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.

Labours drop in the poles; will they still win next year?

It was not only predictable but predicted – by many, on all manner of social media - which this government would start to rebuild its base and Labour's fragile poll lead would collapse, in the year before the general election. This is now happening. Labour's support has fallen six percentage points, and the Tories have a lead for the first time in ages. Why? Hasn't the Labour Party issued a number of popular statements, from fuel freezes to rent controls? Isn't this government implementing profoundly unpopular policies such as the de facto privatisation of the NHS? Isn't austerity - or at least this government's version of it - unpopular with most voters? And if Ed Miliband is uninspiring, wasn't he just as uninspiring when he had a seemingly commanding poll lead? The fact that labour is sleep walking into a defeat in the next general election in 2015 is interesting on many levels. Of course they can still win and nothing has been decided yet of course it would mean the Tories would need to go into next years election with a 7 point lead to achieve a majority. Labours opposition to the government has been woeful more often than not agreeing to the same policies but all is it doing it slightly differently such as the benefit cap which will cause many to suffer in the coming years. I think a lot of Labours drop in the polls and failure to really get a big lead over the Tories is down to several things but not least the fact many just don’t connect with Ed Miliband. Many I speak to find him weird and a little geeky and this doesn’t reflect well with people even if what he is saying some agree with such as price freezes to energy bills. The unions resistance has been pitiful not merely because of bad leadership, and not merely because they have been narrow and sectional in approach, more interested in limiting the immediate damage and preserving the bargaining mechanisms that limited their militancy in exchange for some influence than in leading a broad offensive against austerity. As important has been the politics of the union base, the grassroots. It's not just that there is no 'rank and file' to speak of, no movement 'from below' capable of driving the unions into confrontation with the government. It's not just that unions are more bureaucratised, more dependent on their leaderships than ever for initiative in such matters as industrial action and political campaigns. It is that the space for organised radical politics has declined in the union movement in proportion as it has elsewhere. The extra-Labour left has been nowhere, in total disarray, unsure of its strategy, unable to cohere its diverse strands much less pull together the scattered elements of resistance, unable to consistently mobilise opponents in numbers, and unable to actually disrupt very much (indeed, there are some on the Left for whom disruption is entirely beside the point). In the long, long diminuendo of organised left politics in the UK, the biggest organised left was the tiny far left which, even if it weren't for - you know - everything, was totally unequal to the historical responsibility placed upon it. The five years or so of crisis and austerity have transformed a sectarian left, with each grouplet placing its organisational interests before all else, into a fractal left, characterised by splits within splits, loudly achieving nothing. You know perfectly well why. The break up of the SWP obviously creates a space in which healthy elements can converge and rebuild. The flourishing of individual activists, of critical thinking, of strategic thinking, is real. However, it also liberates - without pointing any fingers - a horde of tinpot generals, smarmy amoral 'operators', cranks, blank-eyed dogmatists who may as well be in the Church of Scientology, vicious self-pitying moralists, bullies and sycophants, and parasites that feast on the decomposing flesh of larger organisms. We have not discussed UKIP here but I do think their influence on next years election where they may be coming off the back of a European elections win and with Nigel Farrage as popular in the media as ever their pull on votes between labour and Tory could play out very interestingly as no doubt UKIP take votes from the Tories but there is also evidence to suggest they are now picking up support from even traditional labour supporters quite worryingly I’d suggest. Labour as it stands does not inspire much hope let alone any change in direction. Its timid policies of interfering in the markets o bring about a more responsible capitalism if such a thing truely exists just do not seem to be capturing many peoples imagination and least not me. With less than a year till the next election in 2015 we will see a very interesting year in politics and I imagine the closer the election next year is looking likely to be the dirtier the tactics from both sides will become. So if you’re asking me who will win next year? I still would say the most likely outcome at this stage is another hung parliament with a possible coalition of either labour and lib dems or Tories and lib dems as we were before and after all the attacks that we have seen on our living standards the thought that the Tories could end up back in power is a disgrace to anyone calling themselves a opposition.

Labour to attack Wonga, are they missing the real issue?

Ed Miliband is pledging for the next labour government to ban pay day loan adverts and Wonga in particular from advertising during children’s television programmes. I think Ed again misses the point he does not address the reasons as to why people desperate families have to reach for such cowboys as the likes of Wonga. The pay day loan company who claim to be no nonsense and easy to access who charge crazy interest rates on their loans force people into worse situations than they were in before all in the name of desperation. Whilst its welcome labour have recognised the problem which is pay day loans and the likes of Wonga I fear that what it is suggesting a ban on this will simply force people into more criminal methods to get money to pay off a outstanding bill or something so simple as feeding their family. I am not arguing in favor of Wonga here but simply banning the adverts does not tackle the problem of low pay, high cost of living and much more besides. Labours answer to allot of things these days is banning things and regulating markets it all feels a bit top down and state heavy. This may be their new direction who knows but for many meddling in their business will be too much to stomach from a party who attacked our civil liberties beyond imagination during their last time in office. For me its capitalism which is the huge elephant in the room which the labour party and Ed Miliband will not confront. They will not as they are in service to the market and the system. They may give lip service as they have done to the so called "cost of living" yet their public sector pay freeze intention to be harder on those on benefits than the Tories and so much more do little to convince many I would suggest. Many people will not vote labour ever again and with good reason. People realise that they are no alternative to Tories only a watered down slightly nicer version which let’s be honest hardly enthuses you to go out and put a cross next to your labour candidates name. People need far more than bans on pay day loan companies the rot of capitalism has gone far deeper into people’s lives. Labour is barely scratching the surface. Real radical action is needed and labour will not bring it about I can assure you.

