Order and discipline from the tories, unpaid work or loose your benifits

So. Now we have it. Both major parties in the UK, Labour and Conservative have outlined their plans for young people and entitlement to social security. Increased conditionality, ever more punitive and sorely lacking in any empathy. Less carrot and more stick. Albeit, the Tories undoubtedly are wielding a bigger stick. A much bigger stick indeed. David Cameron announced that ‘What these young people need is work experience and the order and discipline of turning up for work each day…a Conservative government would require them to do daily community work from the very start of their claim, as well as searching for work.” Far from considering the changing nature of employment (particularly youth employment) the talk is, for youth scholars, wearily familiar. ‘Discipline’ is what they need – not jobs. Because young people want jobs. They don’t want compelled labour programs. They don’t want the drudgery that will be thrown them, making them feel like cattle. This will simply heighten anomie, leading to increased problems – probably increasing their distance from the labour market, not bringing them into it. The end game here will be that young people will simply end up removing themselves from the job ‘market’ altogether. Some will choose to engage with the workfare, some will inevitably turn to alternative sources of income and many will be shifted into poverty as they forego the humiliation of this ‘work’ and elect to do without social security. But perhaps this is the aim in any case. As Guy Standing notes in his book The Precariat, rather than instilling ‘discipline’, these forced labour programmes: …do the reverse, making many people sullen and resentful. And doing an enforced full-time job will prevent people from searching for a real job. Workfare schemes do not cut public spending either. They are expensive, involving high administrative costs and low-productivity ‘jobs’. Their main intention is rather to massage the level of unemployment down, not by creating jobs but by discouraging the unemployed from claiming benefits. And therein lies the rub. These programmes do not create jobs, they simply park people (young people) for a period of time. And worse, they can actually act as a deterrent for young people in the labour market. Research by Robin Simmons and colleagues found that: …engagement in poor work can act in synergy with real and imagined barriers to participation and curtail the desire to work. As we have seen, chronic churning between repeated low-level training courses and certain forms of paid and unpaid employment, often characterised by insecurity and exploitation, was the norm for those participating in our research. Whilst official discourses about building work experience are superficially seductive, we found that disillusion engendered by continued failure to secure employment of reasonable quality set in sooner or later, often with negative consequences for attitudes to employment. There has been a multitude of research conducted into the attitudes of young people towards work. All point in the same direction – young people want to work. They don’t require discipline. They require work. Meaningful work which offers fulfillment, security and a sense that they are contributing to society. Furthermore, research has shown that marginality is the story of the youth labour market, not exclusion. It is not the case that young people are out of work for sustained periods of time, but rather drift in and out of work as opportunities arise (part-time employment, short-term contracts, educational opportunities etc etc). This is not the consequence of the poor work attitudes of young people (which Cameron’s language is seeking to frame it as) but of a fragmented labour market which is hostile to the presence of (primariliy working-class) young people. This further negates the requirement for the language of ‘discipline’. Young people will seize opportunities if they are there. They are no different to the rest of us. So why are we picking on them? Neither the Conservatives or Labour seem to have the answer to this. Easier to punish, or discipline. Sooner or later this will reach older age groups too, if we don’t assist young people to resist this. But who is speaking up for young people?

Scotland, continue the fight for a better society

Many people woke up last friday to the news the No side had won and felt all their efforts were in vain. Here i try to explain we must not let peoples hopes which have been dashed turn in on themselves and to keep up the fight for a fairer society. "71% of 16 and 17-year olds voted for an independent Scotland, which means that almost three-quarters of the 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland have just witnessed their dreams of a better future snatched away from them predominantly by the voting habits of older generations. This referendum was the first opportunity the UK has ever given people aged 16 to have a democratic say over their own future, and they have proved that they should not be patronised by ‘adults’ who believe that young people cannot be trusted to handle politics. The defeat felt by many teenagers in Scotland right now is crushing: keeping young people engaged, treating them with respect and allowing them to keep having a say in their own future is the only way we can ensure we don’t end up with a generation lost to a pessimistic apathy. I was absolutely fascinated and taken in by the debate and discussions going on up in Scotland in the last few months. The way people talked about politics in ways we thought were long forgotten talkign in pubs in taxi's and in the workplace the idea of what future Scotland do you want to live in inspired many to come out and vote. But crucially it engaged people and shows people will flock to a campaign if they feel it matters to them and they do have a voice this time the Yes to independence campaign lost but for all those who have been through this experience young and old will have learnt a valuable lesson. Yes, there are a lot of angry and upset yes voters in Scotland right now. But there are also a lot of no voters who are already watching in horror as Westminster reneges on its last-minute devolution promises. No longer having to split people into two camps is not a bad thing, and I would personally be wary of any movement that tries to maintain a division between groups of the population depending on how they voted on 18 September. Since the referendum, there has been no shortage of writing from throughout the UK on the broken state of the Union and Westminster-based politics. People across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are calling for more control over their lives and their futures. New alliances can be formed between grassroots activists challenging the status quo, and in a post-referendum society this is only going to be easier. Leave behind the grudges – show people that the fight can continue, and it can benefit everybody. With the official turnout in the independence referendum at 85% this is above the normal turnout for elections and quite possibly was the biggest turnout for any election in post war Britain in Scotland. When was the last time you can remember that an entire nation was engaged with political debate, and people felt like they had the right to comment on issues and envisage a better society no matter what their background was? When was the last time that the Westminster establishment ran so scared that Gordon Brown was forced to help out a struggling David Cameron? When was the last time that people really felt like they might be able to stick it to the power? We can still do this – we can still make them run – and the yes campaign has shown that the way to achieve this is through grassroots engagement, collaboration across campaign groups, linking up the issues and refusing to give in to lies and scaremongering. We’ve spent the last two years imagining a better Scotland – and we don’t need to live in an independent state to start making it happen." with quotes and extracts from this brilliant novara media article by Miriam Dobson http://wire.novaramedia.com/2014/09/yesscotland-5-ways-to-continue-the-fight/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Scotland say ney for now, Dont mourn organise !

