council? That they are privatising council departments? That they are not opposing Bath University’s ultimatum on the location on which it wants to build a campus?<strong>1</strong> That they are accepting vast numbers of new houses being imposed by an unelected body in the South West? That they are trying to rush through a proposal for an Academy which will be run by a private company? Alas, our two MPs accept all this, just as the Tories do.<br /><br />Well might Private Eye ridicule Anne Snelgrove for her comment that ‘the country’ is ‘proud’ of the work of the Deputy Prime Minister.<strong>2</strong> This is the man who has the Midas touch in reverse. He turns gold to dross. This is the man who has given power over our town (and others) to an unelected body which, at his department’s prompting tells us how many houses we ‘need’, regardless of our view. This is the man who has made the planning process less democratic. This is the man who has sought to eradicate Council Housing and still maintains the effective ban on Councils building new houses. The reality is that Prescott is the object of ridicule and contempt in equal measure, astutely summed up by Steve Bell’s cartoon, the bulldog caricature.<strong>3</strong><br /><br />So what are the profound differences with the Tories which the MP’s revealed in their article? Apparently the Tories are not “sufficiently ambitious” for the town. Instead of, dare we say, a bog-standard library, “why not plan for one that surpasses the best elsewhere”. Frankly, this is pathetic, providing an easy target for the Tories, who can say with some legitimacy, why didn’t Labour produce a new library in all the years they were in power? <strong>4 </strong><br /><br />We have also seen the spectacle of the MP’s complaining that the Tory Council does not build enough social housing. This is the cheek of Old Nick after 9 years of a New Labour government. One Labour Councillor informs me that he told Michael Wills, “it’s your government which is stopping Council house building”. As for Anne Snelgrove, as we discovered at the Defend Council Housing lobby of Parliament, she is opposed to Councils building their own houses. (See <a href="http://martinwicks.blogspot.com/2006/02/home-owning-democracy-whats-in-phrase.html">http://martinwicks.blogspot.com/2006/02/home-owning-democracy-whats-in-phrase.html</a> )<br /><br />Undoubtedly the decline in Labour’s support in Swindon reflects the national picture of disaffection amongst traditional labour supporters. But when a Labour candidate in Parks (a council estate where I live) manages barely a 100 majority over a Tory candidate you know the party is in trouble.<br /><br />In the old days (certainly pre-Blair) political and ideological differences between the two major parties were significant enough to make defection from one to the other very rare. But that was before Blair’s political and ideological coup. That four councillors have crossed over to the Tories reflects the absence of real ideological differences.<strong>5</strong> The recent defector Mavis Childs said that she wanted to get things done for her constituents. Their interests “come before party politics”, she says. Clearly, according to this logic, the only place to have a direct influence is in the ruling Tory group which has an absolute majority.<br /><br />What New Labour in Swindon has yet to explain is why the Tories have gained such a big majority; why it has declined so precipitously. Amidst all the hype in the early Blair days we were told that the party was going to increase its membership to 1 million. In fact, so disgusted has much of the membership been with Blair that instead of an influx he has succeeded in more than halving the party membership. Perhaps our MPs can explain why, if the government has been such a ‘success’, party membership is less than half the 1997 level. We wait with baited breath. Perhaps the members failed to face up to reality just like the electorate.<br /><br />Why should traditional Labour voters, never mind anybody else, vote for New Labour? This is the question posed as a result of 9 years of a ‘business friendly’, privatising government. What is the difference between what a Labour Council would do in office and what the Tory Council is doing now? Unless the electorate sees some positive reason to vote Labour again, then the Tories will maintain their stranglehold on the Council, at the expense of working class people. The Tories appear to be ‘getting things done’. If the policy of New Labour hardly differs from that of the Tories, then why not vote for the more effective or ‘efficient’ party? Such at least was the conclusion of Mavis Childs.<br /><br />Labour can hang on and wait for the electorate to get fed up with the Tories, but overturning such a big majority could take a long time. If they want to campaign against them in a way which resonates with local people, and is believable, they have to have <em>a different programme and policy</em>. But here they face the twin obstacle of their government and their MPs, both of whom are New Labour zealots.<br /><br />Labour <em>could</em> have allies to build opposition to the Tory Council. For instance, they could work with the local government unions to oppose the Tories privatising Council departments. Unfortunately, there is no sign as yet of them opposing the Tory policy.<br /><br />Labour <em>could</em> campaign with the unions and tenants for the right of Councils to build Council housing once again. Two Labour councillors joined the delegation which lobbied Parliament in relation to the ‘fourth option’. The housing crisis facing the town is a major issue. House prices in Swindon are too high for many local people. All we see being built in the town centre at the moment are luxury flats. The Council house waiting list will not be cut without a Council house building programme. A campaign to change government policy, to allow Councils the right to build new Council housing would be a significant difference with the Tory Council.<br /><br />Labour <em>could</em> campaign for the Housing benefit and Council Tax service to be brought back in-house. OK, it was they who privatised it, handing it over to WS Atkins with disastrous consequences.<strong>6</strong> However, they could recognise it as a mistake and campaign for the service to be brought back in-house. Thus far the Party has missed the opportunity of criticising the Tory administration over its latest move in relation to Liberata (the company which took over from WS Atkins). These worshippers of ‘the market’ (the Tory Council in this case) have punished Liberata for failing to carry out their contract with the Council, by handing over to them an extra £850,000! You might imagine that if the company fails to carry out their contractual obligations to a satisfactory standard then they would take the financial hit rather than the Council Tax payers of Swindon, especially at a time when the Council was cutting services. Isn’t this supposed to be the ‘free market’? But even here New Labour has failed to attack the Tories for feather-bedding a private company with our money. What better opportunity than this to demand the service be brought back in-house?<br /><br />Labour <em>could</em> campaign with the trades unions and local people against the Academy which is proposed to replace Headlands school. That would mean opposing government policy, of course. Yet Michael Wills was over the moon at the involvement of Honda in the proposed project. Labour movement people on the other hand are appalled at the involvement of an anti-union car firm in Education.<br /><br />The Labour group <em>could</em> attack the Tory Council for its fraudulent ‘consultation’ on the issue. Lead member Garry Perkins has said that this is the only way that the people of the area will get a new school, so there is no debate about whether or not local people want it. Presumably we can discuss what colour the doors are. But because of New Labour’s support for the privatisation of education they have failed to defend the democratic rights of local people to genuinely debate whether or not they want to go down the route of an Academy.<br /><br />Nobody in the wider labour movement in Swindon underestimates the problem that a big Tory majority on the Council represents to working people in general and the trades unions in particular. Even those of us who believe that a socialist political alternative to New Labour is necessary, would be in favour of a united front with Labour to build opposition to the Tory administration, if such a thing were possible. Yet if it was possible for Labour Councillors to work with people who they consider as political opponents (even the dreaded Socialist Unity) to jointly campaign against the BNP, why not to campaign for new Council housing, or in opposition to privatisation?<br /><br />Michael Wills, without spelling it out, seemed to be saying in his speech that Blair should go. But what difference would Brown make when (as explained to me by another Labour Councillor) he is wedded to the very same policies as Blair? Certainly some traditional Labour voters might be persuaded to hold their nose and vote for the party again if the much hated Blair departed, but it is the ‘free market’, means testing, privatising agenda of New Labour, as well as its support for a right wing Republican administration in the USA which lies at the root of the “profound disillusionment and disengagement” which Wills admitted to.<br /><br />Martin Wicks<br /><br />Notes<br />[1] Bath University had said that it wants to build on a site adjacent to Coate Water Country Park, or else it will not build a campus in the town. 27,000 signatures have been collected against this unpopular proposal. See <a href="http://savecoate.blogspot.com">http://savecoate.blogspot.com</a><br />[2] She has made quite a profession out of asking what might be described as ‘please give a job’ questions, being duly rewarded with some junior post or other.<br />[3] Prescott is pictured as a dog called ‘market’, pulled along by the lead by Blair. It sums up the role of lap dog which Prescott has performed, doing his master’s bidding, presenting a ‘left’ face for Blair’s neo-liberalism.<br />[4] For the benefit of people outside of Swindon, the central library has inhabited for many years prefabricated huts in the town centre.<br />[5] One of them is actually a Tory who crossed over to New Labour and has now gone back to the Tories.<br />[6] A massive backlog of work led to elderly people (on benefit and hence having their council tax paid for them) being threatened with eviction, since it had not been paid, through no fault of their own.<br /><br /></span></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1150448714468801742006-06-16T10:03:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:34:48.729+01:00<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Standing up for the members</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">New General Secretary Paul Kenny, in a speech to the GMB Congress said that politicians were like babies nappies; “they need changing regularly, and for the same reason.” It was a pity that the GMB Congress didn’t act according to this unusual dictum when Blair was invited to speak to the delegates on Tuesday.<br /></span><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">He was treated like a good friend with whom we have some minor differences. There were plenty of hostile questions from the delegates, in the question and answer session; on Iraq, ‘reform’ of the public sector, pensions etc. But he wasn’t barracked or heckled. He was apparently treated with ‘respect’ instead of the contempt which he has earned. Blair gave a robust defence of his right wing neo-liberal policies of course. When the session was over some delegates (I was told by somebody present less than half, but nevertheless a significant number) gave him a standing ovation. These are the same people who passed a document, GMB at Work, which abandons the idea of partnership with the employers, which Blair’s government considers to be the mark of a ‘modern’ trade union. These were the same delegates who have voted against privatisation of public services, and to affiliate to the Keep Our NHS Public campaign.<br /><br />Perhaps some of them are Labour loyalists who can only smile as the government kicks them. Probably most of them did not want to give the impression of hostility or ‘splits’ between the unions and government in front of the media. In giving a standing ovation to Blair they were failing to do what they should be doing, standing up for the members. How can anyone give a standing ovation to the man responsible for introducing ‘reforms’ which are destroying the very foundations of the NHS?<br /><br />In the Congress the top table ruled out a resolution which called for the right of branches to support candidates other than Labour ones, on the ground that this would lead to the union’s expulsion from the Labour Party. If you hold the position that it is necessary for the trades unions to ‘stay in and fight’ or ‘win back the party’, then isn’t it necessary to break with the political programme and methods of the Blairites? Isn’t it necessary to recognise that Blair and all those who support his politics are enemies of the trades unions?<br /><br />If the unions stay in the party that is their choice, but they cannot defend the interests of their members without demanding a fundamental change of political direction. It matters not a jot if the party is headed by Blair or Brown, or anybody else for that matter, if the policy is the same; ‘free market’ neo-liberalism.<br /><br />It is time for the abandonment of an approach which says, on the one hand the government has done some positive things, on the other some negative, as if they balance each other out.<br />Blair is not the devil incarnate, of course. He did not move the party into the neo-liberal camp without support of others. Indeed, it was largely the trade union leaders who delivered the party to him so easily.<br /><br />It is the collaboration with the government which the union leaders have for the most part carried out, which has allowed it to get away with a programme of abandonment of the welfare state, privatisation of public services, and support for a right wing republican administration in the USA. An unequivocal break with the politics of Blairism is necessary if the unions are to be taken seriously. They can’t stand up for the members and for Blair.<br /><br /></span></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1150193107580175172006-06-13T10:49:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:33:03.273+01:00<strong><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Nuclear power, environmental crisis and the trades unions</span><br /></span></span></strong><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><em>Having opposed building new nuclear power plants in its White Paper in 2003 the government has launched a new energy review which can have no other purpose than to overturn the government's previous position. The suspicion that the Great Leader had already decided that a new generation of nuclear power plants is necessary was confirmed by his recent speech to the CBI which exposed the bogus nature of the 'review' process. There is little support for such a move, yet ironically, the major trades unions are appealing to the government to follow this course.</em> <strong>Martin Wicks</strong> <em>examines the issue of nuclear energy and the policy of the unions.</em> (From Issue 17 of the trade union magazine <strong>SOLIDARITY</strong>.)<br /></span><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Blair's speech to the CBI has created a furore, and not only amongst those who are inveterate opponents of nuclear energy. The speech not only pre-empted the review, it was designed to silence opposition within the Cabinet. Apparently there will be no white paper to decide on a new generation of nuclear power plants since this would serve as a focus for opposition.