Socialist candidate in the USA making big impact

In the US this autumn many will ask who should we vote for ? there is a clear need now fora new party, a party representing the interests of the 99% and the working class. As Socialist alternative in the USA we are running candidates where we can. Below is a interview with one of our candidates running against a democrat and exposing their role as a second capitalist big business party. Interview with Kshama Sawant in Seattle Socialist Alternative (CWI supporters in the US) Kshama Sawant, a Socialist Alternative candidate in Seattle, is challenging Democratic House Speaker Frank Chopp in the general election for Washington’s 43rd Legislative District. Sawant achieved unprecedented primary election results that had her winning second place in both Positions 1 and 2 of the district. She took some time out from campaigning to talk to Justice newspaper. Kshama Sawant Q: Why are you running as a socialist? I believe that if we’re going to effect change, we have to be bold. That means not hiding behind false labels. More and more people, when asked, will tell you that they prefer socialism over capitalism. And it is obvious why: Capitalism has failed the 99%, whereas socialism stands for genuine democracy and equality. A better world is possible! That better world starts with the working class, the 99%, realizing that we are powerful! I am running as a socialist to show that there are alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats, both of whom represent the interests of the giant corporations. I’m calling for independent candidates of the 99% to run against the corporate politicians in every race! This is just the first step for us in a process of building movements challenging the power of the 1%. Q: What does a socialist candidate offer that a Democratic Party candidate does not? I will be a voice for everyday people in Olympia. Unlike my Democratic opponent, I will put the interests of the 99% first. Look at the money. My campaign is completely funded by ordinary people; meanwhile, my opponent has received tens of thousands of dollars from corporations and the super wealthy. After seeing where his money comes from, it is no surprise that he has consistently voted to slash the budget for social programs like health care and education. I will not only fight to reinstate and expand programs such as Basic Health, but I will also make sure that true single-payer health care is on the agenda in Washington. I will fight to make a quality education available to all, not just to those who have the means to afford it. I will make expanding mass transit and green energy a priority. Unlike the Democrats, I will fight for taxes on corporations and the very wealthy in Washington, who currently benefit from the most regressive tax code in the country. With this revenue, all of these programs can be easily funded. Another difference between myself and the Democrats is that I strive to help build movements. As an Occupy Seattle activist I worked to do just that. History shows the only way real change has been achieved is when people work together to make it happen. The Democratic Party functions to stifle these movements. We’ve seen it time and time again, with the antiwar movement of the early 2000s to the labor union struggle in Wisconsin last year. Q: What do you say to those claiming you can’t change anything through corporate-dominated electoral systems? I don’t think history shows that to be correct. Look at how the Canadians won universal health care. Canadian workers began running independent candidates and eventually built the New Democratic Party. The party grew in popularity, threatening big business and Canada’s main political parties. It became clear that for the ruling class to retain their electoral power, they’d need to give some concessions, in this case universal health care. Ultimately, it’s mass movements that bring about fundamental change. During a presidential election year, many more people are paying attention to politics. Running in elections allows us to reach more people with our ideas and effectively build the movement, particularly when there is such anger with both the Democrats and the Republicans. Examples from history show that it is possible to build working-class parties that do not function as electoral machines like the two major corporate parties. Instead, they are parties that work for the interests of ordinary people, fighting for jobs that pay a living wage, for free, universal health care, for affordable housing, defending pensions and protecting the environment. We need a party of working people, and running candidates that challenge the corporate politicians is the first step toward building that party. Q: What is the most important message you want to give to others thinking of challenging the two main parties? Now is the time! There is increasing support for breaking from the two-party system. This anger at the Democrats, in particular, is evident in the strong showing for our candidate in the primary elections earlier this month. We won over 9% of the vote against a well-liked Democrat, Jamie Pederson, in position 1 and over 11% o f t he vote in position 2 as a write-in candidate against the more vulnerable Speaker of the House, Frank Chopp. These votes show how people are angry at the two corporate parties and are looking for an alternative to challenge the status quo in electoral politics. Winning both races, itself, has increased the media attention and the number of people wanting to get involved with the campaign. The unusual election result gave our campaign the opportunity to switch races and run against the second most powerful Democrat in Washngton State. Running against the House Speaker will provide our campaign with a larger platform from which we can inject our ideas into the stale debate on how to address the economic crisis gripping the state. When I’m out talking to people in the 43rd District I ’m hearing that working people, the unemployed, youth and the elderly are increasingly finding that capitalism isn’t working for them. After hearing me loudly proclaim, “Stop the budget cuts; elect a socialist candidate,” one guy told me, as he backtracked to our table, “Budget cuts are a ***! I NEED one of those [leaflets].” There is real openness to socialist ideas. Many youth and workers have said, “Socialism, YES!” when they meet us on the streets. So, it’s obvious that ordinary people are energized by a campaign that isn’t beholden to corporate America and is speaking out for the needs of the 99%. We need to build a mass movement, independent from both big business parties, as an initial step to break corporate control of U.S. politics and to start transforming the country and the world!

Ten Reasons Why Progressives Should Not Vote for Obama

In the latest edition of Justice, the publication by Socialist Alternative our American section of the CWI have published a excellent 10 point critique of the reasons why progressive thinkers and Americans should not vote for Obama Socialist alternative is saying if you wish to vote at all that your vote should go to Gill of the Greens as she is the most pro worker but do raise the demand and the need for a new mass workers party breaking with the two party system which is two parties of big business and bank bailouts and illegal wars in the US.
I myself will be watching the presidential race this year and I’m sure turnout will be down as people have little faith in politicians any longer and America in the belly of the capitalist system this is true too. The occupy movement and the anti foreclosure Stein campaigns have stood socialist alternative in an excellent position and have been growing and building very well. They are in fact our fastest growing section in our 43 section international.
Below I post the 10 reasons not to back Obama and the democrats this fall and the conclusions need to be drawn by the masses for a new party of the left, standing up for workers and sweeping aside capitalism building for a socialist alternative in America.

