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

No to racism say no to divide and rule, terrorism not the answer

Following the horrific scenes on Wednesday of the Woolwich terrorist attack which I wasn’t sure was a terrorist attack at first now appears to be one there has been a sharp rise in anti Muslim attacks up and down the country. Police estimate over 1500 EDL demonstrators were organising in Newcastle today and causing havoc. Even I just on a walk about my estate over heard a man moaning about the government having let in too many Muslims and they are now preaching hate against us and the police. It just depresses me we need to stand together and oppose racism and any form of discrimination of any minority group. Quite clearly these terrorists who made the attack on a British Soldier on Wednesday are not true to their religion if at all and I thought it was right and correct for the Muslim council of Britain to come out and condemn the actions of a minority. This for me has a real danger of boiling over into something really ugly on our streets in Britain. Even before all this racist groups and political parties like the BNP and UKIP were starting to make a comeback in the polls this will only fuel the fire even more sadly. A fantastic statement was put out by Greenwich Socialist party a day after the events in Woolwich and I thought I’d republish it here as it hits the nail on the head and puts things all into perspective I feel. Statement from Greenwich Socialist Party on the Woolwich killing No to terrorism! No to racism! No to war! The unprovoked, barbaric and vicious murder of an unarmed soldier in Woolwich on Wednesday of last week is a horrific event which must have been profoundly traumatic for the people who witnessed it, and, of course, an appalling tragedy for the victim, and the victim's family and friends. Local residents showed incredible bravery in intervening to try and assist the victim. The Socialist Party completely condemns this attack just as we condemned 7/7, 9/11, and all similar attacks aimed at indiscriminate slaughter. This latest killing, while of one individual rather than many, appears to have been completely indiscriminate, with the victim selected possibly only because of the 'help for heroes' t-shirt he was wearing. The attackers apparently claimed to be acting in the name of Islam, and in protest at the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the vast majority of Muslims will be as sickened and horrified by this attack as the rest of the population. The brutal imperialist occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which have resulted in the deaths of over one hundred thousand civilians, are not the responsibility of ordinary soldiers, but of the governments that took the decision to invade and then occupy. New Labour went ahead with the invasion of Iraq despite opposition from a majority of the population, including the biggest demonstration in Britain's history, which the Socialist Party helped to organise. Terrorism Terrorism is a completely mistaken and counter-productive method of struggle. It was the mass terrorism of 9/11 which gave George Bush a 'justification' he could use to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq. One of the attackers in Woolwich called on the people of Britain to overthrow the government. It is the same government which continues the occupation of Afghanistan that is carrying out terrible austerity measures on the working class of Britain. However, this brutal killing will be used by Cameron to try and bolster support for this incredibly unpopular, weak and divided government. In the wake of this killing the racist thugs of the EDL have already cynically tried to use the event to whip up racism against all Muslims. Two attacks on mosques took place on the night of the Woolwich killing. The Socialist Party is totally opposed to the scapegoating of Muslims as a result of this tragic killing. From whatever section of society mistaken and damaging methods of struggle arise, the only way to combat them is for all working people - from all backgrounds - to unite to build a movement against racism, against terrorism, but also against the endless austerity of capitalism. Democratic rights We must also resist any attempts by the government to use this as an excuse to attack our democratic rights. Anti-terror legislation has been used to undermine anti austerity protests. Ordinary working class people have fought and died for these rights in the past. This is not the first time working class people in Greenwich have had to stand firm in the face of attempts to divide. Just a two minute walk up the same road is the Kings Arms pub which was bombed by the IRA in 1974. The community in Greenwich resisted those who tried to whip up anti-Irish hysteria at the time. In 1993 Stephen Lawrence was murdered in Eltham just 20 minutes away. A mass campaign against racism was mobilised by members of the Socialist Party (then Militant) and others which resulted in the far-right BNP's headquarters in Welling being shut down. It is important now, more than ever, that working class people in Woolwich and the country as a whole remember that history of solidarity and struggle. We must stand united against any attempts to divide us in the wake of this tragic event.

Thatcher is dead! Now bury her legacy of cuts, poverty and unemployment.