Solidarity with Grangemouth workers

Solidarity with Grangemouth workers The dispute at the Grangemouth oil refinery started with Labour's fight with Unite in Falkirk, and shows us just how broken Britain is. Without a moment's thought to the human cost, Ineos bosses today have announced the closure of the petrochemical plant at Grangemouth with the loss of 800 jobs. They intend to put that arm of their business into liquidation meaning workers may face losing thousands of pounds in redundancy payments. The oil refinery and the jobs of another 600 workers remain in jeopardy, the result of a lockout by billionaire owner Jim Ratcliffe. The next hours and days are vital in ensuring the building of a mass campaign to fight to save the Grangemouth plant and retain the jobs and terms and conditions of the workforce. The announcement by Ineos that they intend to pull out of the Grangemouth petrochemical site with the threatened loss of up to 800 jobs is an act of corporate vandalism. The oil refinery remains shut and the workers effectively locked out. Ineos management and its majority owner, billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, are 100% responsible for this scandal. They have shut down the entire Grangemouth site to force the workers to accept savage cuts in terms and conditions. We should congratulate Unite members and their shop stewards at Grangemouth for their refusal to be bullied. Around 70% of Unite members rejected the 'sign or be sacked' ultimatum from Ineos management. There is still much to fight for and Unites role in all this is not without its faults. In an excellent Open Democracy article published today which I’d recommend all having a read of at: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us#.Umf_V-lSW5Q "It began when Ed Milliband handed a report on the claimed irregularities on candidate selection in the Falkirk bye-election to the police. Since one of the key organisers maligned – and subsequently cleared – in that action is a shop steward at Ineos, the firm decided that if Ed Milliband can cast aspersions, they can act. Ineos suspended Stevie Deans on the grounds that it was believe he may have used a work email address to carry out some Labour Party business. (God help us all if using a work email for non-work purposes can get you suspended...) I shall refrain from elaborating further for reasons of care on specific allegations; suffice to say, there was more done to provoke the union. Given what can only be described as the political suspension of Deans, what position did Unite have to play? To accept it? To leave open unchallenged the impression that any union activists is fair game with no defence to be mounted? If Ineos did not recognise that these actions – absolutely unrelated either to the subsequent claims about the plant's profitability or the terms and conditions of its employees – was bound to push the union towards some form of response then it is shockingly naïve. And that is an adjective that has never been associated with Ineos. So let us assume that this was an intentional provocation. The union balloted and threatened strike action. The response of Ineos? To close down the plant. Switching off a refinery is a big deal and it may now take more than two weeks to get the plant operating again, if Ineos ever decides to restart. Thing is, the union had called off the action. This plant was not closed down by a union; it was closed down by the owners. Immediately after that they claimed the industrial-action-that-never-was was costing them a fortune. It is at this point that suddenly we are regaled with a PR drive which suggests the company is in severe distress and that employees must take significant cuts to pay and conditions. To cut a long story short, it goes to ACAS, the union claims a deal was close but/so Ineos walked out. It imposed a new contract on workers and told them they had three days (individually, not through the union) to agree the new contract or workers would be sacked and the plant (or half of it) closed down. A majority of workers rejected the deal. So today Ineos decided it was closing the petrochemical half of the plant (the bit it claims is loss-making) and keep the refinery open – but only on condition that workers sign away their right to strike in the future. And accept the imposed contract. That's for the profitable bit of the business, and it is far from clear that the rest of the plant is really as loss-making as is claimed. Ineos is majority owned by Jim Ratcliffe. In 2008 when the company was in some financial distress (possibly the result of finance strategies) it requested a one-year delay in payment of a VAT bill. The UK Government refused, so he paid for the relocation of his entire central staff to move to Switzerland. This is not a man who likes losing. It means that Ineos's financial situation is opaque – even business analysts (no friends of the trade unions) have been raising doubts as to how confident we can be in the claims that individual bits of the business are not profitable. What is certainly the case is that if there is financial distress it's not due to wage bills which make up only 1.6 per cent of costs. Is it worth mentioning that Ineos has avoided tax in Britain since 2010? You may well have assumed that anyway. Of course, this is my interpretation of what has happened and as always it's worth noting that I am not likely to have sympathy with aggressive management techniques. However, I find it virtually impossible to believe that Ineos did not begin with the desire to provoke strike action for which they had prepared extensively (both in terms of business planning and PR strategy) and it is certainly hard to see anything in its behaviour that suggests it wanted a peaceful resolution. And so to the three lessons. First, this is a facility that provides 80 percent of Scotland's fuel – and it is in the power of one man to close it down at will. It is to the great credit of the Scottish Government that (given its limited powers) it has put pressure on the company, has looked to find a buyer if Ineos won't agree to operate the plant and has refused to rule out public ownership. While this last course of action is unlikely, it is another sign of the SNP shifting away from the free-market orthodoxy of British politics. This is not a facility (virtually a monopoly industry) about which we can afford to have no views or opinions about ownership. There is now a serious debate in Scotland about whether our key infrastructure is safe in private, often foreign, hands. The behaviour of Ineos has intensified that debate. Britain is in denial about the importance of the ownership of the economy. It is most obvious in the monopoly utility sector but the Grangemouth dispute shows that it's not just the power and phone lines that keep us moving. Should one man be able to cripple Scotland? The last time he tried to break the unions petrol stations ran dry. The energy companies have put this issue on the agenda UK-wide through their actions. In Scotland at least the questions are spreading further than this. Ownership in Britain is broken. We are one of the few countries in the world where key infrastructure is mainly owned overseas. But not as broken as industrial democracy in Britain. It's not like we're a bit bad; we're truly awful. The European Participation Index (EPI) has calculated the participation of workers in 27 EU and EEA countries by combining the aggregate scores of their plant-level participation, board-level participation, collective bargaining coverage and trade-union density. Britain scores 26th out of 27, second bottom with only Lithuania worse than us. In Denmark (for example) 65 per cent of companies with more than 500 employees have voluntarily committed to having a third of management boards made up of workers and have cooperation committees made up of half-worker, half-management and these manage day-to-day matters in the company. And here's the thing; all the countries in the EU with the best indicators of social and economic development come in the top half of the EPI league table and all the worst performers come from the bottom half. Studies have shown that like-for-like companies are 19 per cent more productive if they are unionised. Britain, of course, lags the average productivity of advanced economies by almost 20 per cent. At some point we will wake up to the fact that Britain is a basket-case when it comes to industrial democracy and our economic performance is poor as a result. Remember, we live in the second-lowest pay economy in the developed world. Finally, if you come from Scotland it is hard once again not to be shocked by the myopia of London. On Sunday when our media was absolutely dominated by a dispute that threatened to cut off 80 per cent of Scotland's fuel (and large proportions of the fuel supply to the North of England too), not a mention was made on the main BBC news bulletins. Apparently the Westminster parlour games of Nick Clegg pretending to be a little bit cross with Free Schools is of greater national significance of the possible collapse of both oil supplies and one of the last major industrial sites left in Scotland. Across the whole piece coverage has been negligible. To my shock, a new news anchor on BBC today asked the correspondent in Grangemouth “there's clearly great anger – is it directed towards the management or the union?” Even the correspondent on the ground looked shocked – it was a question that could only come through the London looking glass. Workers all reported that the manager that broke the information to workers was smirking throughout as he told them they were going to lose their jobs, their houses, their children’s' Christmas. Angry at their union? Does the BBC no longer have any understanding of working people at all? Do they all live in a Spectator-tinged alternative universe? Today at PMQs no mention was made. When there was an emergency question, David Cameron left the chamber. The Scottish Government has been all over this dispute; London appears to have done nothing other than press its 'randomised industrial dispute quote generator'. What is there left to be positive about in the British economy? People genuinely talk as if this might be the future that we may need to accept total dominance of employers with no recourse at all by workers. This is a vision of Britain where we're all like Mexican immigrants waiting at the side of the road for a truck to drive up and its driver to say 'one day of work – you, you and you'. But, as is par for the course in Britain with its far-right media and utter lack of understanding of how the world works beyond our shores, people seem to think we're normal. Yet one more time, the Grangemouth disaster shows one thing above all – Britain is not normal. Not at all. " With thanks to open democracy and their excellent article over at http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us#.Umf_V-lSW5Q