1. Wall Street and Corporate America fund Obama’s campaigns.
His top contributors in 2008 were the same big banks guilty of causing the housing crisis. He awarded these nearly 80% of his donors with senior-level government jobs (telegraph.co.uk, 6/2011).
2. Obama bailed out Wall Street…
The bailouts amounted to more than $16 trillion (therawstory.com, 10/2010). Since then, corporate profits accounted for 88% of economic growth and have now exceeded pre-recession profit levels.
3. ...Not working people, students, or homeowners.
Under Obama, the gap between workers’ wages and corporate profits climbed to its highest point since right before the Great Depression (politifact.com, 8/2011), the number of Americans living in poverty increased to 46 million - a 50-year high (LA Times, 9/2011), the total student debt topped $1 trillion (Wall Street Journal, 3/2012), and home foreclosures are projected to rise to 1.5 million (LA Times, 10/2011).
4. Obama failed to stop massive cuts to education and public services.
His 2011 bipartisan budget deal represented the largest drop ever in U.S. domestic spending, including slashing $493 million from Pell Grants and billions more from education, health, and labour (www.scpr.org, 4/12/2011).
5. Obama allowed insurance and pharmaceutical companies to dictate the terms of the Affordable Care Act.
Instead of sweeping away the for-profit insurance companies that dominate the dysfunctional health care system, he handed them millions of new customers with a government mandate requiring everyone to buy insurance plans. He even scrapped the public option, despite it having the support of 61% of Americans (CNN, 10/2009).
6. Obama has continued Bush’s war policies.
He ended “combat operations” in Iraq based on Bush’s timeline, yet he maintains a significant presence through 9,500 private contractors and 3,000 troops. He also increased funding for military spending, escalated the disastrous war in Afghanistan, and intensified drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
7. Obama has continued attacks on civil liberties.
He signed the National Defence Authorization Act, which allows the indefinite military detention of anyone, anywhere, without charge or trial, including U.S. citizens. He punished more government employee whistle-blowers than any previous president, reauthorized Bush’s Patriot Act, personally oversees a secret kill list that has included U.S. citizens, failed to close Guantanamo Bay, and allows the continuation of the domestic surveillance program against Muslim-Americans.
8. Obama has deported more immigrants than any other president in any two-year period.
He expanded E-Verify, further militarized the U.S.-Mexican border, and utilized the highly flawed “Secure Communities” program as a key part of his crackdown on undocumented immigrants (Reuters, 9/2011).
9. Obama has prioritized the interests of Corporate America and oil companies over the environment.
Obama failed to deliver meaningful action on global climate change at the Copenhagen and Durbin summits. He opened the Arctic and the East Coast to offshore drilling, expanded fossil fuel production and fracking, provided loans to build the first nuclear power plant in 30 years, and welcomed the beginning of construction on the Keystone XL pipeline.
10. Even as the first African American president, Obama has failed to address the social and economic situation of people of colour.
African American unemployment increased more than other racial groups under Obama (guardian.co.uk, 10/2011). African American unemployment stands at 13.6% and Latino unemployment at 11%, compared to white unemployment at 7.4% (CNN, 5/2012). Meanwhile, Obama continues to fund the failed “War on Drugs” while doing nothing to address the mass incarceration of African Americans.

A distinct lack of genuine political debate

In todays modern fast moving ever changing society we find ourselves in a state of low class contiousness due to a lack of struggles up till now as we had been part of a boom time. Things are changing but i wanted to touch on something which has become increasingly clear to me.

The lack of genuine political debate is very evident to me. The fact that all political parties the main ones i mean Labour, tory and Lib dems are very similar in their nature and similar in the system they support. The exploititive system of capitalism. Some support it more than others but be under no doubt none want to do away with it or even begin to discuss if there is a better way for all of us.

There is multiple reasons why i think this is. They all wish to manage capitalism the best and each election they battle with eachother on tiny differences in who can manage capitalism better than the other. New labour did do a good job of this from a capitalist point of view they helped the rich get even richer than ever before giving tax cuts to the rich and deregulating the banks.

The lack of a genuine voice for workers and working class people and the poor is very striking i feel. Not that a mass workers party would find it any easier to get their ideas out ther as the mass media is still owned and controlled by the rich capitalist barons.

But having a mass party of workers organised in trade unions too all standing up for workers and popularising other ideas like socialism and socialist ideas such as a shorter working week with no loss of pay, a mass affordable house building scheme to tackle our shortage of affordable homes for all, nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy and major utilities including energy water etc. All of these ideas could be given a mass hearing if a new workers party was formed.

The fact is we have to try doubley hard to get our ideas out ther to people. People still read papers like the sun and the daily mail sadly it is not about condemning them for daring to read such papers that is their choice but about us engaging with them and steering their ideas in a friendly socialist manner. Asking them questions and engaging in real debate is waht is needed.

Take BBC question time on a thursday night meant to be the highlight of the week and the height of political debate. I frankly do not see any debate on there at all anymore. You have lib dems, tories and labour all argueing who can screw over the poor the most. None of them speak up for ordinary workers and any questions an audience asks they are baffled with science and fobbed off. This is not good enough and a change is needed.

Such ideas of socialism and trade unionism have been down trodden for years and years and it will take a while to get the ideas back into peoples minds. Big struggles like strikes on november the 30th and more like that will do wonders to increasing peoples understanding and contiousness of the unfair world around us that we live under.

Having our own media will be a start i feel. In the socialist party we produce our own weekly paper produced by working class people for working class people not for a profit but to spread the ideas of our party and to popularise ideas that can improve the situation we all live under.

The wealth is there in society we in Britain are one of the worlds richest nations i simply do not accept there is no money left. There is if it is distributed fairly among all in society not concentrated among a elite few.

keep our prison officers jobs public, say no to privatisation

Birmingham Prison is to become the first jail in the UK to be privatised, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said.

The decision to award security firm G4S the contract to run the 1,400-inmate jail came after firms competed over the running of four prisons in England.

The Prison Officers' Association called the decision "disgraceful" and has not ruled out taking industrial action.

Mr Clarke told MPs the "military are involved" in contingency plans should prison officers stage a strike.

Thirteen private prisons already exist in the UK - 11 in England in Wales, and two in Scotland - but this is the first existing public sector prison to be contracted out.

Mr Clarke has said the move will save money and improve performance on issues such as cutting reoffending rates.

Hundreds of prison officers held a meeting outside Birmingham Prison minutes after the announcement was made. The union told its staff to turn up as normal on Friday, when a branch meeting will be held.

Although prison officers are banned from going on strike, the strength of feeling is such that some kind of spontaneous action is a "distinct possibility", said BBC Home Affairs correspondent Danny Shaw.

The Prison Reform Trust said there was a question mark over whether increasing privatisation was a "good way" of improving the system.


Danny Shaw

Home affairs correspondent, BBC News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The private sector has operated newly-built prisons for almost 20 years.

Indeed, Ken Clarke, who was responsible for the Birmingham decision, became home secretary in April 1992, just days after Britain's first ever private jail opened - the Wolds, in East Yorkshire.

Across the UK, 12 other jails are now privately-managed - but none was previously in the public sector.

It's this - the transfer of a publicly-run jail into a private one - that's so angered the unions.

Not only are they worried that it'll bring job cuts and a reduction in union membership, they're concerned the privatisation bandwagon will roll on.

Although prison officers are banned from going on strike, the strength of feeling is such that some kind of spontaneous action is a distinct possibility.

The last time did that, in a pay dispute in 2007, 20,000 members walked out.
In his announcement Mr Clarke also told MPs that G4S would run the proposed Featherstone 2 prison, a new jail opening near Wolverhampton, while Serco would continue to run Doncaster Prison, which was built by a private company.

Doncaster will become the first prison to be run on a "payment by results" basis, with Serco getting its full payment only if reoffending rates were reduced, Mr Clarke told the Commons.

The other prison in the competition, Buckley Hall, in Rochdale, will continue to be run by HM Prison Service, he said.

Workers 'betrayed'

The competition between public and private bidders to run the prisons was launched by the last Labour government, in 2009.