Yesterday Scotland voted against independence. Today half the country are mourning, their hopes of a new state and it’s social democratic promise dashed. The other half are relieved, if perhaps not enthusiastically celebrating, the potential uncertainty removed; things will persist as before. We neither mourn nor celebrate. The scaremongering of the No campaign would likely have proved largely unfounded. So too would the promises of the Yes campaign. In reality our lives would have continued mostly as they did before in either event. We will trudge to the same jobs we hate along the same roads, through the same congestion on the same expensive transport. We’ll do so so we can pay our wages back to the capitalist class in the same shops, to pay rent to the same landlords and mortgages to the same banks. We’ll take our kids to the same schools with the same education system, when we’re ill we’ll wait to use the same hospitals. We’ll escape our jobs to the same parks, beaches, museums and pubs. An independent Scotland would in most respects have resembled the Scotland of the UK, a patriarchal, capitalist, environmentally destructive society. A country with the most unequal land ownership in the developed world – where 50% of the land is owned by just 432 individuals. A country dependent on North Sea oil for much of its exports – oil that must be left in the ground to prevent climate catastrophe. A country with huge poverty and huge wealth and little in the way of organised working class action to change that dynamic. And in so continuing to uphold the same institutions, the same structures of power, the same business interests, and the same political configuration, our fight against the state, capital and oppression continues. Social Movements It has become popular amongst some on the pro-independence to claim that even in defeat politics has been radically altered. People are engaged with politics for the first time, turnout was 85%. A new broad popular social movement is born, the referendum was never about a vote for the Nationalists (capital N1). The campaign they built to push for independence will now re-orient itself against the Scottish and British governments and push for material concessions, emboldened by how close they came and bringing newly radicalised people with them. But a high turnout in itself tells us very little of what will come next, the complacency that we have already changed politics is dangerous. Leaving aside the tactical mistake of offering the SNP the support they wanted to pass the referendum and then hoping to win concessions rather than making those concessions a precondition of support, this seems at best an optimistic prediction, which is far from certain to be realised. It is highly probable that the movement built to advance a radical case for independence will fail to maintain the unity it has shown pre-referendum in a post-referendum situation. A new left unity party (perhaps Left Unity itself) seems likely to form out of the Radical Independence Campaign and will have to compete for votes with the Scottish Green Party. The disintegration of the SSP last decade bodes ill for the lasting chances of that configuration. If the parliamentary left can regain even the position it held from 2003-2007 it will have done exceedingly well (in its own terms). Undoubtedly many from the radical independence movement will want to maintain extra-parliamentary organisation, though how much of it is truly independent of the parliamentary parties will be an open question. But as with the referendum itself elections have a tendency to draw activists away from direct struggle and towards themselves however good peoples’ intentions are. Perhaps the most debilitating effect of the referendum campaign was its draw away from other, more meaningful, sites of struggle – the boycott workfare campaign, anti-deportations and pro migrant work, environmental organising and so on. Of course, that is not to say that no independence campaigners continued their engagement with these causes, but no one has unlimited time and energy to contribute, and that expended on the referendum could have been better placed elsewhere. Ecology As the independence referendum moves into the past, other issues may start to regain their prominence. Foremost must be the commitment of politicians in Westminster and Holyrood to continuing extraction of Scotland’s share of North Sea oil. The independence debate was consistently shaped by the prospects for oil production and how the proceeds will be distributed. Even where criticism did exist and a call for a “green new deal” was made, the focus was to argue for renewables. Whilst greater use of renewable energy is to be welcomed, it is far from sufficient. As Jason Moore has highlighted energy revolutions of the past have always been additive and substitutive. Market logic plus intervention for renewables will only give us both renewables and fossil fuels. As alternative grow fossil fuels prices will fall and maintain their use alongside. Real decarbonisation of society requires the fuels be left in the ground and their value written off. You cannot build a “green” capitalism. You certainly cannot create it in time. There is too much money invested in fossil fuels – in drilling, in mining, in fracking. The ruling class will never voluntarily give up this wealth, or allow it to be simply voted away. “To survive we must act now” and “couple bleak reality with the utopian impulse” to demand a complete transformation of our society2. An independent Scotland would have relied heavily on fossil fuels – not least to maintain currency reserves and a positive balance of trade. The extraction of North Sea oil will instead continue to prop up the UK’s trade deficit. As part of a larger economy that dependence may now not be brought as clearly to the fore. But that reliance must be exposed, and it must be broken. That will be an expensive and difficult task, but one which we have no choice but to take up – there will be no future for Scotland or the UK if we do nothing. We must create the movement which makes that possible. Too much time has been spent on bourgeois constitutional questions while the rich consolidate their wealth and power, impose austerity and hardship and leave the planet to burn safe that adaptation will be good enough for them. So tonight, drown your sorrows. Take time to regain your energy and when you’re ready come back to join us. The better society that had been pinned on independence doesn’t need a new state. Keep talking to your neighbours and your workmates. We have a world to win and only our own working class self-activity and organisation will secure it. 1. We’ve discussed previously the obfuscation of “good” and “bad” nationalism and the left’s claim that independence has nothing to do with nationalism. In our opinion both yes and no campaigns de facto represent competing nationalisms, whatever their intentions to the contrary. with thanks and solidarity with statement from Edinburgh Anarchist Federation

Why as an English socialist I’m supporting Scottish independence

It may sound odd and not my right to have a view on this and I accept those who will say it’s nothing to do with me but... I couldn’t help commenting and giving my opinion on the huge debate that is nearing its conclusion and the day of reckoning arrives for the actual vote if Scotland is to stay as part of the UK or will it choose independence. I look at the question as a socialist through the eyes of whose interest will benefit from independence if any. Of course there is not socialism or anything near it on the ballot paper come Thursday but you are not voting on if you like the SNP or Alex sallmond either. I think there is a big argument to be made that Scotland does not control its own destiny and has little in the way of powers to control its own direction and economic policies they are mostly decided and voted on in London at Westminster. I am a strong believer in the right to self determination as a socialist I believe it is down to the Scottish people and them alone to decide how they run their society. Indeed it’s even excited me living down south the debate up in Scotland of how can we run society better what could we do differently and make things fairer. All this has ignited a burning desire for change in many who believe in a hope over fear campaign is what will win out come Thursday. The negative campaign of the official NO campaign and its scaremongering tactics has backfired hugely on them as only recently a poll showed for the first time the Yes campaign was slightly in the lead. Now I’m not saying that independence will or won’t happen simply stating why I would support independence if I had a vote. If anything it could spark thought down here in England to begin to think how we can change things for the better. "After Thursday, Britain will never be the same again," the Observer newspaper accurately declared four days before the Scottish referendum. The referendum is on a knife edge, but whichever side wins, Britain's ruling elite will have suffered a battering which will leave it permanently damaged. If the Yes campaign wins it will be an enormous blow to the power and prestige of British capitalism. But regardless of the outcome, the independence campaign demonstrates graphically the power of working class people - the majority - to win victories even when the whole of the establishment is straining every nerve to try and inflict a defeat on you. In the week before the referendum - from the moment it became clear that the Yes vote had a chance of winning - 'Project Fear' has become 'Project Terror'. An avalanche of threats from major banks and corporations has rained down on the people of Scotland, promising hell-fire and damnation if they vote for independence. Virtually the whole of the capitalist media and establishment have been united in their desperate attempts to prevent a Yes vote. At the same time, for millions of Scots the referendum has become a means to express their anger at austerity and the capitalist politicians. Growing numbers of workers in England and Wales have also begun to urge the Scots on to vote Yes. They hear Cameron saying it would "break his heart" and grasp what a blow it would be to the same capitalist politicians who are implementing savage austerity in England and Wales. Now I’m no nationalist and neither are my family who my dad’s mum’s brothers family who were always solid labour voters are now backing independence with the SNP. These sorts of changes you simply can’t ignore. The Scottish referendum answers decisively the myth that working class people and young people are 'apathetic' and not interested in politics. Wit the vote being granted to 16 year olds the young have been as much of this debate as anyone else and why not its their futures too which are being discussed. I don’t expect to wake up on Friday morning if Scotland has voted for independence for socialism to be declared it can only be one step towards that idea but to dish out a blow to the British state which has gone through wars invasions and all sorts of awful things in its history then I am all for that. To see David Cameron’s face if Scotland leaves the union on his watch will be a picture to behold. 97 % of people who are entitled to vote in Scotland have registered with the turnout on Thursday set to be in the 80s of % there is a groundswell of feeling of change is on its way. The hatred of the capitalist politicians has reached new highs in Scotland. The most recent YouGov polls show that Cameron's trust rating is minus 46% in Scotland. So hated are the Tories in Scotland (with only one MP) that the leader of the Scottish Tories publicly pleaded with Scottish voters to vote No - by promising that it is safe to do because the Tories won't win the general election! Cameron came close to do the same thing, saying that his government "would not be around for ever". Prime Minister David Cameron survives the fall-out from a defeat on the referendum. The loss of prestige for a British Imperialism – who once held one quarter of the globe – would be disastrous. From the US to Europe – and in particular in Catalonia – the outcome of a Yes majority would introduce a new period of instability and challenge to capitalist elite There has been huge anger, including among journalists and employees, at the BBC’s scandalous partisan role in acting as an uncritical mouthpiece for Project Fear. Any pretence at impartiality and balance has gone as the corporation has acted in the interests of British capitalism in its time of need. Both the Scotsman newspaper as well as the FT has formally come out for a No vote this week. Only one paper, the Sunday edition of the Herald, is backing yes, thus far. Even former ‘lefts’ like George Galloway have become advocates of Project Terror. Galloway, incredibly, claimed on the BBC’s Question Time that Britain had now “escaped from austerity”. He’s certainly not living on the same planet as working class people including in his own constituency of Bradford West, who face savage attacks on their wages and benefits by the Con-Dems – which Labour have promised to continue. The “economic Armageddon”, “flight of capital” and “corporate exodus” line of attack – as opposed to the pleas from the discredited Cameron and Miliband – has shown some signs of having an effect. There may have been some movement in the polls away from Yes in the last couple of days. The blackmail, intimidation and scaremongering can, if it goes unanswered, raise doubts in the minds of some who have been thinking about voting yes. Indeed, polls regularly show that most people think that an independent Scotland will be worse off economically. For example, the YouGov poll on Thursday reported that 48% thought that Scotland would be worse off compared to 37% who believed it would be better off under independence. When asked if they personally would be better or worse off, 42% said worse off and only 21% better off. This reflects the impact of Project Fear on the one hand, and the lack of belief that the SNP’s policy of continuing with pro-business policies, and the austerity that goes with it, can offer any way out for the working class. Only Scotland can decide the outcome on Thursday no matter what the media down south try and whip up I wish Scotland luck and solidarity and hope they make the right choice for themselves at the end of the day. I will be watching with interest from down south.

Could Boris Johnson be PM one day??