A breaking news story broke on my twitter feed earlier just before lunch today. The news that former prime minister and enemy of the working class Margret Thatcher had passed away in the early hours of the morning from a stroke. She passed away peaceful. I am not celebrating her death but I can fully understand the feeling many have towards her. I grew up after she left office so never knew what it was like but I can fully appreciate the anger, the hate and division her reign created. I knew this day was coming and the outpouring of emotion from many I know is huge a sense of anger relief, jubilation even and a lot of Tories pouring praise on her legacy of course. The BBC has gone into over drive giving anyone who was anyone around her a platform to tell us how great she was despite ruining British industry, driving many into poverty and dividing people long before this current con-dem government were around. I don’t ever celebrate anyone’s death as a rule but I c can understand the sheer detesting people affected by her policies ex miners, mining families and all those affected I feel total solidarity with today. The feeling from many in the media will be a sense of sadness as one of their own passes away but I am sure hoping she doesn’t get a state funeral it just would be an insult to many I feel. We must be aware that the liberals will be out in force too crowing about we should respect her legacy yet I also think we must appreciate the level of emotion wrapped up in her passing. She divided us beyond imagination. Yet we face a similar government today determined to go further than Thatcher ever dared. This must be on our minds while thinking of her demise. The 8th of April will be remembered for the day the iron lady was no more. From the poll tax to the miners strikes to the riots to the destruction of British industry her legacy won’t be forgotten in fact the current crop of Tories and new labor are carrying on her ideas today. The woman is dead yet her ideology lives on. We must not celebrate too much but redouble our efforts to eradicating her ideas of individualist ion and fight for socialist change for a society which can benefit the many not just the few wealthy individuals.

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

Fighting the cuts to tax credits

Over the last few days IDS Ian Duncan Smith has come out to say too many people are dependent on tax credits and labour fueld this boom of tax credits. In one sense he has a point tax credits were used by new labour to fuel a credit boom which meant people could have a top up on their wages. Just like myself I do not earn nearly enough to even pay any forms of tax so I can claim tax credits with a extra disabled bonus to it which still isn’t much it means I get a extra 70 pounds a week roughly this does really help and puts money back in the economy. But it’s masked the true trend of peoples wages stagnating and falling back in many cases. The government subsidises low pay hand has done for many years now both labour and Tories have held down wages while executive pay has soared beyond imagination there’s a huge huge gap now between the low pay of ordinary working people and the bonus culture and huge telephone number salaries at the top. So its not that we are dependent on tax credits its more the fact our wages are so lowland poor we have to rely on a top up to even survive in today’s economy even tax credits aren’t enough for many now with more working poor having to use food banks and the like to just feed themselves. This is the cold reality of capitalism which is failing the 99%. The wealth of the 1% is streaming ahead and all these attacks we’re facing to tax credits now next in line are seeing a huge transfer of wealth from the poorest to the rich. The majority of people in receipt of tax credits like myself are in work be that part time or even full time this gets employers off the hook and means they are not forced to pay a decent wage to their works. The labour party’s sudden fascination with a “living wage” is another smokescreen as in affect the new living wage under labour would raise wages sure but would in affect create a new higher minimum wage which as we all know is pretty pathetic and really doesn’t help many at all. In fact many companies still get away with not paying a minimum wage still till this day. I blogged about this scandal a year or so ago and this still goes on in 2013. So why the labour party think a living wage would be the answer I don’t know. What we really need is a proper true living wage which’s linked o inflation rising with inflation so our money can buy back the goods we produce. Of course under capitalism this c an never happen as our social wage can never put the capitalists profits at risk we will always be limited to a certain amount of increase in our wages but what is certain it’ll never threaten the very existence of capitalist production itself where the unpaid labour of a wage labourer is more than what the capitalist gets back. Our wages are always a percentage of the work we do as the capitalist extracts their profits from our unpaid labour and are always trying to lower wages, increase the working day make us work faster and faster or such like. Ultimately the wage system can not meet the majority of peoples needs and does need over throwing too just like the whole capitalist system too. Profits extracted for the benefit of a few rich capitalists while using government subsidies in the form of tax credits means the rich are laughing all the way to the bank. Its time to expose the capitalist system for what it is, learn its inside workings through the teachings of Karl Marx and Frederich Engel’s and learn its weakness’ and how we can best change society to meet the needs of the majority.