Birmingham jail's 752 staff were told the result of the tender at noon, BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said.

He said the Prison Officers' Association (POA) had a long-standing mandate from its members to take industrial action if any prisons were contracted out to the private sector.

In a statement, Steve Gillan, general secretary of the POA, said: "This is a disgraceful decision. Prisons should not be run for the benefit of shareholders nor for profit.

"The state has a duty to those imprisoned by the criminal justice system and this coalition government have betrayed loyal public sector workers for their friends in the private sector."

He later added: "We will not make a knee-jerk reaction. We will study what we can do and take direction from our members, but we will not rule out industrial action."

The Birmingham prison officers returned to the jail following their impromptu meeting but were said to be feeling "bitter" about the announcement.

Mr Gillan said they had been working for the past two years in an atmosphere of uncertainty and added that there was "understandably a feeling of disquiet".

'Public protection'

In his statement Mr Clarke also said Wellingborough Prison, in Northamptonshire, had been withdrawn from the competition and would need to deliver the 10% efficiency savings required by all prisons over the next four years.

End Quote
Juliet Lyon

Prison Reform Trust
He said the changes would bring savings of £21m for the three existing prisons and deliver the new Feathersone 2 prison £31m cheaper than originally planned and said "cumulative savings over the lifetime of the contracts for the three existing prisons are very impressive at £216m".

Mr Clarke said: "This process shows that competition can deliver innovation, efficiency and better value for money for the taxpayer - but also that it can do so without compromising standards.

"Public protection is not just about how we manage prisons in order to punish people. It is also about how we achieve genuine and long-lasting reductions in crime, by cutting reoffending."

Mr Clarke said that central to this was the pilot payment-by-results project at Doncaster Prison, where 10% of the contract price will be held back unless the prison can cut by 5% or more the one-year reoffending rates.

Doncaster's operator Serco will work with a range of voluntary sector and other organisations to "enable them to meet the specific needs of each individual offender".

Juliet Lyon, of the Prison Reform Trust, pointed out that the UK had a higher proportion of prisoners in private hands than the US.

She added: "It's a very large proportion of people to be held in that way, given that prison is our most extreme form of punishment.

"We must make sure that there's adequate monitoring, proper checks and balances, to make sure this is done on behalf of the state and done properly.

"The real concern is about very poor reoffending rates and that's got to be improved. The question remains is it a good way of doing it to try and introduce more privatisation? Will that improve performance and accountability or will it lead to such tensions in the system that standards could in fact fall further?" she added.

The new contracts come into force from October, except Featherstone 2, which runs from April 2012.


all this adds up to more privatisation under the tories who seem driven by it. Whether they have the private sector breathing down their neck for government contracts or not this is no way to go i feel. Firstly it is disgraceful that prison officers are not allowed to go on strike. In the article it suggests they are talking amoungst themselves as to what todo but they and teh wider public must resist these moves. Lets say no to privatisation by the tories. Our prison officers do a excellent job in this country under some very tough circumstances they are faced with unruely prisoners on a daily basis and should be commended in their efforts. THis is no way to treat them by threatening to privatise their jobs and sell them off to the private sector to make anotehr quick buck out of them. I strongly oppose this move and hope others will join me in saying no to privatisation to this sector of workers.

Why socialists should oppose AV

I was thinking to myself a while now as i'm a socialist how i should approach the forthcoming AV referendum and what should i vote for. This article below sums things up perfectly from a socailist, trades union, new workers movement perspective and lets us know that AV will not give us the better democracy it likes to portray. I reccomend all read this bit below. It should explain a lot about where we should focus our thoughts when casting our vote in may.

Barring an unexpected upset in the House of Lords the Con-Dems’ Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will soon become law, paving the way for a referendum in May to change the method of electing MPs to the ‘alternative vote’ system. What position should socialists take? CLIVE HEEMSKERK writes.

DURING LAST YEAR’S student rising, as police chiefs discussed whether to ask for water cannons to deal with future protests in the age of capitalist austerity, the political representatives of the system were also debating how best to beef up their defences – in this case, their Westminster positions – against the growing rage outside.

The constituency re-organisation aspects of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, nearing the end of its legislative journey, are certainly a clear case of Tory gerrymandering. The number of MPs will be cut from 650 to 600 – a smaller parliament is a long-standing Tory goal – and constituency boundaries will be hastily re-drawn (with local inquiries abolished). This will be done on the basis of an electoral register that excludes an estimated 3.5 million adults (rather than, for example, waiting for the forthcoming census returns), reducing, in particular, the social weight of the inner-cities in parliamentary representation. While the overall electoral registration rate has dropped from 97% in 1988 – before the poll tax – to 91% now, a 2010 Electoral Commission survey showed the disproportionate effects, with 31% of black and minority ethnic residents and 49% of private sector tenants not registered, for example. On this basis alone the whole Con-Dems ‘reform’ package should be firmly opposed by the labour movement.

But the provision to change the voting system in parliamentary elections, from ‘first-past-the-post’ to the ‘alternative vote’ (AV) method – provided there is majority backing in a referendum in May – has won support from sections of the ‘left’, from the Guardian newspaper and the Green Party to, unfortunately, the veteran left-winger Tony Benn, John McDonnell MP, and the PCS civil servants union.

The Yes campaign speaks of ‘a fairer voting system’ but AV is no more democratic than the present position, and arguably less so. More importantly, AV will not make any easier the process of establishing a new vehicle for working class political representation, a new workers’ party, the key task posed, on the political plane, by the era-defining struggle against the cuts. From a longer term perspective, an AV system would create barriers – not insurmountable but real nonetheless – to the prospect of a mass workers’ party of the future winning a parliamentary majority. The Socialist Party will be campaigning for a No vote in the forthcoming referendum.

Is AV ‘fair’?
BRITAIN’S MPs are currently elected in single-member, geographically-based constituencies, in which the front runner wins, even if the vote that he or she receives is less than 50% of the votes cast.

In the AV system proposed in the Parliamentary Voting Systems Bill, voters will still elect one candidate from one geographic constituency. However, instead of voting for one candidate they will be able to rank one or more in order of preference. If, after the first preferences have been counted, no candidate has secured over 50% of the votes cast, then the bottom candidate will be eliminated and their second preferences redistributed to the remaining candidates. This process will be repeated until one candidate reaches a majority or, as not every voter will necessarily list second or third preferences, only two candidates remain and no more re-distributions are possible.

Is this a ‘fair’ system? AV has been used in Australia in single-member seats for the House of Representatives since 1919 and has produced election results as disproportionate on occasions as those under Britain’s ‘first-past-the-post’ system. One example was the election that followed the constitutional crisis of 1975, when the Queen’s representative, Governor-General Sir John Kerr, dismissed the Labour government – elected in 1972 after 23 years of Liberal/Country Party rule – which had enacted some Keynesian measures against big business profits and threatened to close US military bases in Australia. The Liberal Party was behind the Australian Labour Party (ALP) in the national vote, but won nearly twice as many seats after votes were re-distributed, legitimising Kerr’s ‘constitutional coup’.