<br /><br />In his speech Blair said:<br /><br />"Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world. The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80% to 90% self-reliant in gas to 80% to 90% dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia.<br /><br />These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance. If we don't take these long-term decisions now we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country."<br /><br />Blair assembles facts to justify a pre-determined argument. He does not examine the facts in order to come to a conclusion. There is a fundamental contradiction which underlies his position. His government has long supported a liberalised energy market. There is nothing to stop 'the market' delivering new nuclear power stations now; except the risk and the “eye-wateringly large costs” (a Treasury prediction according to the Guardian).<br /><br /><strong>The current market structure has failed</strong><br /><br />But if the market works, asked the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, why is a government 'decision' necessary in the first place?<br /><br />“…in the context of the Government's faith in liberalised market it is unclear what any 'decision' or 'decision on nuclear' would amount to. We put this point repeatedly to the Secretary of State, yet he was unable to offer any explanation. The real issue facing the government is in fact whether the current structure of the liberalised market and policy framework will deliver sufficient investment in low-carbon forms of generation in a timely manner. Yet the consultation document does not address this adequately perhaps because to do so would be tantamount to admitting that the current market structure has failed.”<br />“Keeping the lights on: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change”. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Report.<br /><br />Blair's government will not admit that the privatised energy market is fundamentally flawed, since this would bring its 'free market' ideological pack of cards crashing down. Already, in 2002 the government was obliged to rescue the privatised nuclear company British Energy at a cost of billions to the taxpayer (including decommissioning it could add up to £12 billion).<br /><br />Today there is little support for a new generation of nuclear plants. The Sustainable Development Commission Report said that “nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply”. There is “no justification for bringing forward a new nuclear power programme at present.” The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee EAC) is likewise opposed, supporting the emphasis of the 2003 White Paper on energy efficiency and renewables as cornerstones of future energy policy. In it's report it says:<br /><br />“Over the next ten years, nuclear power cannot contribute either to the need for more generating capacity or to carbon reductions as it simply could not be built in time.”<br /><br />The Secretary of State for Energy has admitted that it might take from 15 to 17 years before a new nuclear power station could become operational.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>The 'generating gap'<br /></strong><br />But what about the energy gap which is predicted? The EAC has estimated that by 2016 between 15 and 20GW of electricity generating plant will be decommissioned; nearly a quarter of total UK generating capacity. 8GW of nuclear capacity is scheduled to close by 2014, and by 2023, only Sizewell B will be operational.<br /><br />The government's own energy White Paper in 2003 endorsed the view of its Performance and Innovation Unit that new gas-fired plant, renewables and energy efficiency measures could make up for the potential 'generating gap'.<br /><br />The very idea of insufficient energy accepts as a given that energy use will remain at current levels. It fails to address the fact that the capitalist system is a system of phenomenal waste, because production and energy use is determined by the narrow interests of 'efficiency', measured by the balance sheet and profit levels.<br /><br />The failure of the Blair government to subsidise low-carbon generating technologies, which are currently more expensive than gas or coal, results from its ideological free market fundamentalism. The EAC poses the question:<br /><br />“If the government does indeed make a decision on nuclear, it is unclear why it should not also come to a decision on off-shore wind, marine, or micro-CHP, let alone the many possible measures to support energy efficiency.”<br /><br />The acceptance in the 2003 White Paper of the possibility of reductions in energy use has been abandoned, partly because state intervention has the unacceptable stench of 'Old Labour', and partly because it contradict with the logic of capitalist production, which is heresy for New Labour.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>'Environmental sustainability'<br /></strong><br />Environmental sustainability is a much used phrase in all manner of government documents. But such an aim is impossible without serious action to stop the waste of resources which results from a system in which 'growth' is seen as a positive thing irrespective of its social and environmental consequences. As Ken Livingstone pointed out in a Guardian article, up to two thirds of electricity is wasted because of the centralised nature of production, and its transmission over long distances. The EAC report identifies the need for 'distribution generation' (small scale generation on a local basis at the point of demand) rather than the wasteful national grid system. Distributed generation offers big improvements in efficiency, particularly in the case of 'combined heat and power'.<br /><br />Electricity losses on the UK grid system are estimated on average at around 10%, whilst the efficiency of coal power stations can be as low as 35%. If both the electricity and the heat load can be utilised, efficiencies of more than 90% can be achieved. It is estimated that if half of the domestic central heating boilers in the UK were replaced by micro-CHP units, by 2020 the total generating capacity would amount to 13GW, delivering at peak winter periods as much as the current nuclear power stations.<br /><br />The centralised distribution networks of all manner of service industries provide 'economies of scale' for the big companies. But the cost of these centralised systems is vast numbers of heavy goods vehicles criss-crossing the country, pouring out pollutants and burning up oil, taking, for example food to be processed at one end of the country, only to return from whence it came. This may be 'efficient' from the standpoint of the balance sheet of the companies, but it is entirely irrational and inefficient given its social, health and environmental impact.<br /><br /><strong>Shift from road to rail?</strong><br /><br />The EAC criticises the government for failing to clarify the nature of its current review. If it is supposed to be a wider debate (rather than one narrowly focused on electricity production) it would need to address all aspects of energy consumption, in particular transport and the domestic sector, in both of which energy consumption is significantly increasing “due to the fact that government policies diametrically opposed to the target of 60% carbon reduction by 2050”, set out in the Energy White Paper. This is apparent when you consider the wreckage of its transport policy.<br /><br />Of all the failures of the Blair government, probably one of the greatest is in relation to transport. It is impossible to tackle the environmental crisis without halting and reversing the growth in road transport. In the early days of the current government John Prescott made the statement that if there had been no shift from road to rail within five years then he would have failed in his job. This shift was said to be necessary to cut emissions which contributed to global warming. When the five years was up and Prescott was reminded of his comments he denied them, though they were a matter of record. The government's transport strategy was abandoned and they have since accepted there will be an increase in the number of cars on the road.<br /><br />Whilst they were forced to close down Railtrack as a share trading company, the government refused to re-nationalise the industry, partly for ideological reasons (they are free market fundamentalists) and partly because Brown does not want the company's debt added to his public balance sheet. Even worse the Department for Transport has now issued a timetable for the railways which institutes cuts in services which can only have the impact of driving people back on the road. In rural areas in particular the cuts are considerable even though, to take parts of the South West, local service use has increased by up 40% in the last five years. The framework timetables were determined purely in order to cut the level of subsidy.<br /><br />The rail unions and socialists have long argued that the only way to get more people to transfer from road to rail is to provide cheap and reliable services. But the refusal of the government to end the disastrous experiment of rail privatisation has meant that private companies are leeching money out of the system and pushing prices up to such an extent that not many people can afford the price of tickets. That the number of journeys has increased is a reflection of the increasing level of congestion on roads. Nationally, the 1 billion passenger journey mark has been passed for the first time in 50 years. Despite this the government has accepted that they can do nothing to halt the increase in car numbers.<br /><br /><strong>The nuclear record</strong><br /><br />Successive studies by British governments in 1989, 1995 and 2002 all came to the conclusion that in a liberalised electricity market, electric utilities will not build nuclear power plants without government subsidies and guarantees capping costs. Even when Thatcher decided on a new round of building, only one plant, Sizewell B was built. In 1989 when the electricity industry was being privatised, the nuclear plants were not attractive to private investors, and the government was forced to withdraw them from sale and had to create two publicly owned companies, Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear, to own and operate them. Tory Energy Minister of the time, John Wakeham bemoaned the fact that “unprecedented guarantees” were being sought. “I am not willing to underwrite the private sector in this way.” Good God, this is the 'free market'.<br /><br />The 1995 review led to the privatisation of the more modern plants, in a new company British Energy. However, the review found no economic case for new plants. British Energy proposed the building of new plants to replace the aging Magnox ones, but insisted these would not be feasible without government subsidy. The 2003 review likewise concluded that new build was not economic.<br /><br /><strong>Poor operational performance </strong><br /><br />The history of civil nuclear power in the UK has been characterised (in the words of the EAC) by “extensive government subsidies, time and cost overruns, and poor operational performance”. In the case of Dungeness B it took 24 years from the start of construction to commercial operation and the plant has only operated on average at 37% of its planned generating capacity since then. In the case of the latest one, Sizewell B, the UK's only pressurised water reactor, construction costs escalated form £1.8 billion to over £3 billion, whilst generating costs have been estimated at around twice the current cost of electricity from gas or coal.<br /><br />Much has been said about the so-called generation 3 plants being much more efficient. But no western country has yet built one, and there is nothing to say that technological difficulties will not be encountered. The EAC says:<br /><br />“The past history of the nuclear industry gives little confidence about the timescales and costs of new build. This does not mean that a new generation of nuclear power stations cannot be built to time and cost, but it does mean that investors have little basis for assessing the risks involved and may, therefore, require a higher rate of return.”<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>'Clean fuel'<br /></strong><br />Any cursory investigation of the history of the industry and its costs provides sufficient reason for opposing a new generation of plants. To assert as some do that nuclear power is “clean” is ridiculous. An accident at a nuclear power plant has the potential to have catastrophic consequences as Chernobyl in the Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the United States have shown. Britain has had its own consequences of accidents at Winscale (now Sellafield) and even the Irish government has been pushed to challenge the continued production at Sellafield as a result of concentrated clusters of cancers in Ireland, downwind from the plant. Supporters of new build argue that the new generation is much safer, but no industry can be made accident proof, least of all nuclear power. Even worse, when the industry is privately owned, with the profit motive at its heart, the danger of accidents is even greater.<br /><br />Information recently gained by a Liberal Democrat MP from Minister Malcolm Wicks indicates 57 accidents at nuclear plants since this government came to office. They ranged from radiation leaks and machinery failure to contamination of ground water and employees' clothes, and a fire. Eleven were serious enough to be classed as an "incident" or "serious incident" on international nuclear measures.<br /><br />Three incidents were recorded last year, all at Sellafield, Cumbria, including a large leak of highly radioactive nuclear fuel which forced the closure of the Thorp reprocessing plant in April. High radiation was also detected in the Hales storage plant and three staff were contaminated while carrying out maintenance.<br /><br />For all the talk of terrorism by Blair the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear plants does not seem to be on his radar. Calculations produced by the Oxford Research Group suggest that an attack on the high level waste tanks at Sellafield would dwarf the scale of the Chernobyl accident.<br /><br /><strong>Decommissioning</strong><br /><br />Then there is the cost of decommissioning. The latest estimated cost from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is £70 billion. A new generation would drive the cost up. As it is the problem of storage of nuclear waste has yet to be resolved. No community wants a nuclear dump on its doorstep. The problem has yet to be resolved anywhere in the world. Even in the USA no long term dump has yet been built. New build would create more waste to be dealt with.<br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Unions to the rescue?<br /></strong><br />Ironically, among the few supporters of building a new generation of nuclear plants, we find some of the country's major trades unions. Whilst their support was once pragmatic, based on the fact that they had members in the industry, they have now picked up on the argument supported by a very small number of erstwhile environmentalists, such as the Gaia theorist James Lovelock, that nuclear power will be necessary to tackle global warning. In the case of Amicus it approaches the question from the standpoint of energy prices; the need to cut prices so that British business can 'compete successfully' in the global market. Amicus appears to believe that regulation of the market can produce the goods.