Busting the myths on benefits

As attacks and smears get harsher and faster on the poorest in society we are hearing more and more about the work shy, feckless poor, lazy benefit scroungers and much much worse being fed to us daily by the capitalists who control the media who daily play on stories of benefit cheats and how dare this person down your road be getting more for sitting at home and being paid for it while you slog away at work getting paid little. This is a complete lie of course benefits are not generous in this country at all and if anything are a very tough way to live. I suspect many couldn’t do it given the cost of living and how much in benefits you actually can get. SO is it true foreigners are flooding over here for our generous benefits who can apparently claim a free house free treatment on our NHS and live the life of riley. Is this actually the case? Reality would suggest not. While the benefit system in this country is not what anyone supports as a perfect system the benefits in this country do not compare to what is there in other nations such as France for example. Recently in George Osborne’s autumn statement he declared another round of cuts to benefits. His claim to want to make work pay is an illusion given the fact pay for many has been frozen for years in the public sector and in the private sector pay has gone back if anything given the level of inflation. This idea of cutting benefits back to make work pay is a false economy but this is not Osborne’s intention at all he is clearly doing the bidding of capitalism who demand the driving down of the living standards, pay and conditions of the working class to pay for their crisis. This is not about making work pay at all. He wants to set one group of working people against the other to avoid the blame himself. As unemployment rises, those in work are being forced to work longer hours, work harder, often being bullied and are doing so for less real pay. Who could blame those suffering in that way for idealising what an existence on benefits could mean. But Socialists say to workers and pensioners: "Beware!" Watch out for your wages and pensions, they plan to drive them down using the brutality of benefit cuts. Lord Bichard, former benefits chief, recently said that retired people should do community work or face losing some of their benefit. When did a fund you pay all your life become a benefit? When the Con-Dems want to make you pay for their crisis. The extreme acceleration of workfare the governments flagship scheme to get people back to work, what work you may ask has brutally failed missing its own 5% tiny target it’s no wonder people are getting angry and pissed off at a system which does not work for them. Capitalists will be thinking their Christmas’s have all come early with workfare being pursued by the Tories with such vigour this is almost 100% profit from all of the surplus value going to the capitalists while young people who are the ones often on these schemes but it’s rumoured the disabled will join them get their benefits if they are lucky. Many people believe it or not who receive benefits are in work themselves even housing benefit is mostly paid to those in work and are struggling to make their pay go far enough given the other rising costs of living in 2012. Regarding workers, benefit attacks are, plain and simple, the government's way of forcing down wages. Unemployment is an economic policy of capitalism to 'regulate the labour market'. Capitalist strategists actually debate what kind of unemployment they want. The long-term unemployed aren't 'good', they want more of a 'precariat': millions of insecure workers increasingly desperate and impoverished enough to take any job on any terms to undermine existing jobs, wages and conditions. They hope that, as a result, people will be too scared to fight back in the unions. This wwill not wash we have confidence that ordinary people will not just take this forever. We are seeing a lag in the class struggle where events are raining down on us so much it’s almost indignation fatigue tiredness from austerity. But this will not last the class struggle dictates workers and non working workers will return to struggle for better conditions and pay. We must fight with all our might to destroy and smash the myths on benefits and this scroungers and strivers idea the Tories are using. All working people are strivers some have a bit of luck and others, many others are crippled by a system which only wants their labour power their pound of flesh. Sheffield socialist party has produced this myth buster which I hope they don’t mind me sharing with you all its fantastic. If this piece made it into the mass media or a opposition used this to defeat the lies we could really get somewhere as it is Labour buy into the scroungers idea too unfortunately something we must fight against too as they are no better. The welfare state has led to a 'something for nothing' culture? IT'S A LIE. There are over 8 million people receiving benefits in this country. There are more people IN WORK who get benefits than not working. 90% of all housing benefit claimants are IN WORK. The Welfare state is actually a massive state subsidy to business which enables it to pay poverty wages and charge exorbitant rents. You're all sick of paying a huge swathe of chavs to lay about watching Jeremy Kyle all day? IT'S A LIE. Less than 5,000 people, out of a population of 60 million, have been on Job Seekers Allowance for more than 5 years. Historically, whenever jobs get created, they always get filled. The idea that there is a vast horde of the work-shy is a myth. Living on benefits is a lifestyle choice? IT'S A LIE. More than 80% of benefit claimants are aged over 35. The vast majority of unemployed claimants have worked, and paid taxes, for years and are now on benefits due to redundancy, sickness, disability or having to care for someone. Millions more are receiving benefits due to poverty wages. People won't work because benefits are too high? IT'S A LIE. Average benefits amount to £3,400 a year. These people are living in poverty. Since 1997, due to various Government actions, the value of benefits has fallen sharply year on year in real terms. People on benefits are far worse off now than in the last 30 years. People should get off their arses and look for work? IT'S A LIE. When Iain Duncan Smith suggested the jobless in Merthyr Tydfil should get on a bus to Cardiff to find work, Merthyr had 43 people for every job vacancy. Problem was, Cardiff already had nine unemployed people for every job vacancy. The jobs just don't exist. In 2010, there was 1 million more unemployed than there were job vacancies. Benefit cheats are bankrupting the country? IT'S A LIE. Benefit fraud does amount to about £1.5 billion a year. However, £16 billion goes UNCLAIMED every year. Meanwhile, the amount of tax lost through avoidance and evasion is a whopping £120 billion a year. (And don't give me the crap about avoidance being legal, the truth is, it shouldn't be. Not one of the major parties will openly state the real truth. The biggest causes of poverty in this country are lack of jobs, poverty wages and part time work. All the parties have social policies that they KNOW are based upon outright lies, lies that are allowing a whole section of society to be vilified as heartless people cast around to find a victim upon which to blame all this countries woes The money is out there for us all to live comfortably I say lets tax the rich and bring their wealth into public ownership to benefit the many not just the few. With thanks to Sheffield socialist party for the exert on myth busting benefits.