Could Boris Johnson be PM one day?? A terrifying thought no doubt too many of you but today I believe Boris Johnson took his first steps towards this ambition of his. Today Boris announced that he will look to find a seat to stand in for the 2015 general election currently scheduled for next year. This follows years of speculation of if he’d return to Westminster or not. So now we know he will do will just becoming a MP be enough? I suspect not. For a long time now Boris has had this oar around him which has protected him from the criticism levelled at any other Tory. He is just like David Cameron a former Etonian and was good friends with David Cameron during their public schooling days. But would Boris throw all that friendship away to become Tory party leader with a chance of prime minister? I think he would. I think he is a very driven man with lots of ambition and charisma. Let me be honest and lay my cards on the table I hate the Tories and all that they stand for. I cannot stand this current ConDem coalition government and want rid of them ASAP. But I also take an interest in politics in general and have always done so as this blog can testify. But as a bit of a passing interest I do look at what is going on on the other side such as the Tories and the ruling class. As I do feel you got to know your enemy to know how they work as to develop an idea how to defeat them once and for all. So could Boris one day be tory party leader and PM? Why not we do live in exceptional times and despite all the cuts he has pushed through in London he has still managed to regain power and was re elected in 2012 all be it on a reduced majority. He has something which most if not all current tories do not that ability to win when your party brand is toxic and even hindering you. Boris can get away with lots I believe and am a dangerous individual for the working class as a result. Due to his ability to come across as a bafoon to be frank a bit of a clown and is a little entertaining people who would ordinarily be turned off by the views he claims to stand by. But being Boris he can carry it off. I would compare this to the Nigel farage factor that has very little in the way of principles and beliefs but gets away with so much due to being very media savvy and a projecting himself as a guy you could have a reasonable conversation with in your local pub. Of course both Nigel’s and Bore’s politics are not to be supported many that are maybe not tuned in to politics can be won over to their popularism. For Boris this will become increasingly difficult if he is to fulfil his ambition of becoming PM as he will have to agree with things he may have already opposed before as London Mayor. For example if he does which is expected to stand for the Uxbrige and South Rieslip seat which is up for grabs next year he will have to balance his views of opposing a Heathrow expansion with a mixed feeling in the area who more of less are pro expansion due to the fact it provides jobs and a lifeline for the area. Before as London Mayor he was standing for all Londoners if Boris goes for this seat he will have a smaller area of people to stand up for meaning his previous policies may clash with others in this seat. So Boris Johnson will be an interesting figure to watch in the coming years. But most of all we must learn how to expose him far better. Just being a clown may show most people are politically apathetic understandably but we do need to fully explain to people the role of these dangerous people with dangerous ideas which affect us very much in a real way. Boris could become PM one day and this scares me greatly while his image of a funny guy and a likeable chap seems ok now just think what he could do with powers to destroy the NHS and our public services all because we took our eye off the ball thinking he is just a funny guy and we will vote for him because we like his personality. How this will fit with old school conservatives who believed in the traditions of the family and the old days. Boris who has a love child and various mistresses doesn’t really fit in to the old view of the conservative many of their activist base do. But maybe they will look past all that as its Boris who can win for them during troubled times. I am no fan of personality politics but you can’t help commenting on it and recent developments under line that sadly. Let’s do away with personality politics once and for all I say.

Rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic

So today we have been treated to a government reshuffle 10 months away from the general election as it stands. Many seem to be crowing about how good it is that the likes of Michael Gove have been demoted and that various others have gone even trade unions like teh NUT celebrating seeing this as a victory. This is certainly not a victory of any sorts. THe policies remain and teh damage is there fora ll to see. one of the most hated figures in the tory ranks, - IDS Iain Duncan-Smith remains at the WP too which sickens me but i never thought he would be one to go he is doing exactly waht the government ask of him and to little resistance it has to be said. So here is a run down of who's gone where and where we should look at for the next year before the coming election and hopefully this will be the last we see of many if not all of these. Prime Minister David Cameron is reshuffling his top team, with details of new appointments and exits being unveiled. William Hague (moved) Mr Hammond has left the Ministry of Defence to become foreign secretary. He has been defence secretary since 2011, having previously held the transport brief. Michael Gove (moved) Mrs Morgan has been made education secretary, taking over from Mr Gove. The former lawyer has been a Treasury minister since 2013, having joined the government a year earlier. She will continue in her role as minister for women. Liz Truss (promoted to Cabinet) Mr Fallon, a Conservative MP since 1983, has been made defence secretary. He is regarded as a trouble-shooter who deals effectively with crises. Previously he held three jobs - as a business minister, minister of state for energy and minister for Portsmouth. Stephen Crabb (promoted to Cabinet) The MP quit his role as immigration minister earlier this year after admitting to having employed an illegal immigrant as a cleaner. He is now back as minister of state in the Department for Work and Pensions. Ken Clarke (out) Mr Paterson will no longer be environment secretary, a post he has held since 2012 when he replaced Caroline Spelman. Prior to that, he had served in the cabinet as Northern Ireland secretary. David Jones (out) Mr Jones has been sacked as Welsh secretary, having been in the cabinet post for two years. He had previously been a more junior minister in the Wales Office. Sir George Young (out) Sir George has resigned as chief whip. He was the leader of the Commons from 2010 to 2012. The 72-year-old North West Hampshire MP is one of the most experienced members of the coalition government, having held office under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. David Willetts (out) Mr Duncan has resigned as international development minister, a post he has held since 2010. Andrew Robathan (out) Mr Robathan has resigned as Northern Ireland minister. He was previously a defence minister until the October 2013 reshuffle. Damian Green (out) Mr Green has resigned as policing minister. He had been immigration minister from 2010 to 2012. Cabinet ministers and others staying in their jobs Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne Home Secretary Theresa May Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith Employment minister Esther McVey (but wi

Gary Barlow it’s not your OBE we want it’s your tax, pay up!

Allot of comment this morning on Take that star Gary Barlow on his tax arrangements and his tax evasion. Allot is being made of him needing to give up his OBE but this misses the point. For sure David Cameron is right that Gary has done a lot of good charity work but would this even have been needed if Gary had simply paid his tax to the tax man in first place? “Gary, his Take that bandmates Mark Owen and Howard Donald, and their manager are facing huge bills after it was revealed by the Times that they reportedly paid into the £66 million Icebreaker Management partnership, which was billed as a music-industry investment scheme. The Take That singers now face tax bills of around £20 million. The Times reports that Judge Colin Bishop told the court that “Icebreaker is, and was known and understood by all concerned to be, a tax avoidance scheme.” Now Labour’s Margaret Hodge, chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said Barlow “might want to show a bit of contrition by giving back his OBE”. She was backed by Tory Charlie Elphicke who told The Sun: “People who have seriously abused the tax system should be stripped of honours.” I do think this misses the point his OBE is not in question even if I don’t agree he should have got one its by the by its his tax we are after. 20 Million to a successful pop singer who has also appeared on the x factor in the UK and been a keen supporter of the conservative party we should not be overly surprised by this recent news on the man but Cameron could find the longer he backs Gary Barlow over tax evasion his claim to clamp down on tax evaders will look increasingly hollow or more so than it already does. David Cameron has said he does not think the singer should be forced to give back his OBE, despite publicly attacking the comedian Jimmy Carr last year for his involvement with a tax avoidance scheme. The Prime Minister, who appeared with the Tory-supporting Take That star during the 2010 General Election campaign, said: "Gary Barlow has done a huge amount for charity, raising a huge amount for Children in Need." Mr. Cameron went on to tell Sky News that the singer was appointed is OBE for his charity work and the tax avoidance issue shouldn't affect that. Gary has yet to comment on the reports that he and his bandmates will have to repay millions but at the time of investing, lawyers for Gary, Howard and Mark confirmed they were involved in the partnerships but insisted the trio believed they were “legitimate enterprises”.” Come on now Gary you may well be a lovely bloke into charity and all that but this does not mean you are above the law and should get away with not paying your taxes in this country. With extracts and quotes from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/12/gary-barlow-obe-take-that-tax-avoidance-scheme_n_5307667.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

Is the UK a Christian country?