<br /><br />“The market alone is unable to deliver a reliable, efficient and secure supply of energy. The Government must set a broad framework with the necessary fiscal and policy regimes to allow the market to deliver (our emphasis) and to ensure the security of supply.”<br /><br />In the case of the GMB, National Officer Gary Smith said:<br /><br />"GMB is campaigning for a new generation of nuclear power stations on existing sites. This will improve the UK's security of energy supply and preserve our nuclear technology industry. It should also maintain existing jobs and in the longer term create new ones. However, GMB believes it is vital that expenditure on the new nuclear programme is not at the expense of investment in other equally important energy sources. The current level of investment in renewables, bio-fuels and micro generation must be maintained."<br /><br />The GMB, at least expressed its concern over private ownership of nuclear energy. In March it responded to the proposed privatisation of British Nuclear Group by raising the prospect of a 'Railtrack in the nuclear industry'. The day after Blair's speech it said:<br /><br />"GMB consider that nuclear power has an important role to play as part of a balanced energy policy. However GMB do not wish to see a 'railtrack' in the nuclear industry. The public will only be convinced that the safety concerns - that rightly arise - will be dealt with properly if the industry is in public hands and properly accountable to the public. Also GMB consider that energy matters are too important to be regulated by a quango. The government itself must take this role and be answerable to parliament for it."<br /><br />Both the GMB and Amicus talk about a 'balanced' energy policy. But they do not challenge the idea that there will be a 'gap' in provision which is one of the primary reasons being given for the supposed need for new nuclear power stations. The question of the energy crisis cannot be analysed in isolation from the of the context of the environmental crisis with its origins in the logic of capitalism; the constant war for market share, increased 'productivity' and profit levels.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Conclusions<br /></strong><br />It is abundantly clear that there can be no new building of nuclear power plants without either government subsidy or a government commitment on prices (making the consumer pay higher prices). The government has said that there will be no public money for such investment. However, it will have to choose between accepting that there will be no new generation of plants, or it will have to decide to throw public money at the private companies to induce them to take the risk of 'generation 3' with virtually no experience to draw on.<br /><br />The trades unions, instead of offering support for a new generation of nuclear power stations should be challenging the government's faith in liberalisation. A 'decision' on nuclear power should not be based on a technical debate which accepts the current economic framework. If even the EAC, not peopled with revolutionaries, can see the possibility of significant reductions in energy consumption, then why can't the trades unions?<br /><br />The 'rules' of the market do not need to be followed. The government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has given oil to impoverished countries in the Caribbean at below market rates. It has exchanged oil with Cuba in return for doctors to provide medical services to the Venezuelan poor. In our own experience the Atlee government did not accept that health care had to be organised as a saleable commodity, available only to those who could purchase it.<br /><br />A political and ideological leap, however, is necessary. Tackling the environmental crisis will not be done by 'market mechanisms'. These have recently been subject to ridicule in the case of 'credits' to pollute which have apparently been dished out a bit too liberally, much to the amusement of the polluters in chief in Washington.<br /><br />A political struggle within the unions to abandon their support for a new generation of nuclear power plants is an important part of the struggle to radicalise them. It would be a political disaster of the first magnitude if the trades unions found themselves in the camp of the Blair government, in opposition to the environmental movements, and especially the radicalised young people who should be in the unions, but often tend to see them as self-interested conservative organisations supporting a neo-liberal government.<br /><br />The Amicus position especially epitomises the idea of 'social partnership' in which the unions are in alliance with British business in order to 'succeed' in the cut-throat global marketplace. Such a position is one of complete prostration before the logic and rules of an economic system which wastes resources and lives on an unprecedented historical scale.<br /><br />Supporting new nuclear power stations would be a step back for the unions, effectively supporting amongst other things large subsidies for big business at a great social cost for workers across the world. Socialists and opponents of this organised system of waste must fight to break the unions from their national perspective towards alliances with workers across the world and movements of the oppressed and impoverished, fighting against the economic, social, environmental and political consequences of an economic system which threatens an environmental and social catastrophe. New nuclear power plants would add to the danger and to the criminal waste of resources. </span></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">Visit <strong>SOLIDARITY</strong> at: <a href="http://uk.geocities.com/solidarity_magazine">http://uk.geocities.com/solidarity_magazine</a> or <a href="http://solidaritymagazine.blogspot.com">http://solidaritymagazine.blogspot.com</a> </span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1148482178347187622006-05-24T15:44:00.000+01:002006-05-24T15:53:35.360+01:00<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>“The terror is right here in this room.”</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">A review of the George Clooney film, "Good Night and Good Luck", which deals with the famous TV programme in 1954 by Journalist Ed Murrow, attacking the high priest of the House Un-American Activities Committee, Senator Joe McCarthy.<br /></span><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">George Clooney’s Film, ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ has the feel of a documentary. Shot in black and white, its frames saturated with cigarette smoke, it gives a faithful representation of the 1950’s. It incorporates historical footage from the period. The film records events without spelling out a message in simplifying and exaggerated Holywood style. The story centres on the conflict between journalist Ed Murrow and the ‘star’ of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), Senator Joseph McCarthy. Although HUAC is associated with the name of McCarthy, it was founded in 1937 under the chairmanship of Martin Dies, to investigative “un-American and subversive” activities. Dies and other members of the HUAC were supporters of the Klu Klux Klan. Dies had spoken at several of their rallies. The Klan sent a telegram to Dies welcoming the formation of the HUAC.<br /><br />“Every true American, and that includes every Klansman, is behind you and your committee in its effort to turn the country back to the honest, freedom-loving, God-fearing American to whom it belongs.”<br /><br />HUAC member John S Wood said of the Klan: "The threats and intimidations of the Klan are an old American custom, like illegal whisky-making." Hardly any wonder that demands to interrogate the leaders of the Klan were resisted. Eventually Ernest Adamson, the HUAC's chief counsel, announced that: "The committee has decided that it lacks sufficient data on which to base a probe." Whilst this traditional American organisation was left to its burnings and lynchings, the HUAC concentrated its attention on left wing radicals.<br /><br />In 1940 the passing of the Smith Act (Alien Registration Act) helped to create an anti-communist hysteria. The Act made it illegal for anyone in the United States to advocate, abet, or teach the desirability of overthrowing the government, ironic given the revolutionary origins of the USA. The law also required all alien residents in the United States over 14 years of age to file a comprehensive statement of their personal and occupational status and a record of their political beliefs. Within four months a total of 4,741,971 ‘aliens’ had been registered.<br /><br />The Act was first used against the Socialist Workers Party, whose leaders were imprisoned under it. It was used again in 1948 against leaders of the Communist Party who were imprisoned for 5 years. One of the tactics of the prosecution was to ask questions about other party members. For refusal to discuss other members the defendants were thrown into gaol for contempt of court.<br /><br />The idea that these organisations were planning to overthrow the government of the United States was absurd. Essentially they were persecuted because their political programmes were said to violate the Constitution.<br /><br /><strong>The Hollywood Blacklist</strong><br /><br />In 1947 the HUAC began an investigation into the Hollywood Motion Picture Industry. In September 1947, the HUAC interviewed 41 people who were working in Hollywood. These people attended voluntarily and became known as "friendly witnesses". During their interviews they named several people who they accused of holding left-wing views.<br /><br />Bertolt Brecht, the emigrant German playwright, gave evidence and then left for East Germany. Ten others, known as the Hollywood Ten - Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Albert Maltz, Adrian Scott, Samuel Ornitz, Dalton Trumbo, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner Junior, John Howard Lawson and Alvah Bessie - refused to answer any questions. They were all were found guilty of contempt of congress and each was sentenced to between six and twelve months in prison.<br /><br />As a result of these hearings 320 people were placed on a Holywood blacklist which prevented them from working in the industry. Anybody who refused to ‘name names’ suffered this fate. You did not have to have any connection with the Communist Party or left wing organisations to face dire consequences. You merely had to be at the wrong party with the wrong people, years before, to be implicated. McCarthy was fed material by Edgar Hoover’s FBI which was used as ‘evidence’ in the HUAC hearings. Many people did not work for years, or had to produce work by subterfuge. There was an exodus of people like the film maker Joseph Losey and musician Larry Adler who came to Britain.<br /><br />Arthur Miller, who wrote the play the Crucible as a kind of parable about the McCarthyite witch-hunt, wrote of the period:<br /><br />“It was not only the rise of “McCarthyism” that moved me, but something that seemed more weird and mysterious. It was the fact that a political, objective, knowledgeable campaign from the far right was capable of creating not only a terror, but a new subjective reality, a veritable mystique which was gradually assuming even a holy resonance. The wonder of it all struck me that so practical and picayune a course, carried forward by such manifestly ridiculous men, should be capable of paralysing thought itself, and worse, and of causing to billow up such persuasive clouds of “mysterious” feelings within people. It was as if the whole country had been born anew, without a memory even of certain elemental decencies which, a year or two earlier no one would have imagined could be altered, let alone forgotten. Astounded I watched men pass me by without a nod whom I had known rather well for years; and again the astonishment was produced by my knowledge, which I could not give up, but the terror in these people was being knowingly planned and consciously engineered, and yet all they knew was terror.”<br /><br /><strong>Witch-hunt in the labour movement</strong><br /><br />The witch-hunt did not just affect lieterary/artistic circles, of course. It was widespread, heavily impacting of union activists who were often witch-hunted not just by the state but by the anti-communist leaderships of the trades unions. In 1949 ‘communist dominated’ unions, with a membership of 1 million, were expelled from the CIO union federation. The UE (United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America), an independent union outside the AFL-CIO, which actually left before it was expelled, records that:<br /><br />“Following the war, disagreements with the CIO leadership over the direction of the labor movement led to UE's withdrawal from the CIO in 1949; within months, a CIO convention "expelled" UE and 10 other unions with a total member of one million workers. The CIO joined big business, the press and politicians in smearing UE as "communist-dominated;" the CIO chartered a new union (IUE) to take the union's place.<br />UE came under ferocious attack as the anti-communist hysteria intensified in the early 1950s. Attempts were made to officially brand the union as a "subversive organization" and to deport UE leader James Matles. UE shop leaders were fired and blacklisted, even jailed. Politicians, big business and the CIO worked closely together to destabilize UE; the union lost more than half its members.”<br /><br />There were thousands upon thousands of personal tragedies as people lost their jobs, their livelihoods, and in some cases their lives.<br /><br /><strong>The case of Milo Radulovich</strong><br /><br />The film’s story begins with Murrow’s team considering whether to run with a programme on Milo Radulovich, a Lieutenant who was thrown out of the Air Force Reserve owing to the supposedly radical views of his father and sister. He was told if he repudiated them he might get his commission back, but he refused.<br /><br />The TV programme caused such an outcry that Radulovich was reinstated. Emboldened by this success, Murrow and his team decided to attack the high priest of HUAC, Senator McCarthy. The President of CBS eventually agreed to screen the programme, though Murrow and the Producer of his programme Fred Friendly had to stump up the $3,000 advertising revenue lost as a result of the refusal of the corporate backers of the programme to be associated with an attack on McCarthy.<br /><br />Murrow was told to drop anybody from his team who might have something in their past which McCarthy and his friends could pick up on. One of Murrow’s team offers to resign, but he is told not to. Joe Werschba, a member of the team records that:<br /><br />“When we looked at the near-final cut of the McCarthy broadcast and the staff showed fear of putting it on the air, Murrow spoke a line that landed like a lash across our backs: "The terror is right here in this room." And later: "No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices." When someone asked what he would say on the McCarthy broadcast, he replied, "If none of us ever read a book that was 'dangerous,' nor had a friend who was 'different,' or never joined an organization that advocated 'change,' we would all be just the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants."<br /><br />Murrow condemned McCarthy:<br /><br />"The line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep into our own history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result."<br /><br />When the broadcast went out, there was a flood of supportive calls to CBS - 12,348 people phoned in comments about it, with a fifteen to one majority in Murrow's favour. The sponsors also reported receiving over 4,000 letters, with the vast majority supporting Murrow's stance. This did not stop the McCarthy crowd attempting to smear Murrow, but the tide was already turning against the witch-hunt which carried his name. The following morning the New York Times claimed that with the programme, "broadcasting recaptured its soul".