Another example is last year’s general election in Australia which saw the Greens breakthrough to win their first seat – but they polled 11.76% of the national vote to win one seat, out of 150, compared to the now capitalist ALP’s 72 seats on a 38% vote. In contrast, under the first-past-the-post system, the Greens won their first MP in last year’s UK general election with just 1.1% of the national vote (standing in 334 seats).

AV is not a proportional system. Following the 1997 election Tony Blair established a commission, headed by the former Labour right-winger and Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Jenkins, to study alternatives to first-past-the-post. The Jenkins Commission eventually proposed an AV-plus system, with 80-85% of MPs elected on an individual constituency basis but with others elected on a ‘top-up’ basis to create greater proportionality, similar – although with a more restrictive threshold – to the systems used for the London assembly, Welsh assembly, and Scottish parliament elections.

The Commission considered a simple AV option, noting approvingly that one of its ‘formidable assets’ was the fact that "there is not the slightest reason to think that AV would reduce the stability of government; it might indeed lead to larger parliamentary majorities". (Voting Systems: The Jenkins Report, October 1998) But as the Commission’s ‘remit’ included ‘relieving disproportionality’ – the Jenkins Commission was set up Blair and the then Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown purposely to find ways to entrench and consolidate the process of transforming the Labour Party into New Labour, to make coalitions the ‘new normal’ – so AV was rejected because, "in some circumstances… it is even less proportional than first-past-the-post".

Electoral reform and the workers’ movement
THE DEBATES AROUND the Jenkins Commission, and earlier discussions on electoral reform by the ruling class and their right-wing shadows in the workers’ movement, are instructive, particularly those that took place when the Labour Party was a ‘capitalist workers’ party’ (with pro-capitalist leaders but with democratic structures that allowed the working class to fight for its interests), not fully under the control of the ruling class.

The 1970s, for example, saw the emergence of a Conservative Campaign for Electoral Reform, following the shift towards the left within the trade unions and the Labour Party as a result of the enormous class battles under Edward Heath’s Tory government of 1970-74. A key Tory supporter of electoral reform, the MP Sir Anthony Kershaw, stated its aim at the time: "I feel that electoral reform is necessary if the country is to be run democratically and not against its wishes by a militant minority" (Obituary, The Telegraph, 30 April 2008) Tory representatives welcomed, and noted, the AV-created disproportionate landslide defeat of the Australian Labour government in the 1975 general election.

The experience of Chile was also pondered, where Salvador Allende had initially been elected president in 1970 with 36% of the vote and, under the pressure of the masses, nationalised over one third of industry (the Popular Unity parties subsequently increased their vote to 44% in the March 1973 parliamentary elections, the last elections before the military coup which overthrew Allende in September). Electoral reform, in other words, was explicitly seen as a means to stop the possible coming to power of a Tony Benn-led left Labour government ‘on a minority vote’. (This period, and the 1970s debates on constitutional reform, are discussed in more depth in an article by Peter Taaffe, The Brutal Face of Toryism Behind the ‘Liberal’ Mask, reprinted in Socialism Today No.113, November 2007)

As The Economist remarked in a later debate on electoral reform, summing up the calculating attitude of the capitalists to the different forms of parliamentary democracy, there are "many faces of fairness". The task is to "ask, in each case, what function the elected body serves, what they want to achieve… and is it worth the upheaval" to change the electoral system. (1 May, 1993)

Marxists, in contrast, have always been champions of the widest democracy, including its extension to the economy and society as a whole. The working class has always had to fight for democratic rights like the right to free association (including trade unions), free expression (including workers’ papers), even the ‘rule of law’ against the arbitrary exercise of power and, of course, the right to vote and universal suffrage. Extending and deepening democracy within capitalist society strengthens the working class and its organisations, necessary both for the task of ending capitalism and the building of a new, socialist society. But when it comes to parliamentary systems, the workers’ movement too must look at who is proposing what, why, and in whose class interests.

So could socialists consider supporting AV in the forthcoming referendum? One possible argument is that it would help the development of a new workers’ party, the absence of which is a critical factor today. The transformation of the Labour Party has given the Con-Dem government a freer hand for their brutal measures. Just to compare the meek acquiescence of Labour councils now to the battles conducted in the past shows the consequences of this change. Although they eventually capitulated to Thatcher’s dictates, leaving Liverpool and Lambeth councils to fight alone, at one point 20 Labour councils were preparing to resist the government in the battles of the mid-1980s.

The Labour Party always had the potential to act at least as a check on the capitalists. The consequences of radicalising the Labour Party’s working class base was a factor the ruling class had to take into account. Now the situation is completely different. Without the re-establishment of at least the basis of independent working class political representation, the capitalists will feel less constrained in imposing their austerity policies.

In this situation a more proportional electoral system would increase the chances of an electoral breakthrough by a new workers’ party or a pre-formation of one, such as the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), an electoral alliance involving leading left trade unionists like the RMT transport workers’ union general secretary Bob Crow, along with the Socialist Party, the SWP and Solidarity – Scotland’s Socialist Movement. But would AV further the development of a new workers’ party?

Would AV help a new party?
SOME SUPPORTERS of a Yes vote say that AV would help by removing the argument created by the first-past-the-post system that standing socialist candidates ‘lets in the Tories’. It would be possible, the argument goes, to call for a first preference vote for TUSC, for example, and then recommend a second preference for the Labour candidate to avoid the risk of a Tory or Liberal Democrat victory.

But AV would not make it easier for a socialist candidate to actually win a seat. The closest the Socialist Party and its predecessor organisation, Militant Labour, has come to winning a parliamentary seat under first-past-the-post was in the general election of 1992 when Dave Nellist, the MP for Coventry South East expelled from the Labour Party, stood independently. The Labour candidate won the seat with 11,902 votes, ahead of the Tory candidate with 10,591 votes and Dave a further 40 votes behind on 10,551. If just under 700 Labour voters had voted for Dave instead he would have won the seat. But almost certainly not under AV.

The Liberal Democrats came fourth with 3,318 votes. Their candidate would have been eliminated and the Liberal Democrat voters’ second preferences re-distributed to the top three candidates. If the Tory candidate was in third place, their preference votes would have then been re-distributed. In the polarised context of the general election of 1992, it would have been highly unlikely that Dave would have secured sufficient preference votes to have gained first place when re-distributions had finished.

Since 1992, it is true, with Labour no longer a capitalist workers’ party, there has been a long-term erosion in voters’ ‘identification’ with political parties. Socialist Party candidates in local elections, for example, while winning many votes from those who would otherwise not vote at all, have often been able to win ‘protest votes’ from people who would ‘normally’ vote for other parties (and have secured victories under the first-past-the-post system).

But a protest vote is not the same as voting for a governmental alternative. AV would give a greater opportunity than first-past-the-post for the capitalist parties to ‘gang up’ and swap preferences against the candidates of a future mass workers’ party. Certainly, if a mass workers’ party existed, why should it not take advantage of the splits between the capitalist parties that the first-past-the-post system can not so easily overcome?