Over the weekend David Cameron came out with the line that he is proud Britain is a Christian country I have my doubts as to whether this is true or not. I know many people who are not religious in this country personally. In a recent census of 2011 65% of people answered said they identified as non religious. So does the Christian country link David Cameron is trying to make stand up at all? In a country which is becoming further and further detached from the establishment by the day with trust in establishments like the media, police and politicians falling all the time is faith something which could fill that gap ? Not as far as I can tell. Church going is falling and most people only attend a church for a wedding despite not attending regularly. Religious holidays are seen as more of a chance for a day off rather than a religious respect. Britain today is a mixture of all religions and faith's. I would like to see the church become less involved in society if possible so removing bishops from the house's of parliament for example. We need a country that respects people’s right to believe if they so wish and that goes for all faith's but also recognise many now are non religious and care little for it and wish to live happily alongside all others. David Cameron’s comments were rightly described as divisive as Britain as it should be is a diverse wide and buzzing country with lots of different people living alongside each other. "On Monday, David Cameron found himself under attack from a coalition of 55 leading liberal voices, including author Philip Pullman and philosopher AC Grayling, for fostering “alienation” across the UK by insisting that Britons should be “more confident about our status as a Christian country”. Behind the row lie wider questions about just how Christian Britain is in 2014. The statistics are both for and against Mr. Cameron and his detractors. When the 2011 census was taken, 59 per cent of those in England and Wales described themselves as Christian. But the 2001 census found 72 per cent were nominally Christian. The net loss of 4.1 million Christians would have been significantly worse had it not been for an influx of 1.2 million foreign-born believers – many from more strongly religious countries such as Poland and Nigeria – coming to Britain. Research by the House of Commons Library in 2012 found that the number of non-believers – the nation’s atheists and agnostics are growing by nearly 750,000 a year – will overtake Christians by 2030. The result, according to those who believe religion should be expunged from politics, is a disproportionate influence for the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which critics say are out of step with those to whom they preach. Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “If you put forward the idea that this is a Christian country with the implicit idea that Christians are somehow superior to other citizens then its leads down a dangerous path of prioritising one group’s belief ahead of others. “Church of England attendance now stands at around 800,000 on a typical Sunday. It becomes increasingly difficult, therefore, to justify its privileged position, particularly when it espouses views on subjects such as gay marriage, which the rest of society has long since left behind.” One senior cleric rejected the criticism, accusing Mr. Cameron’s critics of propagating an “intolerant secularism” that ignores a country imbued with Christian culture, history and values. The Right Reverend Mark Davies, the Catholic Bishop of Shrewsbury, who has said that Christians might soon become “strangers in our own land”, told The Independent: “Christianity is the single most important element in England’s history. From our legal system to our constitution, it is at the very foundations of national identity. “There is a danger of airbrushing this from our memory and the intolerant secularism that we are seeing expressed does not allow for acknowledgement of that contribution and its importance to our present life.” Perhaps optimistically, some church leaders have insisted that while the “soft faith” of values and upbringing that once meant many Britons would declare themselves “Christian” without ever crossing the threshold of a church has fallen away, those who now volunteer their faith represent a core of wholehearted belief. As the Roman Catholic Bishop’ Conference of England and Wales put it: “Christianity is no longer a religion of culture but a religion of decision and commitment.” vertheless, the ability of religion to enflame debate is undimmed. As Billy Connolly once put it: “It seems to me that Islam and Christianity and Judaism all have the same God, and he’s telling them all different things.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/is-britain-really-a-land-of-god-furious-debate-after-david-cameron-claims-we-are-a-christian-country-9273542.html

How do you solve a problem like "Maria" Miller?

Over the weekend the expenses scandal has re emerged thanks to conservative MP for Basingstoke that big Tory area? Five days after that 32-second apology in the House of Commons, Maria Miller continues to generate awkward headlines. Speculation about the culture secretary's future won't go down well either in Downing Street or in the Wales Office. With David Cameron standing by his minister, the more mischievous speculation among MPs and journalists at Westminster suggests that rather than sacking Mrs. Miller, the prime minister could move her to a lower-profile role - such as secretary of state for Wales - in the reshuffle expected at the end of next month. Mrs. Miller may be MP for Basingstoke but she grew up in Bridgend, where her parents lived until they moved to London to share what became one of the best-known MPs' second homes. So why not give her the chance to return to her roots? The beleaguered minister would be taken out of the firing line and David Cameron would avoid losing a woman from around his cabinet table. Problem solved! Or perhaps not. Replacing David Jones with Mrs. Miller would not go down well with either Mr. Jones or with Welsh Tories despite public disagreements with the party's group in the National Assembly for Wales. One MP told me it would be a "disaster". The idea that someone seen as unsuitable for a cabinet role because she miss-used the expenses system could be reshuffled to Wales would not be universally applauded west of Offa's Dyke. It would be a gift to the Tories' opponents, with shadow Welsh Secretary Owen Smith tweeting: "Rumours that Maria Miller is set to become Welsh secretary in a forthcoming reshuffle. What have we done to deserve that?" Did she owe £5,800 or £45,000? The Standards Commissioner thought it should be the higher amount. Why? Because Kathryn Hudson concluded that Maria Miller could only claim the interest on the purchase price of her "second home" in 1996. The MPs on the Committee on Standards (which reviews the ruling above) disagree. They say Mrs Miller was entitled to claim interest on the value of the mortgage as it was in 2005 - when Mrs Miller was elected to Parliament as an MP. The Chair of that Committee, Kevin Barron (a Labour MP) firmly stands by that conclusion. Did she 'flip' her second home to avoid paying Capital Gains Tax? More complex. From 1996-2005 the house in question (in Wimbledon, in south-west London) was owned by Mrs Miller in her private capacity (as a non-MP). From her election in 2005 and until 2009, it was designated her second home - and thus she was entitled to claim for the mortgage interest on it - as the rules were then on MPs expenses. In April 2009, she stopped claiming for the London house. But neither did she claim for her constituency home in Basingstoke. So she made no second home claims from that date. Her office says she stopped making those claims before she received a letter informing all MPs that they would now be liable for Capital Gains Tax (currently 28%) should they sell a house on which they have claimed as a second home. The letter arrived at the end of May 2009, her office claims. This means from 2009 to 2014 - Maria Miller made no claims for either her London home or her Basingstoke home. She currently rents a property in London (as the new expenses regime recommends). In February 2014 - the London home is sold - at a profit. Any Capital Gains Tax due (and it's not clear if there is) would fall in the tax year 2013/14 and so would not need to be paid until January 2015. Was her apology too short? Watch: Maria Miller's apology to MPs on expenses It was short - of that there can be no doubt. The 32-second long statement was described by Labour MP Sheila Gilmore today as "inadequate to the point of being contemptuous". It reinforces the perception that she didn't care and further damages her after the Committee and Commissioner claimed Mrs Miller has breached the code of conduct by her "attitude" to the investigation. That may in the end do the most damage. The public like to see their public servants acting in a contrite way when they have made a mistake. It would be safe to say Mrs Miller's apology did not satisfy the public demands on a level of length, contrition or detail. Her office says MPs apologies have historically been short. Although I am not sure comparing her apology to the one made by Nadine Dorries (23 seconds) is a particularly wise move Clearly she has to go fiddling your expenses to cover your second or third home is a disgrace and by her hanging around just makes the Tories look out of tough, which of course they are which is why she hasn’t offered her resignation. One last point remember back after the riots of 2011 a guy who stole a bottle of water was given 2 years in jail well Maria may wish to consider her stealing from the public purse and getting away with it and its inconsistencies. Is it any wonder people think all politicians are in it for themselves??

Equal marriage and its political implications

On Sunday the first "gay marriages" were held in the UK. I prefer to use the term equal marriage as really that is what they are and should be known as. Marriage is a right or at least should be to have legal and equal rights as everyone else seems something so obvious to me that I can’t believe we have waited till now for this. But as we know Britain is a fairly conservative nation with its governments bowing to pressure from religious and faith groups into holding back moves to bring in equal marriage into law. So at last LGBT people can marry who they like and I do hope this is just the start of greater things for this community. It’s a well over due matter and the fact a Tory lead government has been the one to bring it in shows how far to the right the labour party has moved as it couldn’t bring this about in its 13 years of government. Ok we had civil partnerships but this was a half way house to what many in the LGBT community really wanted full legal and equal rights for all. I know a lot of people in the conservative party voted against this putting out such wooly reasons why this shouldn’t be law. The reasoning was hugely offensive and discriminatory and showed the Tories for the out of touch backward looking party at least on its back bench's anyhow. Whether David Cameron truly believes in equality for LGBT people I am not sure but certainly he has to be credited with bravery for taking on many in his own party to get this important law through in the commons and beyond. So well done to all who have been fighting hard for this for a very long time let’s hope this can be just the start of the LGBT revolution. Solidarity