Guest post : Nancy Taaffe why i'm against food banks

This post below is a republishing of a fantastic post written by my comrade Nancy Taaffe who lives in London, a really well put piece highlighting the hypocrisy of Labur Mp's and those who think they are doing good but are not tackling povety at al. “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a communist” Helder Camara, Liberation Theologian Nancy Taaffe speaking out Every Saturday the Anti-Cuts Union has a stall in Walthamstow campaigning against cuts. The Labour Council passed a budget that has taken £65 million away from local services. I lost my job in a library, a job which I had for over 10 years. Children and young peoples’ services have been decimated by cuts, with some services, such as careers, being cut by almost a third. The three main political parties say it wasn’t their fault, that there isn’t any money but… …THAT’S A LIE. A report in The Guardian last year stated that there is currently £750 billion locked away in banks by the rich who see no immediate way to make a profit and so they just sit on the money and let it collect interest, £120 billion is squirrelled away through tax evasion and one thousand of the riches people in this country increased their wealth by £155 billion last year, enough to wipe out the nation’s deficit overnight. Meanwhile my local foodbank runs a stall in a market on a Saturday next to the Anti-Cuts Union stall where they ask the poor of Walthamstow to donate tins and toiletries to the destitute of Walthamstow. Food banks need to get political My annoyance at foodbanks is that we are not in debt, there is money to feed everyone, and we, the poor, shouldn’t pay for a crisis we didn’t create. I understand that foodbanks are often set up by well intentioned people who want to help, but I would question whether a foodbank without politics does actually help. Poverty is not like a hurricane or a flood, it’s man made and it can be man solved. I stood on the Town Hall steps for over a year asking Labour Councillors to set a needs budget and reject cuts but, to a man and woman they all voted for them. I stopped my local MP Stella Creasy (a big proponent of foodbanks) in the street (as I was losing my job) and asked her to make a public statement condemning cuts to libraries and children’s services but she just wouldn’t. Why? Because getting behind the consequence of cuts is far easier than fighting a preemptive battle….. if you are a career politician. When 3 million public sector workers took industrial action last November for decent pensions to prevent poverty in old age the same MP who stands behind the foodbank stall and campaigns against poverty wouldn’t support them. Strikes me, if your simpering and crushed by poverty then you get patronised and pitied but if you stand with a straight back and lean look and assert yourself through your trade union then you get condemned. I suppose it’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand, the Councillors who voted to sack me all support foodbanks. The smell of fresh tar My Liverpool Grandmother would tell me stories of the poverty her family endured in the 30′s, of picking up orange peel by the side of the road to gnaw on to alleviate hunger pains or sniffing the air when fresh tar was laid on the road because it smelt like food. But she also described the humiliation that many mothers had to endure at the hands of “charitable organisations”, how it was common to have to stand in a cold church hall with children clawing at your skirts and put your case to the parish fathers as to why you should have money to survive. Often these “parish fathers” were local businessmen and factory owners who paid poverty wages to their workers and were vicious if the workers went on strike for decent pay and decent working conditions. Rebellion against charity The rebellion that took place in the working class after the Second World War was not just a reaction to the horror of war but was a revolution against the humiliation of poor relief and welfare administration built on “charity”. I suppose if foodbanks get political and mobilised those they feed to get organised, then I could support them. If, like the unemployed movements of the 30s, they not only fed people but stirred them up to fight for revolutionary change, then I would get right behind them. If I could sum up my opposition to charity without politics I would have to do it with the help of the inimitable Oscar Wilde who said: “We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. …Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue” …Long live disobedience! with thanks to http://thefoodbankers.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/guest-post-nancy-taaffe-explains-why-shes-against-foodbanks/