There is, of course, no ‘pure’ electoral system not open to manipulation by the ruling class and their political and legal representatives. The Socialist Party’s Joe Higgins was elected as a member of the Irish parliament (TD) for the Dublin West constituency in 1997, and re-elected in 2002, under the multi-member constituency single transferable vote (STV) form of proportional representation. But Dublin West has been one of the most re-drawn constituencies in Ireland in recent years and, in 2007, with a legal dispute ongoing that the number of TDs it elected was one short under the constitutional norm – a full quota would have ensured another victory for Joe – he was narrowly edged out. (He then went on to win a seat in the European parliament in 2009 in another multi-member STV election).

AV, however, is far less than ‘pure’. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, socialists will seek to gain the best advantage possible from the electoral terrain that exists. Militant, predecessor of the Socialist Party, had three MPs elected as Labour candidates in the 1980s – Dave Nellist, Terry Fields in Liverpool, and Pat Wall in Bradford – under the first-past-the-post system. Our sister party in Australia has won council elections under the AV system there. But it would be wrong to give any support to the idea that a system that could be used against the workers’ movement in the future is more ‘democratic’.

What is the alternative?
THE QUESTION ON the referendum ballot paper will effectively present a choice between the current system and AV: "At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?" Doesn’t a No vote guarantee a further delay in the development of a new workers’ party, as once again workers turn to vote Labour against the Con-Dems?

But that does not take into account perspectives for the era ahead. The Con-Dems are embarking upon the worst cuts in a generation, in a new world situation where there is no way out for capitalism except by attacking the conditions of the working class. Mass resistance is inevitable – and that will transform working peoples’ outlook. Labour will re-gain ground electorally but that does not mean that a force rooted in the mass opposition to the cuts will necessarily be ‘squeezed out’ on the electoral field.

The experience of elections during the anti-poll movement is instructive. While Labour soared ahead in national opinion polls, it was not the only electoral outlet for the mass opposition to the poll tax. The Scottish National Party triumphed on a ‘We’re not paying the Poll Tax’ platform in the November 1988 Govan by-election, overturning a 19,509 Labour majority just 17 months after the 1987 general election (and then refused to support mass non-payment!). The Greens won 2.29 million votes, a 15% protest vote in what is still their highest ever vote in a UK election, in the European elections in June 1989 – as the first poll tax bills were sent out in Scotland and registration began in England and Wales. All this was in the context of the Labour Party still being seen by many workers as ‘our party’, and after a decade of Tory rule.

The 1990 local elections, five weeks after the mass anti-poll tax demonstrations, confirmed this trend. Labour had just made a dramatic by-election gain in the safe Tory seat of Mid-Staffordshire and was ahead by over 20% in national opinion polls. The same polls showed that, as a general sentiment, the government was blamed for the poll tax rather than local councils who were implementing it. (NOP Review, July 1990) But that did not mean that individual councils were let off the hook in the local elections that followed in May. Labour performed poorly in councils where they passed on government cuts to their funding in higher than projected poll tax bills (Rawlings and Thrasher, Parliamentary Affairs, 1991) – while, of course, threatening draconian action to collect the tax – and only increased its national share of the vote by 2%. Significantly Labour’s best West Midlands performance was in Coventry and the only Metropolitan borough it gained was Bradford. In Liverpool, although the overall balance of the council Labour group had shifted to the right after the High Court’s removal of the 47 councillors who defied the Tory government from 1983-87, many councillors still supported non-payment – backed by MPs Terry Fields, Eric Heffer and Eddie Loyden – and Labour consolidated its position against the Liberal Democrats.

Outside of the Labour Party, however, there were only a few anti-poll tax union candidates in 1990, some of whom recorded votes of 20% or more, but the aftermath of the movement showed – if belatedly – what could have been achieved by a wider electoral challenge. The newly-formed Scottish Militant Labour (SML) won four seats on Glasgow council in May 1992, just weeks after another Tory victory in the April 1992 general election (in which Tommy Sheridan came second in Glasgow Pollok with 6,287 votes, 19.3%). In all, from May 1992 to February 1994, SML polled 33.3% of the total votes cast in 17 local council contests with Labour (36.1%), winning six.

The political impact of the anti-poll tax movement was muted by the limited character of the issue and, more generally, by the ideological triumph of capitalism after the collapse of Stalinism and its impact on workers’ consciousness and their organisations, including the transformation of Labour into New Labour. But the next period will be completely different to the 1990s.

The sense of foreboding for the future that grips the more thinking strategists of the ruling class is shown in the debates on the lessons of the Geddes Axe which have taken place amongst Tory historians, not only on how this post-first world war slashing of state spending prepared the way for the 1926 general strike, but also in its political consequences. The early Labour Party, a new workers’ party then, emerged on the back of the attacks on the trade unions in the first decade of the twentieth century but was still a ‘minor party’ when the Geddes Report was published in December 1921. But the Geddes cuts were a major factor in a surge in support for Labour, whose seats rose from 59 in 1918 to 142 in 1922.

The next period will see era-defining events, with great upheavals in consciousness and institutions, including the trade unions, as the impact of the cuts savagery unfolds. The question of independent mass working class political representation will once again be posed. But AV will not aid the struggle to bring such a formation into being and therefore socialists should campaign for a No vote in May.

Shame on Wisconsin removing trade union rights

This news story i have just read really upset me. I care alot about unions as some of you who do read this will know, i'm part of a union myself and this move here just looks likea nother heavy fisted attempt by the capitalist system to remove workers rights. Really sad this is and i think it shows how far the capitalists will go to get their cuts package through even in teh United States struggles are continuing.
I think this will only encourage protesters to come back harder with more resolve though so all may not be lost here.


The Wisconsin state assembly has voted to approve a plan to strip public-sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights.

Senate Republicans used a procedural move to pass the bill on Wednesday.

Republican Governor Scott Walker promised to sign the bill into law as quickly as possible.

AFL-CIO union leader Richard Trumka earlier attacked the Republicans' move as a "corruption of democracy". The plan has prompted widespread protest.

Police have been ejecting demonstrators from the state capitol building after weeks of mass demonstrations in support of public workers.

Mr Walker and Republicans say the bill is necessary to help the state balance its budget deficit.

"This is about protecting the middle class and doing it in a way that avoids massive tax increases and massive lay-offs," Mr Walker said on Thursday.

He added that the bill would give local governments the "tools" they needed to balance their own budgets.

Protesters flood capitol

The US state's 14 Democratic senators had sought to prevent the bill moving forward by fleeing the state, leaving the chamber short of the number needed for a vote.

But Republicans used a procedural move to allow them to vote on the measure in committee instead on Wednesday evening.

Crowds of protesters swamped the state capitol in Madison following the vote.

The state House - the lower legislative chamber - passed the measure in a 53-43 vote on Thursday afternoon, after police had removed protesters from the building.

The state faces a $3.6bn (£2.23bn) budget deficit in the coming two-year period. The bill on labour unions would affect rubbish collectors, teachers, nurses, prison guards and other public workers.