The UK floods and capitalism in crisis

I don’t live in a flooded area I’d like to make clear but I do think the recent devastating flooding in many areas of the Uk with the South West of England being worst hit it would seem do deserve some reflection I think. Allot of people’s homes have been damaged possibly even permanently with flood waters still peaking in many places. My sympathies and solidarity do go out to all affected by these storms. A transfer of foreign aid to the flood victims is not the answer in my opinion though as many reactionaries will have you think it is the answer. Those foreigners don’t need out money we need it here. This misses the point of foreign aid and the good it does and automatically assumes it is "too high" in the first place which I’d contest. In the last week David Cameron has tried to do his savior of the people hero act by turning up with wellies and a helping hand but this symbolic gesture politics standing for photographs while cutting funding for flood defenses will do little to ease peoples anger I’d say. In fact it wills b interesting to see how much this recent storms and floods and a lack of a proper reply from the government will affect their votes in these areas. The UK has been hit by a series of strong storms throughout January and into February, with no end in sight. This offers a case study of capitalism under climate change. The current string of back-to-back storms has been described as "an almost unprecedented natural crisis". It hasn't escaped notice that the response to the storms in the south west was rather lackluster, but when severe flood warnings were issued for the Thames in the Home Counties, it was suddenly announced that "money is no object". It should come as no surprise that some peoples' misery is worth more than others. The sight of land reclaimed by the sea is also something we'll be seeing more of; as both sea levels and storm strengths continue to rise (managed retreat is proposed as an alternative to increasing reliance on sea defences). It’s probably too early to draw conclusions about the state response, as it’s likely to be still in-formation in response to emerging crises.2 However, we shouldn’t assume that destruction is automatically bad for capital. A moderate amount of destruction can be seized upon as an opportunity for restructuring, reconstruction and investment (so-called 'disaster capitalism'). As the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said, "You get a hit to GDP [Gross Domestic Product] as it's going on and then you get a recovery, you get that back later on with the repair." On a system-level, rates of profit are boosted by the destruction of capital value.3 This wasn’t allowed to happen to any great extent in the economic crisis, as state intervention propped up banks and the housing bubble. In the absence of a world war to destroy capital and make room for growth (the 1940s ‘fix’), might climate change destruction contribute to a recovery of the rate of profit, amidst secular stagnation? Clearly, if this conjecture is true, this would happen in a hugely unequal, exploitative, and potentially cataclysmic manner. But how much climate destruction is best for capital? Probably more than none. Extreme weather events will start to have an increasing disruptive impact. That might result in shifts in climate policy. But damaging the capitalist economy shouldn't be mistaken for damaging capitalist social relations. Rather, capitalist relations ensure that climate change impacts tend to reinforce existing inequalities.

Doctors and nurses may face jail for neglect

Worrying new laws to be looked at and introduced very soon by the government will see doctors and nurse’s possibly facing jail in future for poor car and neglect. I think this hugely miss's the point of bad care and stories like mid Staffs. Do not help matters. I do think the lack of proper funding and staffing levels do need closer examination and that's where the focus for me should be instead. Doctors and nurses found guilty of "wilful neglect" of patients could face jail, the government is proposing. Wilful neglect will be made a criminal offence in England and Wales under NHS changes next week following the Mid Staffordshire and other care scandals. The offence will be modelled on one punishable by up to five years in prison under the Mental Capacity Act. Doctors' leaders said the threat of criminal sanctions could create a climate of fear in the NHS. The government's proposals are due to be unveiled next week. Prime Minister David Cameron said health workers who mistreated and abused patients would face "the full force of the law" in a package of measures. A consultation on what scale of sentence should be applied to the extended law will be carried out over the next few months. The move was one of the central recommendations of a review of patient safety commissioned by ministers after findings that hundreds suffered unacceptable treatment at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Human beings make mistakes - you can't change the human condition, but you can help support the humans in having systems” End Quote Dr Maureen Baker Chairman of the Royal College of GPs It was led by Professor Don Berwick, a former adviser to US president Barack Obama, who said the measure was needed to target the worst cases of a "couldn't care less" attitude that led to "wilful or reckless neglect or mistreatment". Mr Cameron said the NHS was full of "brilliant" staff but the Mid Staffordshire case showed care was "sometimes not good enough". "That is why we have taken a number of different steps that will improve patient care and improve how we spot bad practice," he said. "Never again will we allow substandard care, cruelty or neglect to go unnoticed". Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said the proposal should be introduced alongside the package of measures detailed in Sir Robert Francis's public inquiry report into failings at Stafford Hospital, including minimum staffing levels. He warned against the government adopting a "pick and mix" approach. He also urged them to "tread carefully" to avoid denigrating staff. The BMA's Dr Andrew Collier called the move "a headline-grabbing exercise" A spokesman for the Welsh government said it would not comment until it had seen the proposals on Tuesday. The British Medical Association (BMA) said doctors and nurses might be less likely to speak out against colleagues if they thought they would go to jail as a result. Dr Andrew Collier, co-chairman of the BMA's junior doctors' committee, said doctors who failed to meet certain standards needed support and help. "They don't need this new climate of fear. They don't need to be concerned that they may be sent to jail. What they need to do is learn from their mistakes and develop their practice," he told BBC Breakfast. He called the move a "headline-grabbing exercise" and said it did not address the other recommendations made by Prof Berwick, such as minimum staffing levels and culture changes. Dr Maureen Baker, the new chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said: "Doctors, nurses - we are human. Human beings make mistakes. "You can't change the human condition, but you can help support the humans in having systems around them that help keep them safe, caring and compassionate." Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said a law change on its own was "not a panacea". He added that legally enforced staffing levels would have a far greater impact on patient care, as they had in Australia and California. Peter Walsh said the government must not avoid "more difficult" NHS reforms But Julie Bailey, who founded pressure group Cure the NHS to expose failings at Stafford Hospital following her mother's death there, welcomed the government's proposal, saying: "Now it's time for patients' safety to be a priority." A spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: "We will analyse these proposals once published by the UK government and will consider if further legislation is required in Scotland to supplement the existing arrangements of professional regulation." Peter Walsh, chief executive of patient safety charity Action against Medical Accidents, welcomed the possibility of prison sentences for neglect, but said a "much more joined-up approach" was needed. He said the "full set of recommendations" from Sir Robert Francis's inquiry must be implemented. Mr Walsh said he hoped the latest announcement was not intended to distract attention from some of the "more difficult" recommendations the government "may be reluctant to implement", such as minimum staffing levels. He rejected the BMA's suggestion the new law might make people more reluctant to report colleagues, saying he had "more faith in the medical profession" than that. Any new rules much apply to everyone in health organisations - from the "board to the ward" - he added. Last month, the World Medical Association, which represents 102 national medical associations, condemned government attempts to control how doctors practise medicine, including criminalising medical decision-making.

Labour to scrap the bedroom tax? I’ll believe it when I see it

So Ed Miliband will announce this weekend that a future labour government will look to scrap the bedroom tax which I have attacked and talked about on this very blog. Labour has said it will reverse controversial changes to housing benefit if it wins the next election. Ed Miliband said the cut affecting social tenants in England, Scotland and Wales deemed to have spare bedrooms was unfair. Labour aims to fund its change by blocking tax cuts for businesses. Critics called the cut a "bedroom tax". The government argues it ends "spare room subsidies" unavailable in the private sector and that the £23bn-a-year housing benefit bill must be cut. The announcement comes with the Labour Party conference about to start in Brighton. 'Not working' Since April, social housing tenants deemed to have spare rooms have either had to pay more in rent or move somewhere smaller. For months Labour has argued the change is wrong, unfair and penalises disabled people in particular, but had not committed itself to reverse the policy if it was in power after the election. But Mr Miliband has now said the change would be paid for by scrapping a tax break for hedge funds and the Treasury's new shares-for-rights scheme. I would urge all supporters and all who oppose the bedroom tax to take this latest news with a pinch of salt. A huge one given Labours current agreement with the cuts agenda who say they feel the cuts are too far and too fast yet the cuts would continue under a future labour government. If the labour party are genuine which I am suspicious about of course given labours previous record in gov and in opposition in sacking many workers in local government. I will believe any scrap when I see it. Labour has pledged to do things in the past including renationalising the railways and still it is in private hands despite all the conference motions and pledges you could muster yet still nothing changes. If labour is genuinely against this policy called the bedroom tax then we should not see any evictions or any threats of an eviction from any labour council up and down the land. We will see if this happens or not. Of course I would welcome a labour party pledge to scrap the bedroom tax but I would urge caution I have seen similar pledges from labour in the past only to be left disappointed. Let’s not give up on the solidarity acting of defending people in their homes who are still under threat of eviction. We should go where no labour party member will in defending people in their homes offering solidarity and physical help as and where it is needed including human shields to prevent evictions. Despite this pledge reality goes on for many facing hardship from the bedroom tax. This will not change anything this next week for many a militant organisation is still needed to fight off the bedroom tax. No complacency can be afforded now a stepping up of all campaigns ageist the bedroom tax must commence forth now with the call now labour are promising to scrap this so lets not waste anytime and fight to keep people in their homes and safe from eviction. The bedroom tax is still not gone and we must not rest on our laurels we must keep up the pressure on all councils including labour councils to oppose the bedroom tax and all forms of it.