<br /><br />But the witch-hunt wasn’t over yet. When the See It Now programme ended on 9th March, Don Hollenbeck, came on the air with the regular 11.00 p.m. news and said: "I want to associate myself with every word just spoken by Ed Murrow." Hollenbeck was denounced in the pro-McCarthy press as a communist. After three months of smears, Hollenbeck, unable to take the strain, committed suicide.<br /><br />Murrow offered McCarthy the right of reply. When he did, instead of dealing with the issues raised by Murrow he simply denounced him, calling him the “leader of the jackal pack”. Murrow, said McCarthy, had been a member of the ‘terrorist’ organisation the IWW (the International Workers of the World or Wobblies), and had links with ‘communist’ organisations. It was not a credible performance.<br /><br />McCarthy was a hypocrite and a fraud. He was originally a supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. However, after failing to become the Democratic Party candidate for district attorney, he switched parties and became the Republican Party candidate in an election to become a circuit court judge. McCarthy shocked local officials by fighting a dirty campaign. This included publishing campaign literature that suggested that Werner was senile as well as guilty of financial corruption.<br /><br />When the United States entered the Second Word War McCarthy resigned as a circuit judge and joined the Marines. After the war McCarthy ran against Robert La Follette to become Republican candidate for the senate. As one of his biographers has pointed out, his campaign posters pictured him in "full fighting gear, with an aviator's cap, and belt upon belt of machine gun ammunition wrapped around his bulky torso." He claimed he had completed thirty-two missions when in fact he had a desk job and only flew in training exercises.<br /><br /><strong>A mythical war record</strong><br /><br />In his campaign, McCarthy attacked La Follette for not enlisting during the war. He had been forty-six when Pearl Harbor had been bombed, and was in fact too old to join the armed services. McCarthy also claimed that La Follette had made huge profits from his investments while he (McCarthy) had been away ‘fighting’ for his country. The suggestion that La Follette had been guilty of war profiteering (his investments had in fact been in a radio station), was deeply damaging and McCarthy won by 207,935 to 202,557. La Follette, deeply hurt by the false claims made against him, retired from politics, and later committed suicide.<br /><br />On his first day in the Senate, McCarthy called a press conference where he proposed a novel solution to a coal-strike that was taking place at the time. McCarthy called for John L. Lewis and the striking miners to be drafted into the Army. If the men still refused to mine the coal, McCarthy suggested they should be court-martialed for insubordination and shot.<br /><br />McCarthy's first years in the Senate were unimpressive. People also started coming forward claiming that he had lied about his war record. He was also being investigated for tax offences and for taking bribes from the Pepsi-Cola Company. In May, 1950, afraid that he would be defeated in the next election, McCarthy held a meeting with some of his closest advisers and asked for suggestions on how he could retain his seat. Edmund Walsh, a Roman Catholics priest, came up with the idea that he should begin a campaign against communist subversives working in the Democratic administration.<br /><br />Murrow’s programme on McCarthy was a turning point. But Murrow did not defeat McCarthy single handed. Wide sections of American society were sick to death with the atmosphere of fear. Moreover, McCarthy’s arrogance was unbounded. Not used to be challenged by people who were fearful of the consequences, his wild accusations were directed at the Democratic Party which he denounced as being ‘soft’ on communism. In a 1950 speech he said:<br /><br />“The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give.<br /><br />While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”<br /><br />McCarthy's next target was “anti-American” books in libraries. His researchers looked into the Overseas Library Program and discovered 30,000 books by "communists, pro-communists, former communists and anti anti-communists." After the publication of this list, these books were removed from the library shelves.<br /><br />Anybody who did not support the HUAC was deemed to be ‘defending the communists’. Truman was portrayed as a dangerous liberal and McCarthy's campaign helped the Republican candidate, Dwight Eisenhower to win the presidential election in 1952.<br /><br />In October, 1953, McCarthy began investigating ‘communist infiltration’ into the military. Attempts were made to discredit Robert Stevens, the Secretary of the Army. The President, Dwight Eisenhower, was furious and began moves to undermine McCarthy. The United States Army passed information about him to journalists who were known to be opposed to him. This included the news that McCarthy and Roy Cohn had abused congressional privilege by trying to prevent David Schine from being drafted. When that failed, it was claimed that Cohn tried to pressurize the Army into granting Schine special privileges. Drew Pearson published the story on 15th December, 1953.<br /><br /><strong>McCarthy attacks the wrong targets</strong><br /><br />Whilst the US rulers were not worried about the consequences of the witch-hunt for ordinary people, McCarthy would not be allowed to take on the upper echelons of the ruling elite. Five days before Murrow’s programme, under instruction from Eisenhower, Vice President Richard Nixon, made a speech attacking McCarthy (not by name, but the target was clear).<br /><br />"Men who have in the past done effective work exposing Communists in this country have, by reckless talk and questionable methods, made themselves the issue rather than the cause they believe in so deeply."<br /><br />This was the context in which Murrow’s programme was screened on March 9th 1954.<br /><br />McCarthy's eventual fall from grace came as a result of the televised senate investigations into the United States Army. Leading politicians in both parties were embarrassed by McCarthy's hysterical performance and on 2nd December, 1954, a censure motion condemned his conduct by 67 votes to 22. He lost the chairmanship of the Government Committee on Operations of the Senate. He was now without a power base and the media lost interest in his claims of a communist conspiracy. As one journalist Willard Edwards pointed out: "Most reporters just refused to file McCarthy stories. And most papers would not have printed them anyway."<br /><br />“Fat, comfortable and complacent”<br /><br />The film begins and ends with a speech of Murrows to the Radio and Television Directors’ Association. He committed the sin of lecturing them on the dangers of TV being, as would be said today, dumbed down. He accused them of being "fat, comfortable, and complacent" and television for "being used to detract, delude, amuse and insulate us."<br /><br />In the film Murrow is shown interviewing Liberace, discussing the improbable prospect of finding the woman of his dreams. Ray Strathairn, with the merest raising of his eye brows gives us a look which asks, ‘what am I doing this rubbish for?’ The withdrawal of Murrow’s programme was a straw in the wind so far as the direction of US TV was concerned. His critical comments came back to bite him. His programme was replaced by a game show, ‘The $64,000 dollar question’.<br /><br />‘Good Night and Good Luck’ provides a snapshot of McCarthyism. At 90 minutes long this in inevitable. It would have needed double the time to give a deeper historical context. George Clooney has been criticised for suggesting that there are parallels between the McCarthy period and Bush’s America. It is certainly true that the witch-hunt of the McCarthy period was much deeper than the current one. However, if you are of Arab or Muslim origin in the USA, then the impact on you would be much greater than the rest of the population.<br /><br />The film does not turn Murrow into a saint. It shows that he signed the ‘loyalty oath’ which CBS introduced, like many other companies, to show their fealty to the anti-communist campaign. What the films shows, however, and this is relevant for today’s situation, is that innocent people were persecuted and hounded, on the basis of innuendo and fabrications. So deep was the paranoia that many people were desperate to prove their loyalty, though guilty of nothing. Such a mentality continues to this day. Clooney rightly excoriates the Democrats who say they were ‘misled’ over WMD. As he points out they supported the war on Iraq because they were desperate not to be faced with the charge of being ‘un-American’ and lacking in ‘patriotism’. Bush told us all, “you are either with us or with the terrorists”. McCarthy told people dragged before the HUAC, if you don’t name names you are against us; you are with the HUAC or against it. ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ is a film well worth seeing and may well motivate people who are not acquainted with McCarthyism to look at the rich literature about it.<br /><br /><strong>Martin Wicks</strong><br /><br />To read about McCarthyism go to:<br /><a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm">http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm</a><br /><br />To listen to a Murrow broadcast on McCarthy and a broadcast from Buchenwald concentration camp go to:<br /><a href="http://www.otr.com/murrow.html">http://www.otr.com/murrow.html</a><br /><br /></span></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1147354717896029432006-05-11T14:34:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:27:40.981+01:00<span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Health crisis, what crisis?</span><br /></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The health service in Wiltshire is in an unprecedented crisis. Five out of seven community hospitals are under threat of closure, and now the PFI Great Western Hospital in Swindon has announced job cuts.<br /></span><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">No wonder Patricia Hewitt was booed by nurses at the RCN conference. To assert that this has been “the best year ever” for the NHS contradicts the reality experienced by staff and patients, and the mounting number of redundancies around the country. What appears incomprehensible to many is why this crisis is taking place when the government is spending more money than ever before on the NHS. Where is the money going? Some of it has gone to increased wages for NHS staff (historically many of them lowly paid), but most of that has gone to the new consultants’ contract, and to GPs. Still more is being handed over to private companies as a result of the introduction by this government of a ‘competitive market’. In fact they are throwing money at the private sector. Far from open competition, PCTs have been instructed to hand over work to the private sector. The government has introduced a ‘payments by results’ system for the NHS, but the private companies have been guaranteed payment whether or not they do the amount of work they are contracted to do.<br /><br />So whilst hospitals around the country are making cuts in service because they do not have sufficient funds to carry out all the work that they could, private companies are being paid for work which they have not done. In furtherance of their free market ideology the government is giving privileges to big business. This is a system which will necessarily eat away at the very foundations of the NHS because, under ‘payment b y results’, the less work the NHS does then the less money it receives. This is not a ‘free market’ but a system which the government has rigged in favour of private business. In fact in order to encourage the private sector to enter into the ‘health market’ the government is actually paying an average of 11% more per operation to private companies than it pays the NHS!<br /><br />What has precipitated the rush of thousands of redundancies around the country is the instruction from the government that all Trusts have to balance their books. The NHS is to operate like a profit-making business. But, of course, it is not making things, but treating people who do not fall sick by order. As one health worker said to me, what happens if the budget has run out and there is a smash on the motorway? Do they turn the patients away? Send them to another hospital? The answer, of course, is that they would make cuts elsewhere.<br /><br />These reforms supposedly to improve ‘efficiency’. But since the government has decided that the NHS must operate like a business, the measure of efficiency comes down to the ‘bottom line’. It is budget driven. Under the old system if a hospital over-spent as a result of an increase in numbers of people they treated, a situation beyond its control, the additional money necessary was provided.<br /><br />In Wiltshire the crisis is unprecedented.<br /><br />• The Great Western Hospital in Swindon is proposing 99 redundancies and a further 99 posts to be frozen.<br />• In the area of the Kennett and North Wilts PCT, it is proposed to close 5 community hospitals. Depending on which option is chosen, Melksham and Savernake hospitals could be closed, leaving just Chippenham hospital open.<br />• Malmesbury Community hospital’s maternity and minor injuries unit has already been closed by Kennet & North Wilts PCT.<br />• In January debts were announced of £8.2 million for Kennet & North Wilts, £3.7 million for South Wiltshire PCT, £1.7 million for Swindon & Marlborough Trust, and £7.5 million for West Wiltshire PCT.<br /><br />As a result of the financial crisis of the PCT’s, the Intermediate Treatment Centre at the Great Western Hospital has 36 out of 108 beds unused (20 of these beds are in any case already already for private work) because of drops in ‘demand’ from surrounding PCTs. The purpose of building the ICT was to take pressure off of the beds in the GWH. Chief Executive Lyn Hill-Tout has now come up with the brilliant idea of leasing more space to the private sector!<br /><br />The redundancies proposed for the Great Western are designed to save £2.2 million a year. But they are not “efficiency savings”. In a paper presented to the Trust Board on April 28th the management admit the cuts “will lead to reduced staff for patient care”. Moreover, although they are asking for volunteers for redundancy they will have discretion over who is given redundancy, depending on how much each individual would receive (length of service etc). So whether there are sufficient volunteers remains to be seen. Either way the loss of jobs will impact on the service provided. The Trust has merely said it will try to ‘mitigate’ the impact.<br /><br />The Swindon Advertiser editorial described this situation as “yet more evidence of the shameful and chronic shortfall in funding it must perennially suffer.” From this it draws the conclusion that:<br /><br />“The fact that the money should come from Whitehall is something that the hospital, like the rest of Swindon will just have to live with.”<br /><br />On the contrary, given that this is just the beginning of the crisis, instead of such a ‘nothing can be done’ attitude, it is necessary to campaign for a fundamental change of direction from the ‘health market’ that the government is introducing.<br /><br />When the NHS was founded in 1948 it was a decision to take health care out of the market; to turn it into a social service rather than a commodity which people had to buy or go without if they could not afford to pay. Health care was considered as something which was a social right irrespective of the economic circumstances of each individual.