PFI = Profit from Illness, drive profiteering out of our NHS!

Private finance initiative has been crippling our NHS for decades now. With many hospitals now a certain hospital trust in south London facing difficulties it’s time to end this profit mad system and re nationalize the NHS and kick out the profiteers from our health care once and for all.


The South London Healthcare NHS Trust has already lost £150m

The trust runs three hospitals and has run up deficits of more than £150m over the past three years. It is thought to be on course to lose between £150m and £375m by 2017.
Our staff has worked hard for patients and in spite of significant financial issues we are extremely proud we now have among the lowest mortality and infection rates in the country

Its chief executive was informed on Monday night that the trust is likely to be put into the "unsustainable providers regime", which was introduced by the last Labor government but never before used.

The administrator will take over the board and recommend measures to the Health Secretary to put the trust's finances on a sustainable basis. Which to me means nothing but cuts and a contraction of services offered and a round of redundancies for the staff.

Hospitals run by the trust include Queen Mary's in Sidcup, the Queen Elizabeth in Woolwich and the Princess Royal in Bromley.

It is clear to me to save the NHS PFI must be rejected out of hand and all services brought back into proper democratic public ownership. With a trade union lead campaign with local communities and the mass of the working class behind a campaign to save the NHS we can save it only if we act now. Each day a further piece of our NHS is lost if we don’t act now it’ll be gone in a few years time. A distant memory.

PFI was begun in the early 1990s by the then Tory government. It was attacked by Labour when in opposition, but then massively accelerated under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's governments. Today there are hundreds of PFI projects covering hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, police stations and prisons.
Instead of a public body building a new facility using public money, albeit through a contract with a private builder or developer, PFI involves a private sector developer or consortium doing the whole job. It borrows the money (often at higher rates of interest than the government would), builds the project and then charges a fee for 25 to 40 years for maintaining the buildings and usually also providing various services.
Labour spokespersons such as Patricia Hewitt and Alan Milburn condemned such PFI projects as 'backdoor privatization' when in opposition. In government, however, as health secretaries, they claimed it was the 'only game in town'. And curiously, after government, they (and many other Labour ex-ministers) got lucrative private sector jobs and consultancies, many in the same areas where they had been ministers.
The Financial Times estimated in 2007 that, after ten years of New Labour, the total capital value of PFI contracts across the UK was £68 billion - but that the total which would be given to the private companies involved in those contracts, by the time they were finished, would be £215 billion!
Three years later, in November 2010, the total payment obligation for PFI contracts in the UK had rocketed to £267 billion. And in the first year of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition a further 61 PFI schemes, with a capital value of £7 billion were approved. PFI has become a 'milch cow' for big business in the public sector.