Will Britain still go to war in Syria?

Well they will have to do it without the approval of parliament after a motion from David Cameron and the government as surprisingly voted down tonight thankfully in my view. David Cameron: "It is clear to me that the British parliament... does not want to see British military action" Tonight British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons. A government motion was defeated by 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes. Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly". It effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime. And it comes as a potential blow to the authority of David Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to the opposition Labour Party's demands for more evidence of Assad's guilt. Labour had seen its own amendment - calling for "compelling" evidence - rejected by MPs by 114 votes. But - in an unexpected turn of events - MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians. So where does David Cameron and his pro imperialist supporters go now? I don’t think they’d get away with pushing forward with military action now without a vote before parliament. It shows that Cameron and his authority are weakening all the time and he can be defeated too. This should spur the working class on to know that the government can be defeated if organised and willing. Will there still be intervention in Syria? Well possibly but it may have to be without America’s good friend Britain. This will be interesting to se what America in particular does next.

G8 Summit, no to austerity, for a socialist alternative

www.socialistworld.net, 17/06/2013 website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI End the rule of big business, poverty and war Article courtesy of comrade Niall Mulholland, CWI The leaders of the most powerful nations in the world will soon descend on Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, for the 17-18 June G8 Summit. We can expect much empty rhetoric from David Cameron, Barack Obama and other world leaders about how Northern Ireland is a model for ’peace, stability and growing prosperity’, which the G8 wishes to emulate on an international level. Nothing could be further from the truth. Northern Ireland has some of the highest rates of poverty and joblessness on these islands and society remains divided along sectarian lines. The huge security operation surrounding the summit is like the worst of the ’Troubles’. Thousands of armed police and military equipment will flood Fermanagh. These repressive measures are an attempt to intimidate workers and young people from protesting against the G8’s policies. And there is a lot to protest! The G8 heads of state lead the way in making the working class pay for the crisis of their capitalist system. Austerity policies have caused Depression-era conditions in Greece, which will soon be repeated in Cyprus. Mass unemployment stalks the EU, officially at nearly 20%. Youth joblessness in Spain is over 60% and around 80% in Greece. The G8’s austerity policies are not working. Most of Europe is in deep recession or facing economic stagnation. The US has feeble growth but also falling wages and rising social inequality. The G8 represents the opposite of ’prosperity, peace and stability’. Under the capitalist profit system, almost half of the world’s population struggles to live on less than $2.5 a day. The G8 represents the super-rich 1%. The ’great philanthropist’ Bill Gates, of Microsoft, has total wealth estimated at $66 billion, which is enough to end world poverty and still leave him with change. One of the G8’s stated purposes is to "save" African people from starvation - by corporate land grabs and control of the continent’s markets! The G8 also represents a system that causes war and environmental destruction. Since the economic crisis began, a staggering $1.75 trillion was spent by world powers on the highly lucrative arms industry. Working class The current Turkish uprising, which started in Taksim Square, is encouraging anti-G8 protesters in Belfast and Fermanagh, despite the security clampdown. The magnificent movement in Turkey has the potential to bring together working people across ethnic and national divisions, linking up with the organised working class, to become an unstoppable force to change society. The ’G8 Not Welcome’ campaign, initiated by the Socialist Party in Northern Ireland, will hold a demonstration in Enniskillen on 17 June, the first day of the Summit. This protest, with trade union backing, will bring together Catholic and Protestant youth, socialists, trade unionists and others. But marching together is not enough. A workers’ alternative to the G8 and pro-big business parties is needed in Northern Ireland, Britain and everywhere. The Socialist Party in Northern Ireland, like the Socialist Party in England and Wales, is an affiliate to the CWI. It calls for mass opposition to G8 policies and the local sectarian-based parties and their cuts. The CWI campaigns for jobs, homes, a living wage and decent benefits. It fights for socialism - democratic public ownership and planning of the major industries and banks which would unleash colossal wealth and resources for the benefit of the ’99%’ - to end the rule of big business, poverty and war.

Make the bedroom tax unworkable

In similar ways the bedroom tax has been the straw that broke the camels back and a little like the infamous poll tax which saw Margret Thatcher finally defeated this bedroom tax could become David Cameron and the tories very own poll tax. We need to make this tax unworkable with mass resistance and mass civil disobedience needed to defeat this vicious tax. The socialist party says : • No evictions of tenants who fall into rent arrears as a result of austerity cuts. Organise local campaigns to oppose the tax and defend our homes • Stand candidates against councillors who try to evict us. Build a new mass workers' party that draws together workers, young people and activists from workplaces and anti-cuts campaigns, to provide a fighting, political alternative to the pro-cuts parties • Cap rents and build homes. Invest in a major programme of council house building and refurbishment to provide affordable homes for all and decent jobs • End low pay! If workers are paid a genuinely living wage they would not need to claim housing benefit • Fight all the cuts. Trade unions must build for a 24-hour general strike as the next major step in the campaign against austerity • For a socialist alternative to cuts and capitalism with a democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people - not the 1% Many of those actively taking part in anti bedroom tax campaigns are mostly those not affected by this tax but want to get involved and lend solidarity all the same. More the better i say. It says everything about the major movement and politicisation that could develop that most of those participating are not affected by the bedroom tax but are acting in solidarity. The rage against the rich and their political representatives is palpable - the sheer injustice of bankers' bailouts and their bonuses, MPs' expenses, pay-day loan sharks, foodbanks, food prices, unemployment. There is also an understanding that those in power will not cease their attacks on the working class and gains of the past such as social housing unless they are forced to. 'Spare room' myth-busting! Myth #1: people have 'spare' bedrooms So-called 'spare' rooms aren't spare at all. The government's criteria mean children and young people are forced to share bedrooms with siblings - up to 16 if they're the same sex. They don't take into account people's disabilities which might mean they occasionally need someone to stay over to help them or to sleep separately from their partner. And if parents are separated, only one is entitled to have a room for their child. Myth #2: the bedroom tax is going to 'encourage people into work' It's hard to encourage people into jobs that don't exist. In some areas there are up to 20 jobseekers for every vacancy. And the government continues to cut more jobs from the public sector. Figures have shown all the schemes they've tried, including their heralded Work Programme, have failed to increase the numbers getting jobs. Besides, many of those affected by the bedroom tax are already in work - 90% of new housing benefit claimants from 2010-2012 have a job but are so poorly paid they are still entitled to support with housing costs - a bailout for stingy, low-paying bosses. Myth #3: the bedroom tax will result in a reduced housing benefit bill The housing benefit bill is so big because of high rents - mainly in the private sector but now social landlords can charge 80% of the market rate too. Private sector rents have increased by 86% in 40 years. The best way to reduce it is to introduce a cap on rents. People have been forced to move to urban areas to look for work, increasing the need for affordable housing. But the amount of social housing being built has fallen at the same time as the existing stock has been sold off. What the government really wants to do is attack the welfare state in every way possible and to force working and middle class people to pay for the bankers' crisis. Myth #4: it's only fair to create parity with the private sector The reduction in housing benefit for a spare room in the private sector hasn't always existed either. And the real problem is that there isn't enough decent housing, and virtually none that is really affordable. People being hit by the bedroom tax have nowhere to move to because of the massive shortage of social housing - mainly as a result of decades of successive governments continuing the sell-off of council housing. Myth #5: the £500 benefit cap is only bringing benefits in line with average wages This figure doesn't include benefits that people in work have to claim, including child benefit and working tax credits. That so many people earn less than £500 is a disgrace, best tackled by increasing the minimum wage, not bringing benefits even further into poverty levels. Those who are fighting this savage attack should stand in elections and join other anti-cuts campaigners in building a new mass party, based on ordinary working class people, to put an alternative to austerity on the agenda.