<br /><br />Whilst the current government says that it will continue with health care free at the point of delivery, they have undermined the rationale for a free service (actually based on general taxation). It has introduced a system in which Trusts compete with each other for patients. ‘Patient choice’ treats patients as if they were ‘consumers’ paying for a commodity. In reality patients do not want a choice when they are sick. They would like to be treated at the local hospital, or the nearest one which dealt with their particular illness if it was a specialised discipline. They do not want to have to drive a long way because their local hospital has been closed.<br /><br />To preserve what is best about the NHS there is an urgent need for a campaign to reverse the ‘reforms’ which the government has introduced; end the ‘health market’ and competition for patients.<br /><br />Nationally the Keep Our NHS Public (<a href="http://www.keepournhspublic.com">http://www.keepournhspublic.com</a>) campaign has been launched to oppose the government’s reforms. It brings together NHS staff and their trades unions, patients and supporters of the NHS. The latest support came recently when the Junior Doctors’ conference within the BMA voted to support the campaign.<br /><br />There is some interest expressed amongst NHS staff for setting up a local group of KONP. If anybody is interested in helping out please contact Swindon TUC ( </span><a href="mailto:swindontuc@btinternet.com"><span style="font-family:arial;">swindontuc@btinternet.com</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> ) or ring 07786 394593.</span><br /><br /></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1143562607319647742006-03-28T17:00:00.000+01:002006-03-28T17:32:42.770+01:00<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Local government workers strike</strong><br /></span><br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1241/1380/1600/P1010041.0.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: left" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1241/1380/200/P1010041.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1241/1380/1600/P1010041.jpg"></a><br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />UNISON members picketting social services; part of the national strike action in which more than one million local government workers struck in defence of their pensions. Click on the image to enlarge.<br /></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1140366502136971702006-02-19T16:26:00.000+00:002006-02-19T16:30:40.586+00:00<span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>The Dying Embers…the last days of the smoke filled room?<br /></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Ok, I know it’s late in the day, but it’s never too late to come out of the closet. I have to own up to having been a member of an oppressed <em>majority</em> for many years: non-smokers in the labour movement.<br /></span><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Yes, there are considerate smokers, I know. My partner’s daughter accepts that when she visits us she has to go outside to smoke. She doesn’t have a problem with this, and being considerate, she would not dream of forcing anybody to breathe in her smoke.<br /><br />Oh, but the labour movement. Why has it been full for so many years with people who, whilst fighting for the rights of people at work, could not give a damn about the rights of other people when it came to smoking? You must have met the character, the trade union activist who passionately believes that his ‘democratic right’ to smoke is an absolute. And your right not to breathe it in? It’s not even on his radar. It’s a question of his ‘freedom’.<br /><br />For many years, be it in the pub or labour movement meetings (often the meetings were in pubs), thousands of us used to troop in and put up with smoke filled rooms. Of course the culture of the labour movement has advanced since then. There will probably be no smoking in your conference now, though many venues took the decision by banning smoking. But the cultural advance did not include social events, of course. The smokers make up for lost time.<br /><br />Many years ago I had an NUR official, a good bloke, in most respects, who was more or less a chain smoker. Nothing would stop him smoking in union meetings. You could even vote to make them non-smoking, but he would ignore it. One occasion, we had a committee meeting in a small room, and he never stopped. He managed to put me off work for two weeks.<br /><br />If you don’t like cigarette smoke, or if you have a respiratory problem, such as asthma, for many years it was always difficult to go to labour movement meetings. When I developed a hyper-sensitivity to cigarette smoke, I had to bow out of events because they reduced me to a wheezing wreck. If you tentatively asked for – not demanded – no smoking in a meeting you were made to feel like a freak, an anti-smoking fanatic. Sometimes it was given grudgingly. One regional organisation I used to attend had no smoking in the meeting and then as soon as we reached the break they lit up in the same room, defeating the purpose of having no smoking in the meeting.<br /><br />It never occurred to the militant ‘smoking rights’ fraternity that people might be discouraged from exercising their democratic right to participate in their union by their reluctance or inability to sit in smoking meetings.<br /><br />It was pretty much the same in life in general. Smoking was so ubiquitous that not only could you not go to a pub if you had a problem with cigarette smoke. It was difficult to find a restaurant where you could avoid somebody lighting up just as you were about to tuck into your meal.<br /><br />Where smoking has been banned, in cinemas or on the London Underground, it was the result of accidents in which people were killed as a result of fires caused by cigarettes.<br /><br />Now we have the furore over the Parliamentary vote introducing a smoking ban in public places. I know smokers who are not troubled by the vote. Some of them, addicted as they are, see it as an encouragement to give up smoking. But the spectacle of left wing activists, being outraged by this apparent attack on ‘civil liberties’…it, pun intended, takes your breath away.<br /><br />A friend of mine tells me that I am imposing my ‘life-style choices’ on other people! The reality is the opposite. Smokers have imposed their ‘life-style choices’ on me and many others for years. We have been forced to breathe in smoke and go home reeking of the smell for years.<br /><br />I have even heard left wingers quoting scientific investigation funded by the tobacco companies to prove that ‘passive smoking’ is no great threat! But even if you believe that passive smoking will not kill somebody, what is incontestable is that it will do your health no good.<br /><br />The history of the tobacco companies is well known. They resisted all evidence that smoking harmed smokers. They rigged the evidence, they carried out an ideological war against all the evidence showing the destructive impact of smoking. They fill their product with carcinogenic substances. They have made a fortune at the expense of making people ill, the bill being picked up by our health service.<br /><br />Having said that, if somebody choses to smoke, that is their choice. If people want to fill the coffers of the tobacco companies by buying their product that is their choice. I think they are stupid doing something which is so detrimental to their health, but I have no objection to them doing so, provided I do not have to breathe in their smoke.<br /><br />I can’t help but ruefully remember the picture a room full of health and safety reps, desperately lighting up in the break of an RMT Health & Safety conference, in any area without doors, meaning the smoke drifted through to the main hall.<br /><br />What about the health and safety of staff in service industries, like pubs, clubs, and restaurants. Ah, says the defender of the ‘democratic right’ of the smoker to force other people to breathe in their smoke, if they don’t like it they shouldn’t work in such a job. No doubt Norman Tebbitt would tell them to ‘get on their bikes’. But not everybody can get the job that they want. So the trade union struggle for health and safety in the workplace is abandoned at the pub or restaurant door? Both the TGWU and the GMB, unions with members who work in smoking environments have supported the ban. There has been no revolt amongst their members.<br /><br />I have also read that the vote in Parliament is the result of the authoritarian nature of New Labour. This is not true. Remember the Bernie Eccleston affair? The government prevaricated over its commitment to introduce a ban of cigarette advertising for many years. Moreover, in the face of opposition it proposed the ‘compromise’ solution. It only abandoned it, giving a free vote, when it realised that it would lose the vote in Parliament.<br /><br />But could we not have smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs? The problem with this ‘solution’, of course, is that in the absence of a ban most owners would be frightened to lose their custom if they became a non-smoking establishment. I have even heard a publican say this.<br /><br />I am not demanding that smokers give up smoking. It’s their life. But for years the law has allowed them to take away the civil liberties, and restricted the lives of those who do not want to breathe in cigarette smoke, or even worse are made ill by it.<br /><br /></span></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1139854059398945922006-02-13T17:56:00.000+00:002007-04-14T11:37:34.760+01:00<strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">“Home owning democracy”: What’s in a phrase?</span></strong><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">A delegation from Swindon trades unions participated in the Parliamentary lobby on February 8th, in support of direct investment in Council Housing. One of the MP's, Anne Snelgrove told us we live in a "home owning democracy". What's in a phrase?<br /></span><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">South Swindon’s new Blairite MP Anne Snelgrove told a trade union delegation, participating in the Parliamentary lobby on February 8th, that we live in a “home owning democracy”. She was explaining why she was opposed to Councils building new Council housing. “Home owning democracy”; the phrase rang a bell. Didn’t Thatcher use it? Yes, in her assault on Council Housing she boasted of building a ‘home owning democracy’. This was why she introduced the ‘right to buy’ through which Council housing was given away to tenants with a massive discount. It was a conscious policy designed to destroy Council housing estates as bastions of electoral support for Labour. How could people with ‘capital’ vote Labour?<br /><br />That a Blairite MP like Snelgrove can utter the phrase without the least embarrassment reflects the degree to which New Labour is rooted in the Thatcher legacy. Historically, democracy was something which working people had to fight for in the teeth of resistance from the British rulers. Even with the passing of the ‘Great Reform’ Act of 1832 (1) only around one in five males had the vote, women none at all. The franchise conceded was based on the value of the property you owned or lived in. Universal suffrage strictly speaking was not conceded until 1928, and even then, the phenomenon of double voting was not done away with until after the Second World War. So home ownership was an important part of the pseudo-democracy which Britain’s rulers conceded piecemeal in order to hang onto their wealth and power.<br /><br />No doubt Snelgrove does not mean by “home owning democracy” that those who do not own a home should not have the vote. Rather, it reflects the Thatcherite prejudices about ‘standing on your own two feet’, ‘welfare dependency’ etc, which Blair and his clones swallowed whole. We are all ‘Thatcherites’ now declared Peter Mandelson.<br /><br />New Labour is the “Party of aspiration” we are told. One New Labour councillor in Swindon some years back spoke with disdain about the fact that there were some families who lived on the Parks council estate for three generations! Can you imagine somebody preferring to live in a Council house rather than owning their own home? Obviously they lacked ambition and ‘aspiration’.<br /><br />But the labour movement historically had <em>collective</em> aspirations. It wanted to improve the lot of the working class as a whole. New Labour has been created by people for whom personal advancement is their driving aspiration. Obviously anybody who lives in council accommodation cannot possibly be a “success” or they would be able to afford to buy their own home.<br /><br />One of the tenets of New Labour under Blair was that opposing the right to buy had been a big political mistake, from an electoral point of view. But the results of ‘right to buy’ were disastrous. In conjunction with what was effectively a ban on new Council House building (financially penalising Councils for building new stock), it created a massive shortage of Council Housing (2) and helped to drive up prices in the private housing market. The shortage forced people who might have been on a Council House waiting list, to buy their own house (often beyond their means).<br /><br />Many people bought their home because it was an offer which was too good to be true. The mortgage was often lower than the rent. However, what some did not think about was the cost of maintenance. On the estate which I live on you can see decaying housing which people snapped up but which they did not have the means to modernise, next to Council Housing which has had double glazing and central heating fitted. </span></span><br /><span class="fullpost"><span style="font-family:arial;"><br />After the initial enthusiasm of purchase there was a high occurrence of repossession as new owners found themselves in financial difficulties, especially in the period of high unemployment.<br /><br />Snelgrove might have no problem uttering the mantra of Thatcher. However, it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of her policy (for the younger generations she is only a figure out of the history books), many elements of which have been left intact by New Labour. The commentary of Ian Gilmour, an opponent of hers within the Tory Party, throws an interesting light on her policy.<br /><br />The ‘right to buy’ was taken up, during Thatcher’s reign by 1.5 million families. Although in favour of selling Council homes to tenants, Gilmour complained that the government was “more concerned with diminishing the role of local authorities than with the provision of affordable homes”.<br /><br />“In consequence, so far from doing much to relieve the housing shortage, which it had inherited, the government by its policies, in some places drastically exacerbated it.”<br /><br />Nicholas Ridley, the Environment Secretary from 1986-9 was “determined to weaken the almost incestuous relationship between some Councils and their tenants”. A 1988 Housing Act encouraged the transfer of tenanted council estates to other landlords through ‘Housing Action Trusts’. The government rigged the voting system by counting those who did not vote as voting in favour of transfer! As Gilmour comments, despite the rigged system, the great majority of tenants decided to ‘continue to live in incest’. At the time many Labour Councils and Councillors helped to lead the campaign against what was known as “pick a landlord”.<br /><br />When Anne Snelgrove says that Housing Action Trusts would be better building housing she forgets this Thatcherite attempt to destroy Council Housing.