Democrats, labour unions and their supporters, who disparage the bill as an attack on labour unions and on the middle class, spent three weeks protesting at the state capitol building.

On Thursday, Mr Trumka, head of one of the largest labour union coalitions in the US, told reporters the Republican move had engendered solidarity among union supporters.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, Mr Trumka joked that unions should give Mr Walker their "Mobiliser of the Year" award for galvanizing support for labour among thousands of protesters and in national polls.

Why i feel its wrong to be cutting international aid to developing countries

A news report today suggests that the UK will cut its international aid programs to several countries a report below suggests.

The UK is to stop direct aid to 16 countries, including Russia, China and Iraq, papers seen by the BBC suggest.

A draft copy of a government review of its £7.8bn overseas aid budget - to be published this week - also reveals assistance for India will be frozen.

But, overall, the international development budget will rise by a third in this parliament, it says.

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell said spending would be a "good deal better focused".

The government's draft report states that aid spending is good for Britain's economy and safety.

Malaria deaths

It also outlines plans for greater transparency and accountability, with an emphasis on funding programmes that deliver greater results and which, specifically, help girls and women.

Resources will be concentrated on the 27 countries that account for three-quarters of the world's maternal mortality and malaria deaths, such as Ghana and Afghanistan.

LOSING DIRECT AID
Angola
Bosnia
Burundi
Cameroon
Cambodia
China
Gambia
Indonesia
Iraq
Kosovo
Lesotho
Moldova
Niger
Russia
Serbia
Vietnam
Source: Department for International Development document seen by BBC

Whilst the arguements have been made that fairly advanced countries now like China, Russia and India who all have their own space program now is a valid point all three of these countries still have large areas of povety in its working class population.

There are communities and groups of people that never get any help or funding andare left to fend for themselves even in these countries.

Alot of the time when we do send aid to these countries the money just gets stuck at the top and rarely filters its way down to those who need it most.

I do agree with the government that direct funding needs to be better targetted but that shouldnt mean less aid and funding for these developing and some poor nations.

The idea of contributing more to the world food program is not such a bad idea but i do think some of those countries on that list above produced from teh BBC are some very poor countries and i cannot for the life of me understand why we feel they can do without our help. THe likes of Moldova, Angola and Cameroon are incrediably poor nations on the world stage and still have millions in extreme povety and their people often struggle to feed themselves.

I think it was right to protect the international aid budget but whilst it was apparently protected just like the NHS we are still seeing cuts in its budget, so how protected was it really ?

I do think as one of the richest nations in the world Britain has an obligation to help other nations and peoples out i feel.

America next for the cuts agenda

Barack Obama, the US president, is set to unveil his fiscal 2012 budget on Monday, an election-year plan forged from conflicting needs to cut spending and stoke the economic recovery.

With vast crisis payments and sharply lower tax revenues making it difficult for the government to balance its books, Obama will set out an austerity plan that will help set the tone for next year's presidential race.

It is expected to address widespread public anger that the government is living beyond its means, detailing sweeping spending cuts while including some investments.

To square the circle, Obama's proposed budget for fiscal 2012 will seek to cut the record federal deficit, slashing energy subsidies for the poor and freeze public workers' pay.

But faced with high unemployment and an economic recovery that is still struggling to escape the orbit of the 2008 economic crisis, Obama will also give states more flexibility to pay for unemployment benefits.

Most of the projected savings would be achieved through two changes would require congressional approval.

At 2,448 pages and a weight of 4.5kg, the budget will contain something for most members of congress, but plenty more that will be loathed.

Congressional battle

On the eve of of the budget's publication, Republicans have been promoting ever-deeper spending cuts and criticising Obama for not doing enough.

Republicans argue spending cuts will help boost growth, while the Obama administration argues cuts are needed, but should be carefully measured for fear of derailing the recovery.

Obama's proposed budget cuts so far
The plan: Cut $1.1 trillion deficit over next 10 years

Two-thirds of savings to come from spending cuts and one-third from tax increases.

Defence budget: $78bn over five years
Pell Grant Programme: $100bn over a decade


For example, as Obama seeks $53bn for high-speed rail over the next few years, House Republicans are trying to pull back $2.5 bn that has already been promised.

Their budget also includes $1.1 bn cut to Head Start pre-kindergarten education programmes.

Bringing the two sides together is likely to be a long process that takes up most of the year. Congress has yet to approve the fiscal 2011 budget.

"There's no limit to the amount we're willing to cut to help get our economy moving again," said John Boehner, the House speaker, promising a $100bn cut in spending to the 2011 budget, with more to come.

But experts say cuts in discretionary spending, like those proposed by Obama and the Republicans, are just a drop in the fiscal bucket.

"This spending accounted for just one-fifth of total outlays last fiscal year," Augustine Faucher of Moody's Analytics says.

"Even if it had been entirely eliminated - wiping out the budgets for running the government, education, national parks and the like - the fiscal 2010 deficit still would have topped $600bn."

Growing fears

Fears are growing that the inability of the US to get its budget under control could eventually lead to a debt crisis and a possible default that would plunge the globe into crisis.

This week, Ben Bernanke, US Federal Reserve chairman, warned that dramatic change was inevitable.

"The question is whether these adjustments will take place through a careful and deliberative process that weighs priorities and gives people adequate time to adjust to changes ... [or] as a rapid and painful response to a looming or actual fiscal crisis," Bernanke said.

The US budget deficit is currently at the highest levels since World War II, and is projected to hit $1.48tn this year, or 9.8 per cent of gross domestic product, according to the congressional budget office.


This taken from Al jazeera's own english website.

This simply confirms my suspicions that the american president, president O'barma, is no left leaning socialist like the republicans try to paitn him as he is neo-conservative as they come. The guy who above is about to unveail this set of austerity cuts package cannot be socialist if he is. I never thought he was but this new announcement should set the record straight that he is just like any other careerist polititian only out for looking after the well off. nothing ever changes even in the free country of America. Cuts have found their way too. Maybe president O'barma has been spending far too much time with our own Mr cameron and has been convinced by the need for cuts too.

All this only further oppresses the working class's at the bottom of the scale who will feel these cuts the hardest. Just like in Britian this will have a huge impact on millions. I just hope the west, as it does seem to be a western agenda now to cut cut and cut more and more from the state giving to the private sector knows what it is doing and once its cut it cant be returned.

I do feel sorry for the american people now who like us in Britain will be feeling hardship for many years to come.

I do hope the socialist revolution is just around the corner. I've frankly had enough of this boom and bust rollercoaster. I'd quite like to get off now thanks

what are we replacing celebrity culture with ?

so in this day and age you cant open up a national tabloid paper or a magazine without seeing your latest favourite celeb as they put it. What have we dessended into really i mean. Is this what old age religion has evolved into ? i dont mean to offend anyone with that phrase at all but let me explain.

Is the invention of a celebritiy culture something of which the capitalist culture around the world and especially the west has created to fund various multi- nationals. The amount of money that is made off the backs of these so called celebrities is amazing. But i do think there is a big downside and a obvios exploitation here which i wantto identify.