Defeating the myths on the need for cuts

Before the general election in 2010 David Cameron tried to claim that the Tory party had changed and was no longer the brutal anti-working class party of the 1980s.
Within days of taking office they revealed themselves as Thatcherites to the core.

The Tories' propaganda is that cuts are necessary because of New Labour's excessive public spending. This is a giant con-trick.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The crisis Britain is facing is not a crisis of the public sector but of the private sector.
It was the collapse of the banking system, not greedy public sector workers that the economy into crisis.
Yet, while public services are being destroyed, the rich are increasing their wealth further still.

In reality, New Labour did not preside over a significant increase in public spending. On the contrary, under New Labour, as under the Tories before them, public spending on measures that decrease poverty has fallen back and, as a result, for much of New Labour's tenure, inequality and poverty increased.

High quality council housing, unemployment benefit and a pension that it is possible to live on, these are all now distant memories. Job Seekers Allowance is at, £64.30 a week, equal to just 10% of average earnings compared to 17% when Margaret Thatcher was in power.
It is the lowest in the developed world and is literally impossible to live on. Even in those sectors such as health where public spending increased under New Labour, although not enough, this has been linked to increased privatisation.
When New Labour was elected in 1997 total public spending had fallen to 37.7% of gross domestic product (GDP), its lowest level since the 1960s. New Labour kept it at the same level for its first two years in power.
By 2008 it had increased marginally to around 41%, although this remained extremely low compared with other major European countries such as Germany, and particularly France, where it was still 53%.
Since then it has jumped again to around 46%. To put this in perspective it was 45% in 1985 - when the Tories had been in power for six years! However, the jump has nothing to do with increased spending on public services and everything to do with the bailout of the banking and finance system.

The Treasury department spent £109.5 billion in 2008/09, an increase of 49,891% on the previous year! This vast sum of money, slightly more than the entire spending on health for the year, was used to bail out the finance system.
Yet the same big financiers whose profligacy triggered the economic crisis are now demanding cuts in services. All capitalist politicians accept the need for cuts because 'the markets' demand it.
The Tories are particularly enthusiastic about cutting as much and as fast as possible, but New Labour has also made it clear it would do as the markets demand and carry out severe cuts.


What are these markets? Not some elected or democratically accountable body but a few handfuls of unelected bond market traders interested only in their own mega-profits.
These are the people who are demanding vicious cuts which will ruin the lives of millions.
If this government gets away with it, the clock of history will be unwound with levels of poverty returning those of the 1930s. But it will not get away with it.
This government is deluded if it imagines it will be able to carry out its programme without meeting an avalanche of opposition.

United we are strong, divided we will be defeated. The government knows that and is desperate to divide us - public sector from private sector, old from young, benefit claimants from everyone else...
To avoid the government's trap, and build a united movement, it is vital that we oppose ALL cuts in jobs and services. If we fall into the trap of accepting pay cuts on the spurious grounds that they will stop a local library or swimming pool open, or fighting to save one local hospital but not another, we will allow the anti-cuts movement to shatter into a thousand pieces.
Of course, we will not always succeed, but our starting point must be to fight every single cut. This includes cuts implemented by Labour councils, who are willingly wielding the axes handed to them by the government.

The socialist party does not accept the need for any cuts and fights for a new mass workers party that can give ordinary people a voice again.
To be fully effective, a workers' party would need to put forward socialist ideas. Socialists do not accept that cuts are necessary.
Capitalism has created enormous wealth, science and technique. We have technology today that was unimaginable a generation ago.
The world economy is 17 times the size it was a century ago. Yet we are being told that the most basic public services - a decent public health service, the right to an affordable home - cannot be afforded by capitalism.
The current crisis is not caused by a bloated public sector but by the worst crisis of capitalism in 70 years. This is a crisis of the private not the public sector.
Yet all the major capitalist parties - Tories, Lib Dem and New Labour agree that it should be the working class and public services that pay for it.