Let them wear jumpers

So will let them wear jumpers be the new let them eat cake I wonder ? With energy prices in the UK shooting up with British Gas being the latest after SSE to put up their prices this week it is the hot topic of discussion at the moment it would seem. This week at Westminster has been dominated by one topic: energy prices. It is a case study of the biggest theme in politics at the moment, the cost of living. With British Gas joining energy provider SSE in hiking its prices, what are people feeling the squeeze and fearing the cold supposed to do? Enter, stage left, the humble jumper. And welcome to a brief snapshot of how headlines sometimes appear despite what might have emerged out of the lips of politicians and their advisers. Energy Secretary Ed Davey spent much of Thursday touring TV and radio studios criticising British Gas and suggesting people should shop around for the best energy deal. In an interview on the BBC's Newsnight, he was asked about what happened in the Davey household. Did Mr Davey, presenter Jeremy Paxman asked, wear a jumper? "I am sure people do wear jumpers, I wear jumpers at home, but you are missing the point here Jeremy, we do need to help people with their bills, I am extremely worried about them, we can use competition the way we have, we can make our homes warmer and use less electricity and gas by going more energy efficient," said Mr Davey. Cue headlines suggesting the energy secretary said wear a jumper. Great story. Energy Secretary Ed Davey was quizzed about his knitwear preferences Except he didn't say this. Mr Davey was asked about jumpers. Mr Davey mentioned jumpers. But Mr Davey didn't say you or I should wear a jumper. Fast forward 12 hours to Friday's briefing for Westminster journalists, which is conducted by one of the prime minister's official spokesmen. The Daily Mirror - which is no fan of the coalition government - chased this theme with some vigour. The clear aim of the questions was to attempt to get an answer along the lines of "the prime minister tells you to wear jumper". Another great story If he'd said that, I'd have been jumping at the chance to get on the television, radio and online to tell it. But he didn't. Here is the exchange, as I scribbled it in my notebook: Reporter: "Does the prime minister wear a jumper at home?" Official Spokesman: "The prime minister doesn't tend to give fashion tips." Several further questions along the same lines came along, which didn't get very far. The spokesman was then asked about what the PM thought of charities giving advice that perhaps people should consider wrapping up warm. Here was the response: "Clearly, he is not going to prescribe necessarily the actions individuals should take about that. But if people are giving that advice, that is something that people may wish to consider." Next came the headlines claiming the prime minister was suggesting people should wear a jumper. Great story. Except the spokesman did not say this. Labour leapt at the chance to have their say, claiming Downing Street was in chaos and offering Ed Miliband for interview. Downing Street then issued a statement: "To be clear, it is entirely false to suggest the Prime Minister would advise people they should wear jumpers to stay warm. Any suggestion to the contrary is mischief-making." And so concludes the story of a story which isn't really a story at all. All a bit of tittle tattle you may say but there is a real worry for many ordinary people out there this winter heat or eat. Its as simple as that for many.

It’s not been a good week for red Len

Unites general secretary a figure many look to for change has not had a good week with labours reshuffle in its shadow cabinet Len should have been really happy with the removal of his so called blairites in the shadow cabinet the two he identified were Steven Twig and Liam Burn both now gone out of the shadow cabinet yet in their place come Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reaves Reaves being a former advisor to the bank of England and have both set out in interviews over the weekend labour will continue to commit itself to Tory light polices. Reaves who thinks no one should earn more on benefits than in work plays up to the Tory idea of the work shy and the lazy scroungers that the Tories set the narrative and labour chase after constantly. As for Hunt he has come out in favor of free schools and calming labour would promote its own version in government with parent run schools being key to labours thinking. So Len what happened to those blairites in the nest? Blairites apparently gone yet policies much the same? hmm Whatever happened to that general strike Len was organizing for again by the way? Didn’t Len get up on stage on the last TUC march where we all marched again listening to the great and the good sound off to a crowd in Hyde Park? Len was there on the day asking those who want a general strike put up their hands. So people did and yet the tumbleweed from that day on has been remarkable. As I like to say Big Len likes to chime but never strike. Also over the weekend further humiliation for the fighting left union which makes me laugh when I hear the phrase was another hugely embarrassing bit of news which unite oddly hasn’t been able to comment on strangely seeing as it was so loud on shouting about tax evasion Len McCluskey even accused one company of 'daylight robbery' in the Times over the weekend “Britain’s biggest union was accused of hypocrisy yesterday after it avoided More than £2 million in tax. The Times has learnt that Unite has been presented with a bill for £2.3 million by Revenue and Customs.HMRC ruled that Unite had been calculating its VAT in a grossly unfair and Unreasonable way. The union has condemned multinational companies for not paying their fair share of tax. Len McCluskey, its general secretary, even accused one company of Daylight robbery€.Margaret Hodge, Labour chairwoman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Which scrutinises public finances, called on Unite to pay the bill Immediately Where does this leave our good friend big Len who is so keen on tackling the tax evaders and reclaiming the labour party? In a pretty poor position I would suggest with little in the way of progress in the after mouth of Falkirk West which still hasn’t gone away with the local branch secretary of the labour party there still suspended from office I understand. Relations between Labour and its biggest donor the Unite union will only increase as the run up to the election and beyond grow closer. Clearly Red Len will not be losing too much sleep having just secured another term of office on his nice 6 figure salary and with an army of bureaucrats to support him and the labour party Unite is well placed to get labour back into power to deliver their version of austerity. Not in my name... I am a unite member and hugely oppose its link to the labour party and its constant blank cherubs it gives to the labour party. There is no democracy in terms of the political fund in the party. The changes Ed Miliband wants to force through to mean union members no longer have a collective voice but will have to opt in to fund the labour party could make things very interesting indeed. What Len and other union big cheeses will do next is unclear but clearly like all union leaders they ill not want to loose that seat at the top table with labour and Ed so I am sure there will be some fudged deal that allows Len to say to his members he's won something and while Ed Miliband will be saying we have a new way of funding labour and a party for the future. Who will win out? There is big contradictions between labour and unite which will only increase as time goes on. How will it end? No one knows.

What labours free childcare policy really means

Wage suppression for the majority in affect. Labours plans to roll out free childcare to more people than ever is on the face of it a good bit of social justice but is it? If you look closely it’s very clever bit of wage repression. So now a mum or a dad can return to work with the benefit f free childcare estimated to be up to 25 hours a week we can only guess at what jobs this would cover. It would most likely be short term, part time and low paid often with poor working conditions. This is a way of driving down wages for employers and is not the social justice idea that it seems from the outside. It’s a cleverly wrapped up policy which is pro capitalist as you would come to expect these days from labour. Last week we heard Ed Milibands conference speech which excited many it seems who seem to want a labour government however bad they are and the example above is beyond them. Labour is clearly trying the popularist approach now after their slide in the polls of late. Promising big things seems the order of the day with the big headline coming out of last week was the promise to freeze energy prices until 2017. How they would do these remains unclear but clearly is something that would be popular with many given the sky high energy prices today. Whether token gestures like this whilst maintaining austerity and the public sector pay freeze will be enough to see a labour win in 2015 still remains up in the air. With other popularist policies no doubt still to come you can see labour walking into government fairly easily given how the electoral system is stacked in their favour heavily. They will not need much to get back in it would seem. But tax cuts for small business are again small tokens which will do nothing to help ordinary people on the ground suffering from austerity, tax hikes in other areas like VAT which labour said they wouldn’t reverse either last week interestingly. With labours pledges for things like their universal job guarantee which is in affect their own version of workfare which has in all honesty been very successful for capitalists to drive down wages and get cheap labour from the workers. This for me comes as no surprise but too many that still hold illusions in the labour party or parliament in general this will not make good reading. With the terminal decline of establishment political parties including those on centre left and right with less than 1% of the population in Britain being a member of a political party the crisis of representation will only continue if labour does get elected in 2015 in my opinion. Labour may tell you it is bringing socialism back and that Ed is still red Ed while he never was of course if people continue sucking up this nonsense then there will be no real change. As Einstein so famously said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I think that phrase is quite apt today in so many ways.