With young girls for example young models in these magazines and papers will show off a almost perfect body and look. For any young girl it is hard to match this and as a consequence it will take a exploitation of a young girl to make herself into something resembling this model.

I do think celebrities these days have a huge influence on our younger generation and this can be counter productive in so many ways. In this day and age childrens role models are not what they once were sadly. Take for example Katie price aka Jordan. Is this a real role model we want our young girls to aspire to ?

She may have made a lot of money from her career of nothingness but what lesson about life has she taught our younger generation ?

If i stated that this so called celebrity culture was something that the capitailists may have created no one will take me seriously. But when you look into it the ways the whole culture works. purely to promote a product of the moment or a service of its time.

Yes, you may argue that celebrities do a lot of good charity work for example as a counter arguement, this is treu and we applaud them for this but what is the other side of this ?

well no so called celebrity does anything for nothing as we well know. The only people who do are not celebrities and are truely doing something for the good of others. This is never the case with a so called celebrity. If they are doing something for charity they will want a photo opputunity or a write up in a national newspaper for their troubles.

What does this mean ? ultimatly nothing but when you look deeper you see that it all comes back to money capital for want of a better word. The whole idea of this is not for other peoples benifit, it is for their own benifit and always has been sadly.

Talking politically there have been a number of celebrities entering the political class Glenda Jackson, Arnold shrawnzeneger more famously in America. I believe this celebrity culture is taking over politics now. take for example big major political issues celebrities are takign a opinion on things. Your getting Colin firth joining the lib dems for example. All making the political system as it is even more of a farce than it already is in my opinion.




The next thing we will have is a well known tv/ newspaper driven celebrity leading our country. I do think it will happen if this culture carries on growing. With the likes of the x-factor gaining audiences and voting numbers of 18 millin plus it wont have to take much for Simon cowell for example to jump into this arena and get someone elected on his behalf.Call me crazy but the power of this culture is huge. Just think what it could do if if got involved in politics.Scarey isnt it and so is the culture itself. It never knows where to draw the line and that is its greatest danger.

how the big society is undermining existing volunteers and charities

As i blogged abaout earlier in this week leading charities have come out in anger at David Camerons "big society" idea. They feel that the big society will not work due to lack of funding.

I just wanted to add more meat to the bone really.

i know a few friends who volunteer. One especially one volunteers at a homeless charity in London. Crisis. They do some excellent work on and off the streets. For David Cameron to come in and announce we all must be doing more voluntary work is a bit insulting to these very hard workers who give up their time to help those not as fortunate as others. Which in itself is wrong. But i'll tackle that in anothetr post another time.

Butfor a prime minister who has never volunteered in his life i would imagine to startto preach to us we should be doing more for less while he takes away a lot of funding for charitable sectors is downright insulting i'd have thought.

Our charities and voluntary organisations in this country do some amazing work. Helping vunrable people back on to their feet with support and aid.

We have some great things in this country so i feel that David cameron should look at what we already have and look to preserve our great organisations who do very good things in the face of some tough conditions sometimes.

I think tories such as cameron should pay more tribute to these excellent charities and volunteers across our great country. They do a excellent job and give up their time for nothing to help people improve their life in many ways.

The big society to me is a big con. Someone on twitter earlier in the week we should focus more on building the good society. Well waht do all these terms really mean? they are just soundbytes and catchphrases that political types use to make them sound like they are doing some good for society as a whole and not just for their own political class.

Some perspective is needed on this whole big society rubbish really. what does it mean and how is it better than our voluntary sector we have at the moment, as i dont think it is. Its all political jargon that means nothing to the everyday person on the streets.

guest blogpost from an old friend from school

Well this is something a little bit different for you all now. a friend from secondary school approached me earlier in the week claiming to enjoy my blog, thanks for that by the way glad your reading. His name is Steven Basing who attended Richard hale school in Hertford between 1999 and 2006 like myself. He has attended University thanks to low tuitian fees and a good education he appears to have recieved too the wonders of investing in higher education ay Mr clegg ?

Well here is a piece of work steve has done all about David CCameron his views on HRA which he outlines below in great accurate detail. I feel more than happy to publish any of my friends work on my blog if they wish me to do so. Although these are not my views i feel a blog is more than just sharing your own views, if you like what someone else has to say then why not republish their work and spread it out there to the world. Afterall it will hopefully encourage debate and discussion.

Well here below is Steve's post to me please have a read if you can. I'll be sure to pass on any feedback to him if you like.

In 1950 the European Convention of Human Rights was drafted by the Council of Europe, and intended to ensure the protection of basic human rights, such as the right to life, privacy and a fair trial, to every man, woman and child of Europe. The catalyst for the drafting of the document was largely a response to the horrors of Nazi Germany, and an attempt to ensure, such atrocities as the Holocaust would never again occur.

When the ECHR came into force in 1953 every citizen of the UK had bestowed upon them the rights it contained, subject to certain limitations. However until 2000, the rights we all had, could only be enforced in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

If an individual felt their rights had been impeded by an employer, a local authority or the government, they were required to first exhaust the British courts, without raising their rights under the ECHR. Only after the House of Lords had found against the individual, could they proceed to Strasbourg, and make accessible the full rights owed to them.

So although, the magnificent ECHR applied universally in principle, in practice, it was only those privileged enough, with time and money, who could pursue a case long enough to actually enforce their rights. Add to this the enormous cost to the taxpayer, of cases proceeding from Magistrate Courts all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, via the House of Lords, and it was clear the system was not working.

It thus became a cornerstone policy of the 1997 Labour election campaign to ‘bring rights home.’ The simple idea was, to introduce a piece of legislation, which brought the rights we all already enjoyed, into a domestic sphere, so all could enforce them, simultaneously making the system easier and fairer, for the individual, as well as more economical for the nation. Born of this was the Human Rights Act, which came into force in 2000.

Under the HRA, the ECHR could be applied to UK legislation, as well as being admissible, in any court of the UK. For me, this could not be a more uncontroversial piece of legislation, but for some on the right, the HRA has come to represent, all that is wrong with the world. This right-wing point of view is perhaps unsurprisingly, championed by such media as The Daily Mail and The Sun, however more surprisingly and a lot more worryingly; this is also the view of the man resident in Number 10. Prime Minister David Cameron also adheres to this misinformed, right-wing belief, that the HRA is ‘rotten to the core’ and needs repealing.

During the election campaign of this year, David Cameron pledged to repeal the HRA, although this ludicrous policy seemed to disappear in a haze of broken promises, student demonstrations and disenchanted Lib-Dems after Cameron took office, this week it raised its ugly head again.


After an Iraqi man, Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, won his right to stay in the UK using the HRA, after killing a child in a hit and run, Mr Cameron restated his desire to repeal the HRA.

Mr Cameron’s, views on the HRA worry me in two distinct ways; firstly, it worries me that the man in charge can misunderstand the law so much. How can the Prime Minister of the UK, vow to repeal the HRA and free us from Human Rights cases which lack common sense, whilst we remain tied to the ECHR, which grants us all those rights anyway?