<br /><br />Gilmour continues:<br /><br />“Homelessness is far from new, but the sale of Council houses, backed by financial incentives (Thatcher’s favourite Council, Wandsworth, offered free holidays to tenants who bought their homes), required a high rate of council house building…or some alternative provision if it was not to lead to increased homelessness. Instead, local authorities were forbidden to spend more than a quarter of the revenue generated from council house sales on new homes and renovations. In so far as the government recognised the resulting problem of homelessness, it left it to be solved by the market. Thus the placing of homeless families in temporary accommodation by local authorities owed less to bad housing management, as the Thatcherites claimed, than to the financial restrictions that they themselves imposed onto the amount of money that could be spent on repairs to make empty properties inhabitable.”<br /><br />Because local authorities were prevented by the government from providing new homes, they had (in the words of the chair of the then Conservative controlled London Borough Association) to “spend a fortune” on temporary accommodation for the homeless. “This waste of resources”, he said “completely frustrates our objective of achieving value for money and only adds to the appalling amount of human misery involved.”<br /><br />Ironically, for all the talk of “welfare dependency” what the Thatcher government did was to cut welfare to the poor and increase it to the rich. In 1979 subsidies to owner occupiers and council tenants were roughly equal. By the end of the 1980s the subsidy to council tenants had fallen to around £500 million, while the public handout to owner occupiers in the form of mortgage tax relief had climbed to £5.5 billion.<br /><br />As a result of the policies of the Thatcher government, in the words of Gilmour, the council house became “more and more the preserve of the very poor”. Before the ‘right to buy’ Council estates comprised a wide cross section of working class people. One of the consequences of the social catastrophe for which the Thatcher government was responsible, was the growth of mass unemployment. Thatcher’s housing policy created conditions where the best stock was bought by those who could afford it. Whilst some people refused to buy out of principled opposition to the policy, probably the majority of those who could afford to buy, did so, thinking as individuals and ignoring the social consequences of their self-interest.<br /><br />Progressively, Council housing comprised the poorest sections of the community. The absence of new building meant that very few people had a chance of getting accommodation under the points system by which priority was decided. Single parents became a large proportion of those in Council accommodation. The fact that only the most impoverished sections of the community tend to live in Council accommodation is reflected in the statistics. Up to two thirds of tenants receive benefit of one sort or another. Today many people who might have put their names on the list do not bother because the wait is so long.<br /><br />It is ironic that a ‘one nation’ Tory like Gilmour could see the consequences of Thatcher’s policy, but in contrast the ideological creators of New Labour, in the words of Mandelson wanted to “move forward from where Margaret Thatcher left off”, leaving in place much of her policy.<br /><br />Like all Blairites, Snelgrove appears to be prejudiced against social provision which was part and parcel of post-Second World War social democracy. She is opposed to Councils being given the right to build new stock. She believes in the 'purchaser/provider' split. She is convinced that private business is ‘more efficient’. Much better that the private sector provide housing, in her view.<br /><br />Of course, Councils don’t have the resources to build Council Housing themselves. The one I live on was built by John Laing. But Council housing was considered necessary in order to tackle the problem of much of the population living in overcrowded and poor conditions. The history of private landlords in Britain is well known. “Take the money and do as little as possible to maintain the state of accommodation,” was the principle on which many of them operated. Council accommodation greatly improved the quality of life for millions of working class people.<br /><br />The Blair government’s policy on housing was rooted in Thatcher’s programme. They set out to remove Council Housing from the scene. They set themselves the target of transferring 200,000 houses a year. For Gordon Brown, getting rid of Council housing was a function of managing ‘his’ national balance sheet. It would make the book look better, removing historical housing debt from public accounts.<br /><br />However, council tenants have a different point of view. Despite all the blackmail and all the tricks, many of them have resisted the transfer of their housing. It is not because they are in love with their councils. Indeed dealing with bureaucracy is one of the downsides of being a tenant. They have opposed privatisation because being a council tenant gives them an affordable home and security of tenure. And stories of life before the big building programmes are passed down from generation to generation. The Racnmanite landlord was a common figure only 40 years ago (3) .<br /><br />After the delegation from Swindon had met our two MPs, we walked over to the Defend Council Housing rally in Westminster Hall. Gerald Kaufmann, the former Labour Minister, was speaking on the platform. The contrast with New Labour MPs could not have been more graphic. Kaufmann was on the right of the old Labour Party, a member of the last pre-Blair Labour government. Yet here he was not only demanding that Councils have the right to direct investment in their existing stock, but spoke of the need to build new council housing. He reminded us that Tory and Labour governments used to compete about how many Council Houses they had built.<br /><br />He confessed that when last in the government he had introduced legislation that had given Housing Associations the right to build public housing in conjunction with councils. But it was only conceived as a small niche. Never, he said, did he imagine that Housing Associations would end up as the sole provider of public housing.<br /><br />Housing Associations are considered providers of ‘social housing’. But, said Kauffman, a lot of his constituency work involved dealing with problems which tenants had with Housing Associations, which are unaccountable organisations. The only ‘public housing’ now built is the result of collaboration between Housing Associations and Local authorities, often accommodation for elderly people. But the amount being built is miniscule.<br /><br />Anne Snelgrove did express the view that there is a need for more ‘affordable housing’. But the reality is that the housing market will not deliver it. The government is prepared to offer mortgage relief to private owners. It has been prepared to write off historical housing debt for councils whose tenants vote to transfer to another owner. It offers funds for the lunacy of people buying half a mortgage, giving them the privilege of paying mortgage and rent at the same time!<br /><br />Yet it still refuses to give Councils the right to build new Council Housing. It appears to be politically and ideologically opposed to such a thing. When Gordon Brown recently spoke about his belief in “21st century individualism” he more or less said that people will have to buy their own homes. Clearly he does not believe Councils should build any.<br /><br />However, the housing crisis will not be addressed by the market or by government help for people to buy. Personal debt is at historically unprecedented levels. The crisis can only realistically be addressed by a new programme of Council House building. The government’s housing policy is in a state of disarray. Their attempt to eradicate Council Housing has been defeated by the resistance of tenants and trades unions. The campaign for the right of Councils to start building Council housing needs to be stepped up.</span><br /><br /></span><span class="fullpost"><strong>Notes</strong></span><br /><br /><p><span class="fullpost" style="font-size:85%;">(1) The Prime Minister Grey explained: “The principle of my reform is to prevent the necessity of revolution…there is no one more dedicated against annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and the (secret) ballot than I am.”</span></p><p><span class="fullpost" style="font-size:85%;">(2) Ironically by relying on ‘market forces’ the concentration of wealth and economic activity has created a situation where in areas like Swindon there has been a massive increase in the Council House waiting list, whilst in other parts of the country, which have suffered an exodus of jobs and population, Council accommodation lies empty, with insufficient ‘demand’ for it.</span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><span style="font-size:85%;">(3) Rachman was a notorious slum landlord in London.</span></p></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1129638992629470642005-10-18T13:30:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:28:29.209+01:00<span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Keep our NHS Public<br /></strong></span><br />Health Minister Patricia Hewitt has denied that the government is privatising the NHS. She says that the ‘competition' she is introducing only affects 10% of elective surgery and is supposedly 1% of the overall budget. She is a cynic. She knows full well what she is doing. <span class="fullpost"> Sir Nigel Crisp NHS Chief Executive has instructed Primary Care Trusts that they should not ordinarily carry out work in house. By 2008 they are supposed to have rid them selves of all of it. But we have already seen the consequences of this move to privatise PCT work. All non-emergency work done by the ambulance service in Surrey is to be handed over to a private company, GSL, which specialises in prison management, immigration detention centres and court escort duties. It is a breakaway from that bastion of high quality work Group 4 (the one which kept on losing prisoners). GSL will look after high dependency patients who need oxygen and supervision during journeys between hospitals. Try not to fall ill in Surrey.<br /><br />Meanwhile Thames Valley Health Authority took a step towards contracting out NHS healthcare management in Oxfordshire. On October 12 Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority voted through proposals that would remove the PCTs' senior staff from April 2006 and replace them - most likely by managers from a big corporation. The new, outsourced, PCT commissioners will buy in services from the private sector, Foundation Trusts and the NHS, for the people of Oxfordshire at the same time as preparing to shed those services currently provided by the PCT.<br /><br />The SHA has made no attempt to seek or consider the public's view of these latest 'reforms'. The announcement was buried in Board Paper 62-05 on page 9: "The SHA proposes to procure the provision of management services to the Oxfordshire PCT(s)".<br /><br />Staff of the existing PCTs heard about this plan just two days before the proposals came into the public arena. Having rubber stamped what is laughingly called the "procurement" process, TVSHA has indicated that there will be no further consultation with staff or public on this issue. This process is as transparent as all those contracts handed over to Haliburton by the Bush government.<br /><br />And it has been made clear that while the size and configuration of other Thames Valley PCTs is up for consultation, Oxfordshire's privatised PCT isn't. It’s believed that the Primary Care Trust inc (as it has been called by staff) might be put out to tender in the Official Journal of the European Commission (OJEC) in late November, and by April 06 may be up and running with new staff.<br /><br />The Department of Health, it is said, views Oxfordshire as a pilot site, and if successful would like to put all PCTs out to tender.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Rigged ‘health market’<br /></span></strong><br />Elsewhere news is emerging that the so-called 'health market' is rigged in favour of private companies. In fact there is no competition. NHS organisations are being instructed to hand over work to the private sector. In Yorkshire for instance, the Department of Health has instructed the Trusts in that area to increase the value of work given to the private sector from £3.2 million to £18 million. Brighton hospital has learned that 85% of its orthopaedic work will be simply handed over to a private hospital down the road. Oxford's Nuffield hospital is faced with closing up to half of its beds because it is losing work to a private hospital which has just been opened up nearby. There are many other examples. Between 10-15% of elective work will initially be given over to private companies, not as a result of competition but by instruction of the Department of Health.<br /><br />The work being given away to private health companies is the more simple and profitable work. Such businesses will not be interested in Accident & Emergency work, nor in chronic diseases which require long term treatment. This will tend to mean that general hospitals will have to carry out more expensive work. As private companies take more work off of the NHS then types of activity currently carried out will be abandoned by NHS Trusts, thus meaning that the 'choice' that patients have been told they will have will disappear.<br /><br />And the government is paying private companies 9% more for operations than it does NHS bodies. Is this 'greater efficiency'? What else is this but encouraging the growth of private companies, at the expense of the NHS?<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">‘Patient choice’<br /></span></strong><br />The watch word of this 'market' is 'patient choice'. Sick people do not want such a choice. They want to be treated to a good standard in the locality where they live. They are not shopping for DVDs, they are ill. Such ‘choice’ will destroy the basis for planning and introduce the chaos of the market. 'Patient choice' will produce the same result as 'parent choice'; 'sink hospitals' instead of 'sink schools'.<br /><br />A report published in June by consumer watchdog Which? (formerly the Consumers' Association) discovered that nine out of ten respondents to their survey supported the key argument of those opposed to 'choice': essentially patients want good local services which 'obviate the need for choices'.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Funding Crisis<br /></span></strong><br />Even before the emergence of this new 'market', the funding crisis of the NHS has reached unprecedented proportions. London Health Emergency has examined the accounts of 22 of the 28 Strategic Health Authorities and discovered a £1.6 billion funding gap (See the full report at <a href="http://www.keepournhspublic.com/pdf/SHAlist.pdf">http://www.keepournhspublic.com/pdf/SHAlist.pdf</a> ).<br /><br />The <strong>Health Emergency Press Release</strong> explained:<br /><br />“Despite record levels of funding at national level, the National Health Service is facing a drastic autumn round of local cutbacks and economies throughout England as Trusts, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) attempt to deliver a balanced budget for the current financial year. 16 SHAs have projected deficits in 2005-6, while four have projected end of year deficits in excess of £70m for local NHS organisations. A snapshot estimate of the available figures suggests a total shortfall of more than £1.6 billion across 22 SHAs: the 51 most financially challenged NHS Trusts face deficits and savings targets totalling almost £650 million.