Answering workers fears on immigration

The Con-Dem government grows more unpopular by the day. Endless austerity is combined with falling living standards, rising unemployment, and no prospect of a return to economic growth. If anger at austerity was harnessed into a mass, united movement the Con-Dems could be forced to call a general election within months. Tory Prime Minister David Cameron knows this. Desperate to creep up a few points in the opinion polls, under pressure from the Eastleigh byelection result of right-wing nationalist Ukip, Cameron is attempting to tap into many workers' concerns about the potential consequences of increased immigration. This is an attempt to divide the movement against austerity. The trade union movement needs to respond by launching a serious united struggle - starting with a 24-hour general strike - against those who are really responsible for the misery we face; this government of millionaires and the capitalist system it defends. Trade unions must warn that the Con-Dems will attempt to use limiting access to public services for immigrants as the thin end of the wedge to attack universal access to essential services and benefits. However, the trade union movement also has a duty to answer the fears of some workers about increased immigration. Over the last decade there has been a rapid increase in the number of people, mainly from other parts of the EU, who have come to Britain to live and work. This is a major factor in the increase of around two million in Britain's population in the last five years. A small minority of new arrivals in Britain move to wealthy areas like Kensington and Chelsea - but they are almost all foreign fat cats and Cameron is more than happy to hobnob with them. The vast majority of new arrivals, however, join the ranks of the poorest sections of the working class. Increased population density has overwhelmingly taken place in working class communities with already over-stretched public services and over-crowded housing. Against this background it is inevitable that tensions exist about who does, and does not, get the limited public services that are available. It is on the question of housing that these tensions are particularly acute. By declaring that EU immigrants are to be kept off housing waiting lists for at least two years, Cameron is encouraging the idea that people from other countries are taking a disproportionately large share of social housing, and that this is causing the current acute housing crisis, where over five million people are on the waiting lists. Is this true? Increased population has increased demand for social housing, but it is the complete absence of any other option for millions of people born in Britain that is the central reason for the increase in numbers wanting a council house or flat. Cameron is attempting to shift the blame for the housing crisis away from its primary cause; the profit-driven housing policies of current and previous governments. House prices have gone up 40 times since 1971 whereas prices in general have gone up tenfold while wages have mostly stagnated. This means home ownership is now out of reach for the majority. At the same time rents in the extortionate private rented sector have increased by 86%. But social housing is in incredibly short supply. Twenty years ago there were more than five million council homes, now there is barely half that number. If the Con-Dems get their way even these will have their rents raised to extortionate 'market' levels. New Labour in government also continued the previous Tory governments' policies, selling off even more council houses than Thatcher. A puny 2,019 council houses were built during New Labour's entire period in government, an average of 400 houses a year! Contrast this to 5,000 council houses - all with front and back gardens - that just one Labour council - in Liverpool from 1983-87 - was able to build when it stood on a socialist programme. Labour leader Ed Miliband has stated that Labour 'got it wrong' on immigration, but why doesn't he admit that Labour 'got it wrong' on housing? Labour would be elected on a landslide if Miliband was to pledge that the next Labour government would carry out a mass council house-building programme, to create high-quality, genuinely affordable, secure housing for the majority and to provide work for unemployed construction workers on union rates of pay. This is not unprecedented - from 1948 to 1954 the Labour and Tory governments built an average of 240,000 council houses a year. However, Labour today, wedded to big business, will never implement such a demand. The Socialist Party calls for the organised workers' movement, in the form of the trade unions, to launch a mass campaign to defend and expand council housing. This could unite existing tenants and the five million people on waiting lists by demanding decent housing for all, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. At the same time we recognise that, particularly given the current lack of supply, the lack of an open, democratic and accountable system of allocations, which would be accepted by most workers, increases anger and suspicion that housing is being allocated unfairly. Cameron is whipping up this feeling in relation to migrants from other EU countries, who are in fact already only allowed to apply for social housing if they are currently in work, or have been in continuous work for at least the previous 12 months. And that is only for the right to apply - the current acute shortage means that the vast majority of applicants for social housing languish indefinitely on a waiting list. Statistics indicate that only 0.9% of social housing allocations have gone to workers from Eastern Europe. This is largely because, to actually get social housing, particularly in London and other areas with a severe housing shortage, it is usually necessary to not only be homeless, but also in priority need - that is pregnant, with dependent children, or vulnerable because of old age or illness. The mainly young economic migrants from EU countries rarely qualify. Nonetheless, there are of course cases where homeless families who are new to an area, sometimes refugees fleeing war, famine and persecution, are housed above families living in severely over-crowded conditions that have been on the waiting list for many years. While it is the extreme lack of council housing which is the root cause, leading to a choice between housing the homeless and the 'merely' desperate, this inevitably creates resentment among those who do not get council housing against those who do. The Socialist Party believes that the right of families to be housed in the same community is an important one. The policies of this government and Labour councils are annihilating this right; forcing desperate families to move hundreds of miles from family and friends for social housing. The struggle to achieve it has to be linked to both the fight for a mass council house-building programme and for the democratic control of the allocation system. Decisions should be taken on the basis of need, including the right to be housed near relatives and friends, not by council officials, however, but by elected representatives of local community organisations, including tenants associations, trade unions, elected councillors and other community campaigns. The workers' movement needs to take the same kind of class approach to other aspects of the government's attempts to increase divisions between immigrant and non-immigrant workers which are, unfortunately, being echoed by Labour. The Tories hypocritically claim that immigration is undermining 'the British way of life' but it is the government's driving down of workers' living standards that will ruin our way of life unless we fight back. Miliband has been forced to recognise belatedly that over the last decade big business in Britain used super-exploited migrant workers to lower wages for all workers. His proposals to prosecute more employers who pay less than the minimum wage are welcome. There have only been seven prosecutions since it was introduced 14 years ago, and for the first ten years of New Labour government not a single successful prosecution took place! Miliband should also pledge immediately to increase the minimum wage - to at least £8 an hour - a living wage rather than starvation rations. This would lift millions out of the benefit trap. But if Miliband was serious about stopping the race to the bottom he would be calling for all workers - both non-migrants and migrants - to join a trade union and organise together to win decent pay and conditions. This is the only way to effectively combat the employers' relentless attempts to drive down the wages of all workers. Instead Miliband, like Blair and Brown before him, has opposed workers striking to defend their living conditions and has made no pledge to repeal Britain's vicious anti-trade union laws. Unfortunately there is no possibility of Labour adopting even these minimal policies. Under Miliband, as under Blair and Brown, Labour remains a party wedded to capitalism. Miliband is not willing to even vote against slave labour Workfare schemes. Promising to reverse the Tory-Lib Dem cuts is too much for him to stomach. That is why the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) is beginning to lay the foundations for the creation of a powerful electoral voice for working class people. TUSC brings together trade unionists, including the transport workers' union, the RMT, and socialists, including the Socialist Party. TUSC stands in elections in opposition to all cuts in public services, and to fight for the kind of policies outlined in this article. Socialists stand for workers' unity, explaining that the only way to effectively prevent big business's attempts to drive down wages is by uniting workers - non-migrant and migrant - to fight for everyone to get decent pay and conditions. With most taken from http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/758/16390/27-03-2013/cameron-whips-up-immigration-fears-to-divide-movement-against-austerity

Imigration, Romania and Camerons lies

Immigration is a tool used by the ruling class to undermine wages of all workers. It accepts that foreign workers coming from a lower waged economy will take lower paid jobs here as it is a little better than where they have have come from. This as a result drives down all wages of all workers. Romanians coming to live in the UK are not migrating to claim benefits, but to work, one of Romania's leading recruiters for Britain has said. David Cameron has warned those coming to Britain they can no longer expect "something for nothing," and is to reveal tougher curbs on benefits for immigrants. But Brindusa Deac, who works for Romanian recruitment website Tjobs.ro, told the Huffington Post UK the number of job openings available shows Romanians do not need to claim benefits. More than 47,000 job openings were advertised on their job site offering Romanians positions in England last year, many for doctors and nurses. Cameron is due to say in a speech on Monday: "We should be clear that what we have is a free National Health Service, not a free International Health Service." But Miss Deac said she had no idea why the prime minister would suggest Romanians are emigrating to be treated on the NHS as their own health service currently offers free treatment. She said most Romanians came home for medical attention, as it was much cheaper. "We think since there are that many job openings in the UK, Romanians aren't going there for benefits, what would be the value of that?" she told The Huffing No doubt many who do come will be lumped in as scroungers and demonised but the facts speak for they Romania has a free health service so they clearly are not coming for that reason. I would encourage all foreign nationals thinking of coming to the UK to join a union and get involved as we all need to fight for the rate of the job not to give in to divide and rule. If we all do the same job we all should be paid the same rate for that job. As for their claims of jobs a plenty in the UK I wouldn’t be so sure they are no doubt low paid possibly even 0 hour contracts with long hours and poor conditions these are the jobs immigrants often take and would prefer to do that than to claim for benefits. We must smash the myth on immigration and try and ease people’s concerns that people are not here for our jobs and health service. That is the boss’s and the Tories who both need to go. Organising workers unemployed or not into unions is a key task for unions right now. Workers should see unions as their home and something they can rely on its time for unions to regain their relevance and that starts with working for their members and being member lead.