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.

This feels like Iraq all over again

With a recalling of parliament for a debate and a vote on what action to take in Syria this all feels like de JA vu from 2003. I was not so political back then but I do remember what happened very vividly and it feels too similar for my liking. Do we ever learn? Apparently not the government is a Tory lib dem one yet Labour who was in power in 2003 with Tony Blair famously taking the country to war to remove Sad am Hussein we were told. It later turned out that there were no claimed weapons of mass destruction as claimed and we could not be hit in 45 minutes. The Iraq invasion still haunts this country and the political class in particular they claim as labour do that they are sorry and Ed Miliband is sorry for watt happened this is all very well and good yet nothing has changed his party under his leadership has backed the Libyan intervention of a no fly zone and now look set to back western intervention in Syria. Lessons clearly have not been learnt then. I put a tweet out tonight saying if labour support intervention here will they loose members or face a back lash and I don’t think they will as most good socialists are no longer members of labour anyway and those wishing to reclaim it unbelievably still will look even more ridiculous than they already do. The likes of Owen Jones who claim to want to reclaim labour will have a difficulty explaining this latest pro war intervention and pro imperialist action by their party. What is labour if it is not acting in the naked class instincts of global capitalism now? Clearly there will be a few good Labour MP’s who may oppose this vote but on the whole it will be minimal and the government will have its so called mandate to go ahead and move towards military action in Syria. What form this will take is still not clear. Syria is not Libya and has a much more densely populated areas and where the apparent use of chemical weapons was used and it is still apparent as UN weapons inspectors never ones to support the mass’s have not been able to get in to investigate on safety grounds so I’m suspect right from the start. I will say that any action taking by our government will not be in my name I do not oppose this intervention for the sake of it or just because it’s the Tories and America is involved but quite simply this will not solve anything and will do more to create more toil and division in the region than doing nothing at all. This may seem like I’m standing back and advocating doing nothing but I’d suggest as socialists we support the worker son the ground in Syria and we should point to uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia in recent years to show how a brutal dictator can be removed without western intervention. I’d far more support a popular uprising of workers and the oppressed than an American backed intervention that have no regard for local rights or feelings on the ground. In the desperate pursuit to rise the rate of profit America and Britain are turning to more and more desperate ways. This latest jaunts will do nothing to help any sort of recovery if anything it may create further tensions in the market especially in oil prices. I’ve said for a long time there will be another bigger crisis of capitalism around the corner as the contradictions of the system have not been solved still so could we see an oil price spike set off another slump in the world markets. Only time will tell.

Can labour win in 2015?

It would appear they can but increasingly they look like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Labours poll lead has plummeted since the start of the year and they are not helping themselves anymore. It seems incredible that the Tories could get back in but at this stage there is every chance all be it maybe with a Lib Dem hand me up. Ed Miliband is being targeted with questions and many are questioning if he is up to the job but they all miss the point. Labour is a party which is now wedded to capitalism and as such the austerity consensus which has seen them agree the need to keep all the Tory cuts if elected which is by no means certain anyway. With the Tories ramming through austerity, privatisation and a fall in living standards not seen in a generation opposing this doesn’t sound that hard but this also misses the point the thing is labour do not oppose the cuts or privatisation they started and laid the ground for much of what we see today. So how can they oppose things which they themselves would be doing anyway? We have a sense of what labour would be like in government if they are elected with their record in government accepting and passing on the Tory cuts passed on to them all be it with crocodile tears which is no consolation to those on the sharp end of cuts to their jobs and services. Clearly Labour is no longer a worker’s party in any sense those like Owen Jones who like to cling onto the desperate hope of a reclaimed labour headed by himself no doubt must be wondering where they go next now. Yes labour has a trade union link but shouting this as a reason to remain backing it is frankly laughable. With the timid response quite frankly by the unions labour and the union leaders will be selling you austerity in 2015 at the next election. You vote Tory you get cuts, you vote lib dems you get cuts and now with labour you get cuts too. How the trade unions continue to fund this sham of a party I’ll never know. Actually I do its easier for them to bemoan the cuts and how awful they are but actually standing up and opposing them is a lot more effort and all seems like hard work. Ed Miliband and his labour party are often referred to as on the left I’m not so sure. We do have to separate out the labour party and the left they are two very different groups and neither share each other’s values any longer. Labour claims to be a centre left party whilst upholding anti immigrant, pro war anti worker and pro privatisation ideas this in my book is not on the left at all and the unions and their members need to kick them into the long grass. Let’s let the party die and hopefully then workers will see that we need a new way of doing things with people putting themselves forwards as candidates much like with TUSC simply opposing all cuts as a starting point. A line in the sand is needed no more funds to labour from the unions, no more cuts to be accepted by the unions. Unions should be run and controlled democratically by their members if not those leaders need to go. Labour can win in 2015 but it will be despite itself not because of what it is. I still think the most likely outcome will be another hung parliament with the lib dems again joining the bigger party to form a coalition of cuts again will it be labour ? Possibly. What is clear though is whoever gets in in 2015 will carry on with the same policies and same pro capitalist ideas. We need a new party to represent the voiceless. The further alienation of people from the political plain can lead to all different reactions some more ugly than others. A political voice is key for those who wish to oppose austerity and change society for the better. That for me would be a new mass workers party with its aim socialism and no concessions to capitalism.