But secondly, and more worryingly, it worries me, that in the 21st century, the leader of a free and democratic nation, who supposedly hold fairness, equality and justice as core principles, could ever consider so dramatically undermining a system of human rights, which does far more good, than ill.

If Cameron repealed the HRA although, he would not lower the amount of rights an individual has, he would make their implementation much more difficult and elitist. But he would also send a message to the world, and the message that the world would receive loud and clear is that the United Kingdom government does not care about human rights, and protecting individuals or minorities.

As I have already explained, repealing the HRA would not end the Human Rights available to individuals. But it would make it a lot more difficult to enforce. And if the rights are more costly and time-consuming to enforce, it would be the ordinary citizen who would lose out.

The general outrage towards the HRA, which emanates, from The Sun and Daily Mail, forced upon their readers and designed to purposely mislead, comes mainly from cases which allow terrorist suspects the right to stay in the UK or allow failed Asylum Seekers, like Mr Ibrahim, to stay in the UK despite committing a crime. Whatever the rights or wrongs of these cases, we would not see a reduction in such cases, should the HRA be repealed. For a terror suspect facing deportation to a homeland where he may be killed, would probably be more inclined to use his money or legal aid money, and time to fight the deportation all the way to the Strasbourg. Whereas the single mum made redundant from her job, because she wanted to take time off to care for her sick child, would probably not fight such a redundancy all the way to the top. However under the HRA a Mum in this exact position, was able to successfully take action against her employers.

I do not for one minute believe Mr Cameron misunderstands the law, I believe he knows exactly how the HRA works and its close relationship with the ECHR, which leads us to one very important question, why does Cameron want to repeal the HRA?

It seems totally clear that Mr Cameron desire to repeal the HRA is born absolutely out of political calculation, The Prime Minister, has seen the contempt with which large portions of the public view the HRA, and has thus seized upon this as a way of increasing his popularity. I do not criticise the public for disliking the HRA, although I obviously feel they are very wrong. But for most people the only contact they get with the HRA is what the right-wing press tell them. People are understandably too busy to go and research the cases or the laws, and equally understandably believe that the media is not trying to mislead them, for their own gains.

However I do not have the same understanding for our Prime Minister, his job is not to pander to popular opinion, it is to do what is right for the nation, and regardless of your views on Human Rights, it is clear that repeal of the HRA would be a costly, time-consuming waste of time, which achieves nothing, but create a two-tier system of rights, where instead of applying universally, would apply alone to those wealthy enough to enforce them.

My second gripe with Mr Cameron’s pledge, is that any reduction in Human Rights, even a partially symbolic one that the HRA’s repeal would be, is just plain wrong. When the Labour government of Tony Blair, bought the HRA into effect, they should the people of Britain, the down-trodden, the forgotten, the abused, as well as the people of Europe, that the UK cares about individual rights, and also that the UK feel it is vital that the actions of Employers, Local Authorities, and even the Sovereign Government, are liable to being limited if they breach certain inalienable rights.

However, when Mr Blair did this, he did not do it without regard for the process of Government, or public safety. Under the ECHR certain checks were already in place which allow individuals rights to be limited, in situations which are, ‘necessary in a democratic society.’ In fact under the ECHR, only the prohibition of Torture is absolute and without qualification, the ECHR also allows derogations under Article 15, when ‘there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.’ Furthermore the ECHR under section 3 makes it necessary for legislation to be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the ECHR, but only as ‘far as it is possible.’

Should Mr Cameron succeed in his desire to repeal the HRA, he would undermine all of the progress made in Human Rights by the UK since 2000. Mr Cameron has already largely done this, and when he refers to the Act as, a ‘criminal charter,’ a phrase taken straight from the front page of The Sun, it leaves me with great panic for the equality in this nation under Tory rule.

Cameron’s assertion that the HRA only protects criminals and terrorists, may play well for the right wing vote he so needs, but it does not represent the truth. And just like Murdoch and co, Cameron is misleading the public, by scaremongering them into believing, an act which allows them unprecedented rights, is going to allow a failed asylum seeking Muslim terrorist ex-offender, to come and kill them, and then avoid any sort of punishment.

The HRA has done considerable more good than ill, and even when prima facie the decision appears wrong or to as Mr Cameron stated, ‘fly in the face of common sense,’ upon closer inspection it often makes huge sense.

The HRA has, in the decade since it became law, helped pave the way for homosexuals to serve in our armed forces, kept the government in check by holding their policy of treating foreign Terror suspects as different to domestic terror suspects as discriminatory, and allowed injunctions to be won to prevent tabloid newspapers printing lies or private matters. This is without mentioning the literally thousands of cases, where honest citizen have won against, local authorities, the government, or their employers, who seek to discriminate or mistreat them.

It seems clear to me, that Cameron is playing a political game; he is trying to score points and win votes, whilst misleading the public, and undermining the rights we all have, and should have. His pledge is simply an empty promise to appease the right.

This nation has faced down fascists intend on ending our freedoms before, and at this time, we need a lion to roar against the tide and defend the HRA,

The Tea party in american politics

Having just watched this worlds documentary from Andrew Neill on bbc 2 earlier on this the fastest growing political movement in the USA.

Worries me slightly at the language being used and the messages being put across. To me it is always worrying when a big political movement gets going it is a momentum that can snowball out of control sometimes if the wrong people get involved.

This documentary focused on how people are flocking to this new right wing movement in the states in their droves. It highlighted peoples frustration with the current government and government in general. Tea party activists seem to want to take America back to the good old days where things were easier and simplier. They are dead against big government and the federal state.

Aligning this ideaology to a british perspective i'd say they are like the tory party of old in Britain. A group of people who do not want governemnt interfering in their lives anymore and want to take back their country as they put it.

The current president in America is of course O'barma who is a black american who has been touted as a socialist and a muslim by many in this tea party movement. I just find some of these claims farcicle and so wide of the mark, O'barma may be of african disent but he is defanatly american.

To me a british politics enthusiast i find it hard to get my head around how quickly this movement has sprung up so close behind what seemed like the big wave of optimism that swept across America to see President o'barma into the white house. Where has all that feeling gone ?

As i documented earlier this tea party movement predomenantly a grass roots campaign has been growing speed and power and is now infiltrating the Republican party in American politics, a party that has always been more right wing and been quite conservative, This tea party threatens and has achieved reasonable success in taking the republican party further to the right than it has ever gone before.

One question stands out for me is how have ordinary Republicans just let their party be taken over like this ?

I am aware that tea party activists have used all sorts of dirty tactics to get republicans out and their people in.

Now we face the mid term elections across America with the senate and the congress both up for grabs i expect to see a major shift towards the right in America with this scarirly fast movement which has tinges of racism in amoungst its depths. I just wonder where this will leave America and its less well off who are struggling even as it is. Will these be left to fend for themselves and ultimatly maybe perish.


Doesnt bear thinking about. I fear this movement from the documentary i watched tonight even without a leader to protect itself by having no head to cut off may be a road America may regret turning down.