<br /><br />A survey of SHA, Trust and PCT papers and local press websites has revealed that tens of millions in deficits carried over from the last financial year are now worsening the plight of hard-pressed Trusts and PCTs as they attempt to stay within spending limits this year, while meeting stiff government performance targets.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Brokerage<br /></span></strong><br />Many Trusts and PCTs are counting on substantial brokerage and one-off support payments organised by 6 SHAs as a means to prop up their floundering finances and remain within borrowing limits. One Trust, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals, is seeking brokerage this year of £100m, while others are so deep in the red they are having to defer payments on accumulated debts, and hope to clear their deficits over the next three years.<br /><br />No fewer than 29 hospital and Mental Health Trusts have been identified as facing deficits or savings targets of £10m or more in 2005-6, leaving them just six months to push through far-reaching cuts and changes. At least another 22 Trusts face savings targets or deficits of £5m or more. And well over a dozen PCTs face massive deficits across the country, several of them in excess of £10m. While previously published official figures have set last year's deficits against under-spends elsewhere within each SHA, resulting in an apparently marginal deficit across the NHS as a whole, it is clear from this recent survey that the sheer scale of the cutbacks required in the overspending Trusts and PCTs must have an impact on patient care.<br /><br />Beds, wards and some well-loved smaller hospitals and units are closing, jobs are being axed, and PCTs, which foot the bill for each episode of hospital treatment, are seeking to cut back the use of hospital services and divert patients to primary care or to nursing homes and social services to balance their books at the expense of yawning deficits for their local provider Trusts.”<br /><br />It is no exaggeration to say that the government policy of 'payment by results' and introduction of a 'health market' is destroying the foundations of the health service as 'social medicine'. The government says that it does not matter who provides the service whilst it remains free at the point of delivery. However, instead of NHS organisations collaborating they will all be competing to attract patients and struggling to survive. And just as in the past New Labour abandoned its promise that all clinical work would remain in the NHS it cannot be long, as the financial crisis deepens until they decide that “those who can afford it” should pay. Or else, the road will be open to introduce charges should the Tories get back into office.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">National campaign<br /></span></strong><br />So what can be done to challenge the government? A national campaign has been launched, Keep Our NHS Public (<a href="http://www.keepournhspublic.com">http://www.keepournhspublic.com</a>), by health workers organisations and campaigning groups, with the support of UNISON. It is hoped that other unions will come on board. It has been launched with the statement shown below. (See the list of signatories thus far at: <a href="http://www.keepournhspublic.com/supportlist.php">http://www.keepournhspublic.com/supportlist.php</a> )<br /><br />It has to be said that it is rather late in the day. Much damage has been done to the NHS. The health service unions have downplayed their differences with the government. The 'end of the two tier pay system' was trumpeted as some great achievement. Dave Prentis said he would judge the union’s relationship with the government on whether or not it ended the two tier pay system. Whilst it is a step forward for the workforce, the government has continued with its privatisation agenda. Surely it is whether or not it presses ahead with privatisation, on which the government should be judged? The attempt of the unions to reason with Blair’s neo-liberal gang of careerists and self-seekers has been futile.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Galloping privatisation</span></strong><br /><br />Having said that, the move to reorganise the PCTs and privatise their work has provided a salutary shock. As John Lister of Health Emergency said at a recent meeting the unions have spoken of 'creeping privatisation' but in fact we are facing galloping privatisation.<br /><br />The key thing now is to build the campaign as widely as possible, involving service users as well as staff. We can learn from the experience of Defend Council Housing where the unions have supported a campaign which has united the workforce with tenants. The advantage there, as compared to the situation in the NHS, of course, is that there has been a ballot process which has enabled local campaigns to overcome the advantage of Councils: publicity machinery, money, and government write off of debt.<br /><br />There will be no ballots in the health service. The government is ‘letting the market rip’. That is why industrial action needs to play a more central role together with a political campaign. The absence of a national campaign in relation to the NHS has meant that groups of workers have been left isolated. There was no real campaign against PFI. The Dudley Hospital workers, for instance were left to fight alone. However, the new campaign will not only provide a focus, it will enable campaigners to expose in a much more systematic way the disaster which is happening on the ground in countless Trusts and locations.<br /><br />The weakness of the health service union organisation on the ground remains an objective difficulty that we face. However, it just may be that the launching of a national and political campaign will provide an impetus for rebuilding union organisation in the workplace.<br /><br />This campaign is important not only for those involved in the NHS and those who use its services. It is politically important because the NHS was one of the most enduring reforms which the post-war Labour government carried out. The generation which grew up in the 1930's understood life at a time when working class people often could not afford to see a doctor when they were ill. The NHS, despite all its weaknesses, gave a glimpse of a society in which people's lives were not determined by their status or the size of their bank balance.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Social Darwinism</span></strong><br /><br />The high priests of New Labour, glorifying in the 'benefits' of globalisation, believe that everything should be subordinated to 'the market'. Yes, this is Brown and Blair's very own version of social Darwinism. We now have the unedifying spectacle of NHS hospitals 'marketing' their services, as if the sick were considering what make of TV to buy. We are in fact moving towards a system in which the private sector will pick up the easy, more lucrative work and the NHS will be left with emergency work and treating chronic illnesses which the profit hungry vultures would not want to touch.<br /><br />Workers organisations are fighting to defend themselves on many fronts against a government which is seeking to destroy the welfare state, cutting our pensions, attacking our democratic rights and so on. Not everybody will be able to become directly involved in Keep Our NHS public. But what every trade union activist can do is to get their branch to affiliate, circulate the material in the workplace and explain to their workmates and their neighbours what is being done to the NHS.<br /><br />The campaign rightly wants to build local groups. Signatories on the statement, even big names ones, are no substitute for developing active support for the campaign, so that resistance is built. That depends on the full and active involvement of the unions.<br /><br />Campaigners in South West London have shown what can be done. Opposing the transfer of the £15m NHS-funded South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre to private hands as part of the government's £3bn scheme to expand private sector provision of NHS contracts have secured a 2-month delay and a full review of the plans.<br /><br />They intervened at a meeting of the Epsom-St Helier Trust Board, challenging the directors to explain the reasons for transferring the state of the art, highly successful and popular NHS unit to a US-based company.<br /><br />Trust directors were unable to offer satisfactory answers, and eventually conceded that a decision on the transfer, due to be taken at that meeting, would be postponed until December.<br /><br />During these two months a full review of the plan, including a fresh review of the option of retaining the unit and its services within the NHS, would be undertaken. Campaigners now plan to intensify their efforts to 'Keep SWELEOC in the NHS': but their example also shows the way for other campaigners faced with the transfer of NHS facilities in the second wave of bidding for Treatment Centre contracts, which are not open to NHS hospitals.<br /><br />The farther this programme of the government goes, the more we will live to regret it. What could expose the reality of Blair’s neo-liberal programme more clearly than a policy in which profit is to be dumped into the pockets of the private health vultures at the expense of the NHS? No wonder new right wing German chancellor Angel Merkel has been reported to have sought the advice of Blair on how she can introduce a Thatcherite programme into Germany.<br /></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1129063675201572322005-10-11T21:44:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:28:47.983+01:00<span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>"making this vital service great once more"</strong><br /></span></span></span><br />Peter Brown is one of the few correspondents in the Swindon Advertiser to write in defence of Blair’s government. Some uncharitable souls have suggested that his letters are written by a Party HQ computer and Peter marks his cross on the bottom. True or false his letters are certainly replete with statistics, which he obviously has at his fingertips. His latest letter was a rejoinder to a Tory councillor complaining about the number of beds in the Great Western Hospital, built courtesy of the Private Finance Initiative. This is my response to the paper’s letters page.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />“Peter Brown (“Labour Policy boosted GWH”) ignores the fact that the reason there were insufficient beds in the GW Hospital when it opened was because of this government’s policy. When it came to office in 1997 it adopted the Tory policy of the Private Finance Initiative. In order to enable the private company to make a profit the hospital had a smaller number of beds than the community needed. A publicly funded hospital would have been much cheaper.<br /><br />The then Health Secretary, Frank Dobson, promised to dispense with the Tories ‘internal market’. Now the Blair government is creating a market in which private companies are supposed to compete with the NHS. But this ‘market’ is rigged in favour of private health firms. Trusts are being instructed to hand over work from the NHS to the private sector. For example in Brighton 85% of the orthopaedic work is being handed over to a private company. In Oxford Nuffield hospital may have to close up to 50% of its beds because work is being handed over to the private sector.<br /><br />We now have the lunacy of Trusts preparing to 'market' themselves to patients!<br /><br />Far from “making this vital service great once more” the government is destroying the foundations of the NHS. At the time of PFI we were told that clinical work would remain within the NHS. Now the government is encouraging the growth of the private health vultures at the expense of the NHS.<br /><br />That is why even the recent Labour Party conference voted for a halt to private sector involvement in the NHS and even people such as ex-Minister Frank Dobson, and other Labour MPs, are supporting a new national campaign, Keep Our NHS Public (<a href="http://www.keepournhspublic.com">www.keepournhspublic.com</a> ) to stop the Blair government’s privatisation of NHS work. Needless to say the messianic Blair will ignore the conference decision of 'his' party.<br /><br />Martin Wicks<br />Secretary, Swindon TUC”<br /><br /><br /></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1125242126338017122005-08-28T16:09:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:29:54.036+01:00The British Unions and the New Labour government<em>The following is the text of a speech to the Norwegian Social Forum in Oslo in October 2004, to a trade union seminar.</em><span class="fullpost"><br />To understand the situation in the British trade union movement we have to examine two developments above all others:<br /><br />• The unprecedented crisis in relations between the unions and the Labour Party, or rather the New labour government;<br />• The emergence of a new generation of trade union leaders, referred to in the mass media as the “awkward squad”.<br /><br />The crisis in the relationship has been the result of seven years of a Blair government and its neo-liberal policies. The RMT rail union was expelled from the Labour Party as a result of its support for candidates of the Scottish Socialist Party. This was followed by the decision of the FBU to disaffiliate as a result of the government’s role in the Fire Service dispute. To this must be added the decision of the GMB, a loyalist union which had supported Blair’s take over of the Labour Party that they would not fund Labour’s general election campaign, and they would only support Labour candidates who were opposed to the government’s privatisation policy. Other unions have also decided to cut the amount of money they pay to the Labour Party.<br /><br />It is especially the government’s ideological commitment to privatisation which has created a fault line around which this crisis has deepened. They are in various ways opening up the public sector to private business. Now, even in the Health Service, where they said that the NHS would continue to carry out the clinical work, they are inviting in big business. Having continued the previous Tory government’s ban on council house building, they are seeking to privatise all remaining council housing, against the resistance of tenants.<br /><br />Such is the level of disenchantment with the government that in the words of one trade union leader it is now impossible for a Blairite to win a union election. Over the last few years in union after union, left wing candidates, or people presenting themselves as left wingers, have won elections for the top jobs in the unions. This new generation of union leaders has been described in the mass media as the “awkward squad”, supposedly a more militant bunch than the previous supporters of Blair and of “social partnership”.<br /><br />Obviously the defeat of the people who failed to challenge Thatcher and delivered the Labour Party to Blair, is something to be welcomed. But the change in one or two people at the top of a union does not add up to its transformation into a more radical organisation, nor one controlled by its members.<br /><br />The limits of these new leaders, especially in the four major unions, which have been operating as a block – the TGWU, GMB, Amicus and UNISON – has been reflected in a so-called agreement which they reached at a recent Labour Party Policy Forum – the “Warwick agreement”, named after the place they met. This ‘agreement’ on a range of policies has been declared to be a wondrous thing, which one leader said had guaranteed “a radical manifesto for a third term Labour government; another said that it reflected the fact that the Labour leadership was now treating the trades unions with dignity and respect.