Miliband, The labour party and the left

As a result of the Falkirk west nonsense over the labour party and Unite Ed Miliband is looking to weaken the trade union influence in teh labour party even more. In this weeks socialist there is a editorial on the whole matter and where as the socialist party we see things heading and what we feel is necessary to give workers a voice. Tonight at the Harlow Socialist party branch we will be discussing political representation, the labour party and where does the left go next. Ed Miliband's decision to rush through the end of trade union bloc affiliation to the Labour Party at a special conference next spring has all the symbolism of Tony Blair's 'Clause Four moment' in 1995. That was when Blair organised a special conference to abolish Labour's historic commitment, in Clause Four, Part 1V of the party's rules, to "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange". It is not only symbolism that is involved in Miliband's move, however, but the content that is also the same; to continue (in fact, to complete) the process of transforming Labour into just another capitalist party. Clause Four summarised the collective interest of the working class in fighting for a new form of society, socialism, in opposition to the capitalist market system. Trade union affiliation (when democratically exercised by union members) enshrined the ability of the working class through the unions to control its political representatives. It was these characteristics that defined the Labour Party in the past as a 'capitalist workers party', with a leadership at the top which invariably reflected the policy of the capitalist class, but with a socialistic ideological basis to the party and a structure through which workers could move to challenge the leadership and threaten the capitalists' interests. Details have yet to emerge of the proposals being considered by a review led by former Labour Party general secretary Lord Collins to go to the special conference. But the central idea, to replace bloc affiliation in favour of trade unionists joining Labour as 'affiliated' or 'associate' individual members, would finally end the remnants of the affiliated trade unions' collective political voice within the party. The Falkirk affair, the ostensible reason for the changes, shows how far in fact this process has already gone. What happened in Falkirk - with Unite officials recruiting union members to become individual members of the constituency Labour Party (CLP) - actually had no connection with the union's affiliated status. In the past trade union branches would send delegates to constituency Labour parties (CLPs), alongside ward party representatives, to select a parliamentary candidate. This was the way, for example, that the Militant MPs Dave Nellist (now chair of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition - TUSC), and the late Terry Fields and Pat Wall, won their selection as Labour candidates in the 1980s. Democratic structure That democratic structure, which meant that healthy mass participation Labour parties like in Liverpool and Coventry were effectively local 'parliaments of the labour movement', was overturned in 1994 by the introduction of 'one member, one vote' (OMOV) rules for selecting candidates. Those changes, promoting passive membership over representative democracy (some OMOV selections have been decided by postal ballots, with prospective candidates having no chance to speak to members) were accurately described by John Prescott as being more important in changing Labour than the abolition of Clause Four. In Falkirk Unite members were being recruited as individuals to take part in a future OMOV ballot with no certainty, of course, as to how they would vote. But even that pale reflection of 'union influence' has been seized by Miliband as a chance to complete the job of effectively ending the union link. The Socialist Party believes that the Labour Party has already been qualitatively transformed from its roots as a capitalist workers' party, which is why we argue that a new workers' party is necessary. We support TUSC as a precursor of a new mass party that could unite together trade unionists, unorganised workers, socialists, young people, oppressed groups and community campaigners, as the only way to ensure that the working class today can achieve an independent political voice. But social formations can retain many of their old forms - even as their new content predominates - and residues of the past position of the unions in the Labour Party still remain. Affiliated unions have 30 votes out of 144 in Labour's National Policy Forum (NPF) for example (which will now be examined by the Collins review), and are directly represented on the national executive committee. And while the affiliated unions' 49% share of conference votes has been reduced from the 90% share in the past, if they rejected Miliband's proposals, which they should, it is not guaranteed that he could push them through the special conference. But unfortunately the Unite leadership in particular are not signalling opposition to Miliband's plans and in doing so are using arguments that are undermining the very idea of independent working class political representation. Unite general secretary Len McCluskey, for example, has argued that he could not go "in front of TV cameras and pretend to speak on behalf of a million Unite members" since many of them do not vote Labour. That's true, they don't; but when Len speaks he is representing Unite's democratically agreed policies against cuts and privatisation, for repeal of the anti-union laws etc. In negotiating with employers, union representatives speak for the decision reached collectively by the union members, even though a minority may not have supported the finally agreed position. So why shouldn't the union be represented collectively in the political arena too? More power? Len McCluskey has also suggested that Unite could actually have more power by making its donations conditional on Labour's support for specific policies. But how would this be different to the position of the US unions, reduced to being just another lobbying group alongside corporate donors, giving millions of dollars to buy some alleged 'friends of labour' in the Democratic Party? Or for that matter the 19th century 'Lib-Labism' of unions before the formation of the Labour Party, seeking support for particular policies and parliamentary representatives within a capitalist party? Not the least danger of such an approach is that it reinforces the idea that the attacks of capitalism on workers' living conditions, jobs etc could be met by a few policy changes or reforms rather than an alternative programme for government - which requires an alternative party. Ultimately the only effective control over workers' political representatives is that exercised by workers' organisations through their collective decision-making structures. In Britain today that means the trade unions drawing the lessons of Miliband's 'Clause Four moment' and taking the necessary steps to set up a new workers' party.

Bureaucrats will be bureaucrats

Today was the Durham Miners gala a big fixture in the labour movements calendar and hot after the recent decision by Ed Miliband to weaken the trade union link between the trade unions and the labour party even more this was always going to be a hotly contested miners gala with various strong opinions on show. Len Mccluskey disappointed me and not for the first time. He came out in support of Ed Miliband his favourite Mp right now and shows no sign of stepping down in his support for the labour leader. Len disappoints me as the socialist party actively critically supported him in the latest leadership election which he romped home as expected. I can proudly say I did not vote for him and I am so glad I didn’t. What I have heard since has less than convinced me that Len is nothing but a left bureaucrat who speaks radical and likes to pose left but will be one of those filing in to 10 Downing St as and when Milibnd gains power as he most likely will do in 2015. I have no shame in admitting I could not vote for Len or Hicks in the last general secretary election no one stood out for me. Comrades told me Len had moved the union to the left which he may have done but still I felt unite was no where near good enough and a vote for Len is a vote for slow yet study progress which is not good enough in this current period. Yes he may have reluctantly supported the sparks eventually but he did not do it by his nature he had to be forced into it. Neither Hicks nor Len support a breaking of the labour link they all call for a reform and a democratisation of the political fund which indeed the socialist party do support but I don’t think this goes nearly far enough. Len McCluskey is a prisoner of the bureaucratic elite in unite and its useless layer of full time officials I’ve had the unfortunate experience of knowing a few and my god if they are the best the union has we are seriously fucked. I’d say all in unite and Len in particular should take head of what Bob Crow said today at today’s Durham miners gala and whilst Bob annoys me in the fact he does not mention TUSC he at least has the right direction of his political outlook. Len unfortunately as much as the socialist party don’t like to admit it is a bureaucrat and what do they do? Look after them and always will do. Their role as Miliband has probably told him is to keep the workers down and not provoke trouble before 2015 where Len and Miliband hope to ride to victory with the labour party. Luckily we have some good trade union leaders including Bob Crow of the RMT union who I’ve always liked and states it as it is. Being quoted in the Daily Mirror today Bob Crow says: An RMT press release: RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said: "When Tony Blair is wheeled out to underpin Ed Miliband's attack on the affiliated unions than you know that this is a panic move driven by the demands of big business and a right wing media who would prefer that the working class have no voice at all. "RMT was expelled from the Labour Party almost a decade ago and in that time we have actually increased our political influence as we have had the freedom to back candidates and parties who demonstrate clear support for this trade union and its policies. "With this latest assault by Labour on the unions the time is right to start building an alternative political party that speaks for the working people and the working class communities that find themselves under the most brutal attack from cuts and austerity in a generation. "Clinging to the wreckage of a Labour Party that didn't lift a finger to repeal the anti-union laws despite 13 years in power is a complete waste of time."