Any government that acts in the interests of the markets would put forward savage cuts along the lines of those being proposed by the Con-Dem coalition.
Across Europe - from the ex-social democratic governments (equivalent to New Labour) of Greece, Spain and Portugal to the right-wing capitalist parties of Britain, France, Germany and Italy; the cuts are virtually identical in their brutality.
All of Europe is dancing to the axe-men's tune. Capitalism is in crisis and it is the working class that is expected to pay the price.

This crisis is more than simply the responsibility of a few greedy bankers. The severity of the economic crisis that began in 2008 is a consequence of the increasingly parasitic nature of capitalism over the last decades.

Capitalism has always been a system based on the exploitation of the majority, the working class, for the profits of a few at the top.
There was a brief period, from around 1950-73, when capitalism developed rapidly. At least in the more economically developed countries, including Britain, working-class people were able to win a few crumbs from the capitalists' table.
In Britain, a National Health Service and a mass council house building programme made a real improvement in workers' lives.
However, when capitalism went into crisis, it set about restoring its profits by driving down the share of the wealth taken by the working class. Production was moved abroad to countries with cheaper labour, wages were driven down, and spending on public services was cut back.

The consequence of all of this was that, by 2007 in the G7 countries, the share taken by the working class (wages plus benefits) had fallen to a post-war low of 53% of total income.
During the last boom profits reached an all-time record. However, they had difficulty finding profitable fields to invest in.
Investment in science, technique and production remained at an historic low. Why? Because working-class people lacked the means to buy the goods that could potentially be produced.
This is the terrible reality of capitalism. It does not matter that two billion people are without the most basic necessities of life, they are not 'a market' because they lack the money to buy what is produced.
Instead of investing in industry, the capitalist class made its profits in the last boom by gambling on the world's stock markets in a speculative frenzy. To try and increase their markets the working class got its own little share in the credit frenzy: cheap credit cards and mortgages - not crumbs but bubbles from the table.

But while the bankers' debts were nationalised - handed to us to pay off via cuts in our public services - our debts (the £1.5 trillion consumer debt overhang from the boom) remain like millstones round our necks.

Socialists argue that the rich should be the ones who pay the crisis, via dramatically increased taxes for the super-rich and the big corporations. For most of the 1970s the tax rate for the highest band of income was 83%.
Likewise, for most of the 1970s, big corporations paid 52% of their profits in tax. But that percentage has been reduced step-by-step ever since, to just 28% now.
As the PCS points out, even with the existing low levels of taxation for the rich, more than £120 billion goes uncollected every year. While we favour taxing the rich, we also recognise that the 'markets' - neither the big corporations nor the bond traders who hold whole countries to ransom - will never meekly accept dramatically increased regulation and taxation.


So what is the alternative to this market madness? The starting point is to refuse to accept the cuts. Faced with a determined working class, big business will be forced to retreat.
However, in its relentless pursuit of profit, capitalism would then come-back with other ways of making the working class pay, for example, by using inflation.
That is why we need a socialist solution. For a start we call for the nationalisation of the big banking and finance companies.
Compensation should be paid on the basis of proven need. Not one penny should go to the speculators who are demanding that the working class pay for the crisis for which they - the speculators - bear responsibility.
It would then be necessary to introduce full government control of all incoming and outgoing foreign trade. That would enable a democratically elected government and the working class - not the market - to control imports and exports including capital.
A socialist nationalised banking sector would be democratically run by representatives of banking workers and trade unions, the wider working class, as well as the government.
Decisions would be made to meet the needs of the majority - for example, offering cheap loans and mortgages for housing and for the planned development of industry and services, and ending all repossessions of peoples' homes.

However, that would only be the start. Capitalism has led to enormous economic destruction.
In Britain around 10% of wealth has already been lost as a result of the recession, due to factories and workplaces closing, resulting over 2.6 million officially unemployed with the number rising.
Nor is there any prospect of a return to healthy growth. This is the real difference between now and, for example, the end of the second world war when the total national debt was far higher than it is today - over 200% of GDP compared to around 60% now.
Then, however, Britain entered a period of significant economic growth, thereby shrinking the national debt.



Its time to reject the need for any cuts at all, we do not accept like new labour that some cuts are needed at all. Lets redouble our efforts to win the arguements and win more people to our ideas of socialism and a change of society to benifit the many.