<br /><br />This is nothing other than self-delusion. The government has given a few minor concessions in order to try to stem the funding crisis. To take one example, the government’s employment legislation, ironically called fairness at work, created a situation where workers involved in a legal strike, could be legally sacked by their employer after 8 weeks. The unions were demanding that it be illegal to sack workers engaged in a lawful dispute. The government has come up with the massive concession that they can be sacked after 12 weeks!<br />There were other such concessions, but the government’s privatisation policy remains it place.<br /><br />I now want to briefly look explain the more radical elements within the British trades unions. In the PCS civil service union, a new General Secretary Mark Serwotka was elected, defeating a right wing candidate who would have made Ghengis Khan look radical. Following his election, a grouping called Left Unity won a majority on the union Executive Committee. They face a difficult situation because the government has just announced 104,000 redundancies within the civil service, and the union is currently balloting its members for strike action.<br /><br />There are, of course, a range of left groupings within most of the unions, some of which have significant numbers on union executive committees. There has in the past been a debate on the British left about alternative methods of organising within the unions: Broad Lefts or Rank and File groups. The Broad Left was the traditional organisation which the Communist Party (which used to be influential in the unions) promoted. Essentially it was an electoral machine which was assembled to decide on the left candidate for this or that election. This tended to be a means of wining positions within the bureaucratic structures of the unions rather than a vehicle for mobilising the members to break the grip of the bureaucracy.<br /><br />On the other hand there were ‘rank and file’ groups, most often associated with the far left, which whilst making many correct criticism of the union machines, and speaking of mobilising the membership, did not have any strategy to democratising the unions, nor mobilising the members to win control of them.<br /><br />One of the most interesting developments therefore, has recently occurred in the Fire Brigades Union, where the majority of the membership is angry and bitter at the way which the leadership conducted the recent dispute. Having set an unrealistic immediate target of a 40% wage increase, they ended up giving massive concessions to the employers, including, for instance the abandonment of pre-arranged overtime which had led to the creation of thousands of jobs.<br /><br />Those opposed to the deal on which the strike was ended, have set up a group called Grassroots FBU. It was not conceived as a vehicle for uniting the members of the left groups, but for mobilising on a much broader basis, the membership that considers they have been sold out by the leadership. It was launched with a simple programme of democratising the union, defending the fire service against cuts, and mobilising to kick out the existing leadership.<br /><br />Of two elections which have taken place since the strikes, supporters of Grassroots won both of them, against the apparatus candidates. With elections for Assistant General Secretary and General Secretary coming up over the next year, the union bureaucracy has acted to try to destroy the organisation which threatens to defeat it in elections. They have banned Grassroots FBU and declared that membership of it is a disciplinary issue.<br /><br />I want to finish by looking at the European trade union dimension. Out of the WSF-ESF a number of more radical unions made contact and have been involved in a series of meetings. The RMT has been the only mainstream union involved in these. They have included the SUD union federation from France, the Italian COBAS, some anarchist unions such as the Spanish CGT.<br /><br />The RMT took the view that it would work with those who wanted to struggle against liberalisation of the railways in Europe, be they inside or outside the main federations. There was an attempt to organise a coordinated strike against rail liberalisation across a number of European countries. For reasons I have not time to explain, the RMT was unable to deliver this action – in Britain ‘political’ strikes are banned.<br /><br />But what is clear on the European level is that the main union federations have completely failed to mobilise their members against the liberalisation process. Within the EU you cannot fight on the national terrain, because you are opposing decisions of the European institutions.<br /><br />At the ESF in London recently there was a meeting on the theme of the left in the unions in Europe. Discussion is taking place about the need for Europe wide collaboration between unions, especially those in the public sector. What is urgently necessary in my view is for practical collaboration between those forces in the trade union movement, be they inside or outside of the main federations, to campaign against the opening up of the public services. This can, of course, involve the social movements, but it cannot be done without Europe wide strike action, as difficult as this may seem at the moment.<br /><br />Some of the independent forces that we have met with, are dismissive of the main unions because of their often bureaucratic nature. But these unions cannot be dismissed for the simple reason that the majority of the organised workers are in them. The majority of workers will not leave them simply by denunciation of the bureaucracy. The struggle to break them from their support for the ‘European Social model’ and to create an alliance, not with our own bosses, but with the workers of Europe and farther afield is necessary for those who are opposed to neo-liberalism. Trades unions can play a key role in the struggle for another world, but not in alliance with their own Capital, only in alliance with the workers of other countries. The abandonment of ‘national interest’ for working class internationalism is necessary to radicalise our unions, and to show all those oppressed by capitalism that they will fight for the collective interests of all those exploited and oppressed by capitalism, rather than acting in narrow self-interest.<br /><br /></span><span class="fullpost"></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1124877747956040142005-08-24T10:58:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:31:04.654+01:00The fate of Coate yet to be decided<span style="font-family:arial;"><em>From Swindon TUC's August 2005 E-Newsletter</em></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Despite misleading headlines in the Advertiser, the fate of the planning application for the University campus and 1800 houses in the Coate area has still yet to be decided. More than 23,000 people have signed the petition against the application.</span><span class="fullpost"><br />Council leader Mike Bawden has caused divisions within the ranks of the Tories by his support for the application. At the Council Cabinet meeting Justin Tomlinson voted against supporting the application whilst Gary Perkins gritted his teeth and abstained. Has this anything to do with the unpopularity of the proposition and the proximity of Council elections next year you may wonder?<br /><br />Mr Bawden is being disingenuous when he blames the government since he was the man who told the Guardian that he had “brokered a deal” with the developers.<br /><br />Meanwhile Bath University has formally rejected the proposal of Swindon Civic Trust for a University in the town centre.<br /><br />Thanks to John Doyle’s research we have unearthed an article from the Swindon Advertiser in September 2001, at the time when the University’s campus at Oakfield on Park North was opened. The paper reported that the University was seeking to expand its presence in the town by building a campaus at North Star. Vice Chancellor Glynnis Breakwell mentioned that in the light of the building of the new hospital at Commonhead, the University was keen to work with the hospital. “Glynnis sees an ideal opportunity for the University of Bath to develop its medical research and teaching in Swindon.”<br /><br />Hold on a minute. What about the vast distance between North Star and Commonhead? Wouldn’t that be an obstacle to such collaboration? Apparently not.<br /><br />Later Mrs Breakwell came out with the convenient line that the University had to be at Commonhead next to the hospital.<br /><br />So why did they change their line? Could it have had anything to do with the fact that the ‘developers’ offered the land at Coate for free; the deal ‘brokered’ by Mike Bawden?<br /><br />The assertion that the only possible site was in the Coate area was only a convenience to cover the fact that the decision was an economic one.<br />And, of course, the offer was made because the house builders knew the chances of a planning application being accepted were better if the housing was connected with a campus.<br /><br />This underlines the fact that the ultimatum to the town, “Coate or not at all” is completely unprincipled.<br /><br />The split in the Tory group is a good sign that the pressure from the campaign is mounting. The “Great Debate” which the Advertiser has featured has shown an overwhelming preponderance of local people opposed to the building of the campus and housing at Coate. The battle is far from over.<br /><br />(There is a new Save Coate news site at: http://savecoate.blogspot.com )<br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1123689486997733672005-08-10T16:46:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:30:18.149+01:00Hitting the high notes<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1241/1380/1600/Denys%20Baptise%206.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1241/1380/200/Denys%20Baptise%206.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Deny Baptiste, tenor saxophone player with Jazz Jamaica, taken at the Old Town Bowl this summer.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Denys is another award winning artist. You can hear extracts from his work on Dune's web site: <a href="http://www.dune-music.com">http://www.dune-music.com</a><br />His latest CD was produced for the 40th Anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech.<br />{Click on the photo to enlarge}<br /></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1123618220115215032005-08-09T21:04:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:35:06.647+01:00Private Healthcare Vultures gather for NHS pickingsWhen the New Labour government decided to implement the Tory policy of PFI they said that clinical services would remain with the NHS. Today they are opening up the entire NHS to private healthcare. In place of planning they are introducing a market in which public and private providers compete for patients. The article below was written for Swindon TUC's April E-Newsletter.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />When the New Labour government pressed ahead with PFI we were told, don’t worry, clinical services will remain in the public sector. Yet today the government is opening up clinical services to private companies. They have abandoned the principles on which the NHS was founded. The latest indication of this is the news that hospitals will be allowed to ‘advertise’ to attract patients in a competitive market in which doctors and nurses will never be sure how many people will chose to use their services.<br /><br />Sir Nigel Crisp, the NHS Chief Executive, has published a report setting out how a “patient led” service will develop over the next three years. The NHS management is abandoning planning at the national level. <br /><br />Under the new system:<br /><br />• Hospitals will no longer contract with local NHS trusts or GPs to carry out a number of non-emergency treatments;<br />• Patients will be entitled to be treated at any hospital, public or private;<br />• A target to give private hospitals 8% of NHS work will be dropped and they will be allowed to compete for all they can get.<br /><br />A Health Insight Unit will be established to provide Primary Care Trusts with ‘marketing information’ about their local populations, like that used by supermarkets to target customers.<br /><br />The document, “Creating a Patient-led NHS” says:<br /><br />“Risk management in the future will involve a clearer approach to dealing with failure. High performing systems accept that failures will occur, and handle them decisively. In health this means recognising that some service are indispensable while others can be displaced.<br /><br />The approach to failure will distinguish between contestable services, which can be allowed to exit, and indispensable services, where the response to failure needs to ensure the service remains in place.”<br /><br />In other words, services that are not ‘successful’, in terms of the number of patients they attract and the money they make, will be dispensed with. This will mean that for all the talk of ‘choice’, hospitals are likely to dispense with unprofitable services and the actual choice will be progressively reduced.<br /><br />The idea of patient choice in relation to health is in any case preposterous. A sick person does not want a choice. They want to be able to be treated in their locality to a good quality. They do not want to travel a long distance when they are sick.<br /><br />In reality this is not a ‘patient-led’ NHS but cost led. The more patients attending a hospital the more money they are likely to make. But just as ‘choice’ in relation to schools has led to ‘sink-schools’, this crazy market based system can only lead to declining hospitals in areas, particularly metropolitan areas, where there are a number of hospitals, rather than the situation in places like Swindon where there is only one.<br /><br />The competitive market which the pro-privatisation New Labour government is introducing can do nothing else but lead to an increased polarisation between ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful’ hospitals rather than doing what the NHS was set up to do, which was to develop equality of service on the national level. This government will go down in history as one which undermined equality of service.<br /><br />The private healthcare vultures are gathering for the NHS pickings.<br /><br />BUPA medical director Andrew Vallence-Owen welcomed the policy shift:<br /><br />“We are awaiting an announcement as to what we can bid for. We and our colleagues in the sector are very keen to bid for the work, whether through national contracts or local commissioning.”<br /><br />He added: 'We are in the private sector; competition is what keeps us fit. Customers can walk if they don't like what we do. Most private hospitals are already doing a lot of work for the NHS, so why should [PCTs] not offer choice of another private hospital that has the capacity?'<br /><br />The NHS is being abandoned to profit making from ill health.<br /><br /></span>Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15171395.post-1123514631279499202005-08-08T16:14:00.000+01:002007-04-14T11:30:18.150+01:00Eminence Grise<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1241/1380/1600/jeans.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1241/1380/200/jeans.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Tireless eminence grise of the environmental movement in the Swindon area, Jean Saunders, must be fed up with the quality of photographs in the Advertiser. I thought it was high time to take a decent photo of her. This one caught her speaking at a meeting at the Steam Museum. {Click on the photo to enlarge}Martin Wickshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00535669267733060225noreply@blogger.com0