The labour union link has been broke for some time now workers need a political voice

T New labour had it in their mind to end the trade union link with the party and they almost succeeded in doing so. After the scandal in Falkirk questions have come up again from some within labour if they should sever the link for good. Owen Jones in his Colum today in the independent writes one of his best articles in sometime. Yet still hasn’t been able to draw the conclusions that labour is dead to working people and has been for a very long time. Owen is a worshiper of the accomplished fact and can’t see something is happening or has happened until it has showed itself to be so. So this current dispute between labour and unite must be playing very much on young Owens’s feelings of the labour party he always told us he’d remain in the labour party until the union link is no more so could this be a turning point for Owen ? “At the weekend, key Labor figures briefed favored Guardian journalists about a proposed final break with the trade unions, since disavowed by Ed Miliband. We cannot be sure who they are. What we do know is that there is a hardened Blairite axis within the Shadow Cabinet, led by former David Miliband campaign managers Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander, and including Caroline Flint and Ivan Lewis. To give an illustration of their politics, the four privately demanded that Labour should support the Tories’ Welfare Uprating Bill earlier this year, which inflicted real-terms cuts on in-work and out-of-work benefits. None of them ever reconciled themselves to Ed Miliband as leader; whenever he has faced political trouble, Alexander and Murphy’s operations have spun into overdrive. Their expectations of what Ed Miliband must do constantly shift and can never be satisfied. Now that David Miliband has crossed the Atlantic, Murphy is positioning himself as holder of the Blairite flame, plotting to take the leadership should Ed Miliband ever fall. Murphy’s approach to politics was honed from his days in Labour Students, in practice long a recruiting ground for the sort of desperate political careerist who practises party conference speeches in front of bathroom mirrors from the age of six. It is a murky world where positions of power are decided in bars and through private, secretive conversations. When these student hacks evolve into senior politicians, they debate who should be the candidate in what constituency over Islington dinner parties. When Tony Blair attempted to dilute Labour’s reliance on union funds, it ended in the cash-for-honours scandal and a sitting prime minister being questioned by police in Downing Street. Before Labour’s 1997 election victory, the key Blairite ally Stephen Byers floated severing the union link: he ended his political career offering himself as a “taxi for hire” to corporate lobbyists. These union-bashers are completely beholden to private interests, and they want Labour to be, too. Owen Finnish’s by saying The tragedy is that unions are getting precious little from the Labour Party. The irony of David Cameron’s hysterical claims that Miliband is in the pocket of Unite’s Len McCluskey is that it comes just as Labour’s leaders have moved even further from offering a genuine alternative to Tory policies. Even after 13 years of a Labour government, Britain was left with one of the worst records on workers’ rights in the Western world. It was still one of the unequal developed nations, where workers’ wages were falling even before Lehman Brothers crashed, and where a dogmatic attachment to free-market economics ended in a catastrophic financial crash. Public spending was the great break from Thatcherism, and is now being decimated. If unions did not try to get candidates selected in the party they founded who want to stand up for working people, they might as well pack up and become footnotes in history books. It is a sad truth that there are those in the highest echelons of the Labour Party who want to extinguish what limited political voice working people still have. They would wreck a party they owe everything to for their own crude personal ambitions. They must not win.” So Owen there is an alternative and TUSC is building one. We hope to stand a record amount of anti cuts candidates at the next local elections. Those good well meaning and all opposed to the cuts in labour should be considering their membership this morning. Do consider TUSC and help us build an political voice again for workers in this country. Do check out more about TUSC at www.tusc.org.uk

My thoughts behind the unite labour party face off

I think this whole supposed face off in Falkirk west over standing political candidates is a huge shame and I will explain why. I firstly do not believe the labour party can be reclaimed. This would assume it was ever ours the working classes in the first place it never was and people like Owen Jones should get this in to their thick skulls. It was at best as Lenin explained a capitalist workers party with a trade union link and yes the union link still exists today Owen but lets not get excited now. What is happening in Falkirk may be important in the long run but in itself of itself is a simple falling out of personalities and I’d include the general secretary of unite Len McCluskey who I’m loosing patience with by the week at this very moment. I never voted for the guy as I thought he would sell out as he has done already and will do again. In an article published by the socialist party and written by Unite member Kevin Paslow he sets out 3 possible conclusions to the Falkirk situation. Unite now has three possible ways forward. The first would be to capitulate to New Labour. This would be disastrous, not just for its political strategy but for its industrial one too. There would be growing anger and indignation in the rank and file, and doubts would be raised over the union's commitment to fight for its policy. This would cause serious problems for Len and the left leadership of the union and jeopardise their position. The second would be to continue with the current strategy. This would mean the likelihood of further collisions with the Labour bureaucracy, in which Len has already admitted he 'can place no trust'. This would not prevent Unite having to make a decision later on the continued scandal of providing funds to New Labour, to the tune of £9 million since Miliband was elected Labour leader in 2010, with the support of the unions! Immediately, Unite would also face the decision of supporting anti-cuts councillors. The third path is to take the bold step of the union disaffiliating from New Labour. The Socialist Party believes this is the correct road to take. The working class has waited too long for its own party since New Labour accepted the free market and dropped its famous Clause 4, Part IV, which envisaged nationalisation and socialism. This is all very well and I think the most likely line is the second with Len and Ed secretly agreeing behind closed doors to not rock the boat anymore this side of the election at least. Both Len and Ed are big labour supporters which goes without saying and as the general election nears the idea of unity and a win for a labour party will become paramount so I think this is just Len firing off his mouth and ultimately he does support Militant and will line up behind him come 2015 if that is when the next election is to be held. I think this is a lot of posturing from both sides Ed trying to make his mark as a leader and to sure up his commitment to making the cuts and carrying on where the Tories are right now. Ed wants to appear a safe pair of hands for capitalism and if elected no doubt he will be carrying out cuts and carrying on austerity as the market demands. I see no option here for unite who cannot envisage as the socialist party would love to disaffiliate from the labour party the only way they will is by being kicked out. The political fund is hugely labour based and the ruling part of the union is pro labour so no such change is likely anytime soon. For our party we are best focusing on the upcoming conferences in Unite trying to gain influence and raising our ideas. It’s no use shouting off what needs to happen let’s get in there and start punching our weight in the union. Falkirk could be the start of something with unite but it could also be a huge slap down it will be interesting how the union reacts now in the face of the leadership still wanting a labour gov they will be careful not to rock the boat too much so I ultimately see a truce being declared if on the quiet before this coming election who knows after though if weave labour in that will play out interestingly if Tories again I can only see unite moving further to the left as much as the leadership may not want this. Things are happening labour is no longer a party the unite union can back and time will show this. I am no supporter of Len in Unite as I think he is pretty much all hot air he talks of civil disobidence but very little has happened in practica terms he is one of those union leaders who speaks a good game but when it comes to action he is badly lacking for me. What unite needs to do: plan of action: • An emergency executive council should be called to discuss the crisis. • The EC should pass a resolution for a recall rules conference which would have the end of removing the references to Labour Party affiliation from the rulebook, thereby facilitating disaffiliation. This conference should also discuss political representation for the working class. • Should this be carried, Unite should call meetings and conferences of trade unionists, from affiliated and non-affiliated unions, including those linked to TUSC, with the aim of forming a new workers' party which would have the programme of fighting the cuts, scrapping the anti-trade union laws and opposing privatisation of public services. Such a party would truly reflect the needs of the working class and fight in workplaces, communities and in elections for socialist ideas.