Scrap the unfair bedroom tax!

On 1 April David Cameron's government of the rich will unveil their vicious 'bedroom tax'. Council house and housing association (HA) tenants over 21 and under pension age that is judged to be 'under-occupying' their premises will lose much of their housing benefit (HB). They will lose14% for one 'spare bedroom' and 25% for two or more. There are already press stories about the effects on disabled people and families with disabled children, the sick, unemployed people, etc. Many people on housing benefit today are in work but on low pay and they too will suffer. This is a blatant class attack! Will bailiffs be sent into the stately homes of the super-rich to evict surplus millionaires? No. On the same day as the bedroom tax arrives the Con-Dems are cutting millionaires' taxes yet again, saving them over £100,000 a year! There are nowhere near enough one-bedroom homes to offer decent accommodation to the hundreds of thousands who the Con-Dems reckon are under-occupying their homes. House-building figures have crashed - fewer than 100,000 new homes were started in 2012 - the second lowest figure since 1946! Cash-hungry councils has practically stopped building new properties. The private rented sector has now reached 8.5 million, one in six households, who are paying more and more rent, often to a small number of giant greedy landlords. Cameron's regime hopes to force more tenants to follow suit by making social housing (i.e. council and HA) unaffordable - evictions and homelessness will follow. We cannot let this government force people out of their homes! Around the country, rage at this cruel new tax is exploding. In Scotland, where the heroic, organised and successful opposition to Thatcher's poll tax started over 20 years ago, Socialist Party Scotland members have started setting up anti-bedroom tax campaigns. Scrap the bedroom tax • Build support for anyone who cannot or will not pay this unfair, unjust tax • Councils and Housing Associations must refuse to evict any tenants who fall into rent arrears as a result of the tax • Stop the attacks on benefits and wages. Make the rich and big business pay for the economic mess - not ordinary people • For a major programme of council house-building to provide affordable homes for all. Nationalise the house-building companies and banks • Build a 24-hour general strike to bring down the Con-Dem government that is slashing jobs and services In this issue Socialist Party news and analysis Scrap the bedro With extracts taken from http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/755/16268/07-03-2013/scrap-the-bedroom-tax

What could a 24 hour general strike achieve?

I’ve heard it a lot of late what can a 24 hour general strike achieve and in many ways I can understand those voices saying one day will not be enough we need more and I’d be agreeing with them. But and this is a big but we are starting from a very low level of consciousnesses we are not in the 1980’s trade union militancy is not what it was and we are having to start from a very low position. This is not to say that we cannot achieve big gains on the way back up but we have to realise and start from where we are not from where we’d like us to be. Some may say we are not doing that by calling for a one day general strike but we feel the working class and certainly the most advanced layers are ready and are at that stage now. Last year our calls for a 24 hour public sector general strike were taken up and made the property of the working class and turned into action on November the 30th. Now we are under no illusions that just by calling for something it wills just happen we are not that naive but slogans are important and how they are put across is important. A lot of work is needed to build for such an action we are under no illusions we face a huge task in front of us. But we must start now. At the 20 October anti-austerity demonstration, three trade union general secretaries - Len McCluskey of Unite, Bob Crow of the RMT and Mark Serwotka of the PCS - reflected the feelings of the majority of trade unionists in calling for a 24-hour general strike. Urgent plans must be drawn up now to give flesh to this call with an early date set for a strike to take place. However, it would be a mistake to imagine that the whole trade union movement is convinced and united in agreeing, let alone carrying out, the strike call, which was also endorsed by the last TUC Congress in September. It was noticeable that other general secretaries did not, in their speeches, either support or join in the general acclamation in Hyde Park for the general strike call. This indicates that right-wing trade union leaders will attempt to hamper and frustrate a strike taking place. They will seek to hide behind the 'difficulties' - particularly the hurdle of Thatcher's anti-union laws - in organising such a strike. Right-wing trade union leaders who habitually betray their members should take a warning from the recent splendid and heroic actions of the South African miners. Kept in the dirt by ruthless South African capitalism, their suffering was compounded by their 'leaders' in the NUM and Cosatu , who have shamefully collaborated with the bosses. Consequently, the miners have elbowed their former leaders aside. A similar fate awaits those trade union leaders in Britain who let trade unionists down at this momentous time. A mass campaign of explanation should drive home why a one-day strike is necessary to stop the government in its tracks. The trade unions have marched together; now it is necessary to strike together in one massive demonstration of the power of working people. Imagine the scene; with factories, workplaces and transport - apart from the essential means of getting to demonstrations, etc - all falling silent on one day. It would bring home that society cannot function without the working class. The same could not be said for the parasitic capitalists who, through their government - the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition - are dragging the British people into a social abyss. The British working class has not had such an experience for 86 years, since the time of the 1926 general strike. Greece has had 20 general strikes in the last two years alone. Spain, Portugal and Italy have trod a similar path, France and Belgium likewise. Britain did come close to a one-day strike at the time of the jailing of the dockers in 1972. Even the right-wing then general secretary of the TUC, Vic Feather, was compelled to threaten the Tory government of Ted Heath with a general strike unless the Dockers were released. He did this knowing he would not have to carry out his threat because the government had already indicated that the Dockers would be released through the medium of their own 'fairy godmother', the Official Solicitor, who few people had ever heard of before! This demonstrates the lengths to which the British ruling class will go to in order to avoid setting a new benchmark - a one-day general strike - for workers resisting them. It also illustrates that they can be compelled to make concessions when they are threatened with the power of the trade unions and the working class. It is no accident that the issue of the general strike is back on the agenda of the workers' movement. There are similar features in Britain today as in the early 1920s, which culminated in the 1926 general strike. The scale and the depth of the economic crisis of British and world capitalism are devastating. Like then, the capitalists want to impose the cost of this crisis onto the backs of the working class. They prepared a savage programme of cuts, outlined in the Geddes report of 1922. A similar scale of cuts has been proposed by Cameron and Osborne today, with the working class and poorest sections of the population, such as the disabled and low paid facing benefit cuts, etc, most affected. Unemployment - the most visible expression of the sclerotic state of 'modern' capitalism - stands at 200 million worldwide, according to the United Nations' International Labour Organisation. That is fully 30 million higher than before the crisis started in 2007-08. 40 million more people have also dropped out of the labour market since then. Yet by 2013 the figure of worldwide unemployment will have risen by at least seven million to 207 million. Cameron and British capitalism offer nothing different. A month ago, Cameron said the crisis would last at least until the end of this decade. Larry Elliott of the Guardian speculates that Britain may experience not one but possibly two or even three 'lost decades'. This will be characterised by economic paralysis, resulting in stagnant and falling living standards. Yet Cameron tries to hide his nakedness by triumphantly waving the latest 'growth' figures, prepared for him by the 'Department of Wild Guesses', and the 'Ministry of Thin Air'! These are just one quarter's figures. They largely arise from the Olympics, which had an effect almost solely in London. Even here they merely boosted part-time jobs and the self-employed, usually on miserable incomes, while the rest of the country outside of London still looks like an economic wasteland. In fact, the crisis is so deep and profound, the sacrifices demanded of the working class so severe, that some workers say, why just strike for one day? If we come out for one-day, why not then take it further into an all-out general strike? It is a question here of soberly estimating the stage through which the working class and the labour movement are passing. An all-out general strike is one of the most serious actions the working class can take, posing as it does sharply the question of power in society. Either the working class takes power and establishes a new socialist society or the capitalists can inflict a crushing defeat. Sometimes, as in 1926 with the Baldwin government, a general strike can be provoked by the capitalists without the working class being properly prepared, and its defeat can have lasting consequences. Therefore, before engaging in such a decisive battle it is necessary to go through a preparatory stage, maybe a number of limited strikes of one day or even longer, as in Greece. It is vital to understand the rhythm of the workers' movement at each stage. Today, a one-day strike is the most appropriate and effective action the working class can take. Even the six million workers organised in trade unions - encompassing 26% of the labour force - coming out in a one-day strike would shake this rotten government to its foundations. The trade unions should lose no time in organising the most massive display of working class power seen in generations - a colossal and effective 24-hour general strike! With extracts taken from http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/740/15596/31-10-2012/prepare-for-a-24-hour-general-strike