One nation Miliband looks to out Tory the Tories

On 3 June Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls made a speech to his shadow cabinet in which he laid out his intention to fully accept the draconian austerity inaugurated by the Con-Dems. It is clear that Labour has now given up any pretence of being an opposition, buying wholesale into the logic of a neoliberal austerity which forces ordinary people to pay for the gigantic mistakes of the reckless super-rich. One of the most perfidious cuts outlined by Balls in his speech is the means-testing of the winter fuel allowance. But surely the rich should not be given benefits that they 'don't need'? This reaction is understandable, but misguided - universal benefits have an extremely important function in society. We have to resist all attacks on the welfare state - a cut for the better off quickly can become a cut for all. When tens of thousands of elderly people die from the cold every winter, society has a responsibility to contribute to their heating costs. Universality makes sure that the welfare state doesn't simply become minimal 'poor relief'. And at the end of the day, the amount of money saved by means-testing universal benefits is around £100 million - a drop in the ocean compared to the £120 billion which goes avoided, evaded or uncollected in tax in the UK every year. The response of socialists to this most recent in the long line of Labour's shifts to the right must be clear - the majority of working people have no faith that a Labour government would be able to solve the crisis we are in. We need a new mass party of working people, based around the trade unions and community groups, which is able to clearly put the case for a socialist alternative to cuts and crisis. Chaz Lockett Socialist Party news and analysis Food bank Brita There is more today Ed Miliband has come out and stated how labour would be just as tough on benefits if not more so. Ed Miliband has promised to cap spending on benefits as he unveiled his party's new approach to welfare. A future Labour government would introduce a three-year cap on structural spending, including housing benefits, from 2015-6, its leader said. He also said those in work for under five years may not be eligible for some jobless benefits while those who had worked for longer should get more help. In a speech in east London, Mr Miliband announced a series of changes to Labour policy: • A three-year cap on spending on structural benefits - including housing benefit and other non-cyclical costs - will be introduced in 2015-6 • Contribution-based unemployment benefits such as jobseekers allowance (JSA), will be reviewed • Priority will be given to those who have worked and paid tax for longer while eligibility for the top-up contributory JSA may be extended from two to five years in work • Councils will be given power to negotiate rents with landlords to help reduce housing benefits bills • Child benefit for families with one person earning over £50,000 will not be reinstated • More help for disabled people to take up work opportunities The Labour leader said the government's "short-term" approach was failing and history showed that cutting individual benefits alone would not reduce the overall cost of social security. So remind me again what is the point of labour ? We already have a tory party a tory light party is not what ordinary working people are screaming out for. That’s why TUSC will be sticking around to contest elections and offer an alternative to all the pro austerity parties. TUSC say no to all cuts and no to housing evictions from the bedroom tax! To find out more check out www.tusc.org.uk

Say no a snoopers charter defend our civil liberties

After the Woolwich terrorist attack the government and others including London Mayor Boris Johnson have revisited plans for a so called snoopers charter to track every email, website skype chat you make and so on and to make a record of this. All in the so called national interest. Now where have we heard this before? We must defend our civil liberties all be them quite limited after the last labour government had a right good go at them but what there is left must be defended and protected in any way we can. The Tories seem intent on getting this bill through parliament now and Ed Miliband and his merry men of capitalist supporters on the front bench’s of the labour party appear happy to support David Cameron in a clear sign of how a future labour government will play out protecting the interests of British capitalism of course as they always have done. The bill, allowing the monitoring of all UK citizens' internet use, was dropped after a split in the coalition. But Lord Howard said David Cameron had "to act in the national interest" following the Woolwich murder. Labour leader Ed Miliband has said that "if he [the PM] wants a communications bill, we'll help him get it through". Mr Miliband told the Commons earlier this month that if Mr Cameron was being forced to drop certain policies because of "people behind him" - his own backbenchers - then Labour would step in. 'Who's contacting who' The Communications Data Bill would have given police and security services access, without a warrant, to details of all online communication in the UK - such as the time, duration, originator and recipient, and the location of the device from which it was made. It would also give access to all Britons' web browsing history and details of messages sent on social media. The police would have to get a warrant from the home secretary to be able to access the actual content of conversations and messages Home Secretary Theresa May is very keen on giving the police and intelligence agencies more power to access details of online communications where necessary. There is no such thing as a trade union of former home secretaries. But on this issue, it sounds as though there is. Labour's Lord Reid and Alan Johnson and the Conservative Lord Howard all agree with her. In short, their argument is we have seen the classified files and the spooks need this power. Critics - including most Liberal Democrats - accuse them of going native and backing a "snoopers charter". As a socialist I always uphold the democratic right for all individuals to communicate and talk about whatever they like without a government or organisation snooping on their discussions it is hugely anti democratic and lays a dangerous settlement in my view. I mean how far do we go with this? We say ok to this and next everything we do, write or read is monitored. Is that really where we want to go?

RIP to Stephanie Bottrill A victim of the cruel bedroom tax

Sad news today of Stephanie Bottrill Then in the early hours of last Saturday Stephanie, 53, left her home for the last time, leaving her cat Joey behind as the front-door clicked shut. She crossed her road in Meriden Drive, Solihull, to drop one of her letters and her house keys through a neighbour’s letterbox. Then she walked 15 minutes through the sleeping estate to Junction 4 of the M6. And at 6.15am she walked straight into the path of a northbound lorry and was killed instantly. Stephanie Bottrill had become the first known suicide victim of the hated Bedroom Tax. In the letter to her son, Steven, 27, she had written: “Don’t blame yourself for me ending my life. The only people to blame are the Government.” Stephanie was tormented over having to find £20 a week to pay for the two under-occupied bedrooms she had been assessed for. Days before her death she told neighbours: “I can’t afford to live any more.” Solihull council Labour group leader David Jamieson, who knows the family well, said: “I’m absolutely appalled this poor lady has taken her own life because she was worried how she would pay the Bedroom Tax. “I hope the Government will take notice and reconsider this policy.” Steven Bottrill The police came to Steven’s door at 9.30 last Saturday morning. They were there with his sister Laura, 23, and he knew something terrible had happened. They told him his mum had taken her own life. He said: “It was a shock at first. You just ask why? The policeman told me she had left notes. I was on my own, looking after my little boy. “I just wanted to keep looking after him, to keep it all in. I told the police to keep the note. I was still getting my head round it.” So it was not until Sunday that Steven was ready to read the note. He said: “I couldn’t believe it. She said not to blame ourselves, it was the Government and what they were doing that caused her to do it. “She was fine before this Bedroom Tax. It was dreamt up in London, by people in offices and big houses. “They have no idea the effect it has on people like my mum.” On the Thursday before she died – when she wrote the farewell letters – Stephanie had phoned her son to say she was struggling to cope. He promised to get help and next day phoned her GP. Stephanie came home from the GP’s surgery with sleeping tablets. That Friday teatime, Steven came to see her after he finished work. He tried to reassure her, telling her everything would be OK. He says now he should have hugged her but he thought it might upset her. Stephanie had lived in her £320-a-month home for 18 years, but couldn’t cope with the extra £80 she had to find every month. She needed to downsize but nothing suitable was offered to her. And she was upset she would have to leave the home in which she raised her two children as a single mother. The well-kept back garden was Stephanie’s pride and joy. She had buried her favourite pet cats there and she liked to sit out there in the sun and remember them. Steven remembers they didn’t have much as they grew up. His mum would struggle to afford clothes and food but they were happy and always well-turned out. This shocking incident brins it home to you that the so called tough decisions politicians of all stripes claim to take has actual devastating effects on the people they have no connection with. The mirror does quote a labour cllr who could do more in my view by pledging to not evict tenants who can’t pay and reclassifying properties if they wanted to. Ed Miliband has already said labour will not reverse the bedroom tax so we cannot trust them either. All this adds to the fact that these cuts are hitting the worst off and are actually killing people in some cases. While no doubt the Tories will claim this is not linked the pressure and hardship put on Stephanie was too much for a person like that. No one should suffer for a crisis they did not cause. with extracts from todays daily mirror

The decline of social democratic parties

I was listening to Novara the other die and the guys were focusing on the decline of social democracy parties who has now moved over to becoming fully fledged capitalist parties as I’ve outlined before. This is a very interesting development which was an ideological shift since the fall of the Stalinist Soviet Union in 89 onwards. We see today that Pasoc in Greece formally a mass workers party now sitting on as low as 6 % washed up and seemingly finished in Greece. Also looking at Spain the Socialist party there is mired in scandal for many years now and has lost that base in fact you can look right across western Europe including Italy now with the coming to power of the grand coalition of left and right now with the PD who have been tarnished now for many years will now loose further support for joining this crisis coalition almost a national government if you like. Interestingly a piece I read in the Guardian the other day from an Italian commentator it is similar to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie now looking to hold itself up and appear a credible government to protect the ruling class’s interests which of course they will hope to do. All this add’s to the question of what happens here back in Britain with the Labour party now a openly capitalist party of course no doubt will try and raise its dwindling support in hope and ride to power in 2015 if indeed it can manage it as I still do believe it is not being backed passionately rather it’s a reaction against the Tories they are the nearest lot to go for who can hurt the Tories not that this shows any great enthusiasm for the labour party. Much like in France with Francois Holland who last year rode to power on a wave of anti austerity to now fin himself as one of the most unpopular presidents France has ever had. Why is this? Well for a start France’s unemployment figures are shocking and continue to rise. Holland’s hope and optimism of tackling austerity has faded as he’s come up against the markets and has had to row back in his rhetoric and play ball with the rest of the EU and the IMF. This could be a glimpse into the future for the labour party who if they gain power in 2015 will almost be despite of themselves will soon end up disappointing many who have backed it there is no doubt about that. Labour is likely to carry out the cuts and be seen as a safe pair of hands for British capitalism. Ed Miliband is making al sorts of odd noises he wants to do this he wants to do that. But ultimately labour is wedded to the market system and the capitalist mode of production and has no ambition to change this. This will lead them to being dictated to by the markets any borrowing he tries will be hit heavy by the levels of our bond markets and this will spook young Ed to behaving and staying in line with austerity all be it at a slower pace perhaps . But what is clear from the mass numbers involved in these mass parties take the labour party in the 50’s had over a million members today you’ll be lucky if its 150 thousand who are actively members of a party in Britain this goes for the right to by the way there hasn’t been a surge of membership in right wing parties either this is a political party crisis as much as a crisis of social democracy. How this will develop its hard to tell clearly working class people and even middle class people are disenfranchised and have little option of who to vote for let alone to join so it leaves a big anti establishment feeling out there in the wider public it will be interesting to see how these parties react to this or will they like the others before like Pasoc end up beached smashed against the rocks finished for good replaced with another alternative party system or different structures entirely. We certainly live in interesting times.

Don’t just fight the bedroom tax, scrap it entirely!

It’s easy to say what you’re against. We do it all the time but it’s harder to say what you’re for. In terms of the bedroom tax many are against it in principle yet can we trust them? The labour party campaign against this tax yet Ed Miliband can’t decide if he supports it or is against it. To me we can never trust the labour party under any circumstances history tells us this. Labour were in words against the poll tax yet labour councils were some of the most vicious in implementing the tax. It is the same today labour councils will implement the so called bedroom tax and cry crocodile tears after. But things do not have to be this way. Politicians keep inviting us to feel sorry for them as they have to make tough choices - choices of whose jobs, whose terms and conditions, whose services to cut. That's not a tough choice as far as we're concerned. If you represent working class people you don't make cuts. People who do face real tough choices are those who live in the 660,000 households affected by the bedroom tax. They face choices like: "Do I try to pay my increased housing costs or put food on the table? Will I face the threat of eviction for being behind in my rent or will my family go hungry?" A large portion of the victims of the bedroom tax are disabled; 63% of affected households have one or more disabled person. Stephen Palmer of Merthyr is being charged bedroom tax but his 'spare' bedroom isn't empty - it is filled to the brim with his essential kidney dialysis equipment! The bedroom tax is supposed to be about maximising the use of existing social housing, by 'encouraging' people to downsize. If you are poor, receive housing benefit and in social housing, you now have no right to be secure in a home filled with family memories and part of a community, surrounded by friends and neighbours. If the size of your household changes through kids growing up, hospitalisation or even bereavement, you are expected to move or pay a huge penalty. Even if you don't mind moving, in many parts of the country finding smaller accommodation is impossible. According to Welsh local authorities, there are just 400 single-bedroom properties in social housing in the whole of Wales and four (out of 22) council areas have no single-bedroom homes available. And there's no help with the substantial costs of moving anyway. A month into the bedroom tax, thousands of people are finding they can't pay. It is perhaps the single most blatant attack on the poorest in our communities. It has to be fought along with the whole raft of Con-Dem cuts. To charge tenants who are already on low incomes for having a room where people they are close to can stay is just about the meanest trick of a government which has a world-class reputation for mean tricks. The government says: 'take a lodger'- but why should people share their homes with someone they hardly know, when they want to share their homes with those they are close to? The government says: 'get a few extra hours work'. What planet are they on? Don't they realise that everyone is having their hours cut! The government says: 'move to a smaller property or a cheaper area'. Where are all these one-bedroom properties? They don't exist. And why uproot yourself to a new area, away from schools, contacts, and support networks? The bedroom tax is an outrage, and that's why people are getting angry. Half the people signing petitions against the tax aren't even hit by it, but they know people who are affected - family, friends, and neighbours - and they think it stinks. Protests are taking off - not just demonstrations but targeted protests at Labour councils who, for all their 'campaigning' against the tax, will implement it to the hilt, and against housing associations who are busy taking on more 'enforcement officers' to 'deal with' the tenants who fall behind on rent. That's why we need to build street networks and 'telephone trees' to quickly respond to threats by bailiffs. 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, and link them to existing anti-cuts groups 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%.

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