A comradely approach

As members of the socialist party we are well aware that labour after gaining big victories and control of lots of councils and gaining lots of seats are riding on a high right now. Let them celebrate. But also be under no illusion the level of support they really have. With voter turnout last week hovering around the 30 percent mark a victory for labour last Thursday is no ringing endorsement of them or their policies of a cuts light package.

Labour members and even those on their left may be feeling encouraged by these results but what will they do with their newly found positions of power. Will they fight the cuts and refuse to pass on Tory cuts?

These results cannot be taken as an endorsement of New Labour or of Ed Miliband and his policies.
His personal ratings before the election stood at -41%! It was primarily a massive rejection of the Con-Dem government and especially of the savage cuts.
There was nothing in this election campaign of the enthusiasm witnessed in France where the left, particularly the Left Front of Mélenchon, fired up millions of working people with radical policies and a glimpse of changing society.
All that Miliband offers, at most, is a change of curtains: "The more things change, the more they remain the same."
Will newly-elected or strengthened Labour councils pursue a policy of resistance by refusing to implement the cuts? Up to now, they have unfortunately aped the Tories and Liberal Democrats by acting as transmission belts for the government's attacks on working-class people.
But if they were to take a stand - even at this late hour - in refusing to implement the eye-watering measures coming down the line, then the anti-cuts movement would be prepared to form a united front with them. If, however, they don't, their new-found 'popularity' will rapidly evaporate.
In reality, working people expressed on the doorstep, on television and in newspapers their complete exasperation with 'all the main parties', who are perceived to be 'all the same'.
This mood has not been dissipated by these elections. This is indicated by the turnout of 31%, the lowest for 12 years.
In other words, the worse the economic and social situation gets, the less the mass of the population is prepared to engage in politics.
If New Labour was really offering something new - a fighting anti-cuts programme allied to the idea of changing society - then working people would come out in their droves to support them.
But, in fact, the votes of all the main parties went down but New Labour just decreased less than the Tories or Lib Dems.
Previous Tory and Lib Dem voters did not swing over to New Labour but tended to abstain. The unavoidable fact is that 70% of the electorate are disengaged on a local level from politics.
They do not believe that what happens in these elections has a major bearing on their lives. This is a very dangerous situation for the capitalists.
The seeds of new riots are being sown. The poor, disenfranchised, jobless young people and working class generally are increasingly excluded from real democratic participation through their own mass party. They will then seek to express themselves by other means as we saw last august with the riots.

But as far as going forward goes we are happy to work with others who oppose all the cuts. We do not hold a open door invite all policy in and collaborate with those who are making the cuts as that gives out totally the wrong message a popularist approach as some taken the left can be very appealing but as we know there are no shortcuts in the class struggle those who opportunistically jump in bed with those who are making cuts will be punished in the end.

But as the socialist party we will always take a comradely and a friendly welcoming stance to others. We realise as the cuts continue to bite and labour do little to nothing to resist the cuts and offer an alternative more will be drawn to the likes of the socialist party and we will be happy to welcome anyone over to our ideas. Taking a friendly approach to those who may have been labour, voted labour all their life but will feel betrayed or already do we understand and are happy to talk to you and show you a alternative can be posed and the cuts are not inevitable as labour tell you there is something we can do and that is to fight. As the old saying goes you win nothing if you don’t fight if you do you has at least a chance of winning.

So if you are interested in finding out more about us or just would like more information or to join please check out
www.socialistparty.org.uk
And www.socialistparty.org.uk/join

The coalition we are apart of which we stand in elections is TUSC the Trade Union and Socialist coalition
Who are openly socialist and proud to be so you can find out more about them at www.tusc.org.uk

The lessons for TUSC in the recent local elections

Overall I feel the recent elections were good to be honest for TUSC in many places we were standing for the first time. We may not have made a significant breakthrough but I am still confident our time will come.

Labour gained big numbers of councillors and control of councils again this is a last chance for labour if you like given to them by those who voted. This is no way an endorsement of the labour party and their slow cuts strategy but an anti Tory vote where people looked to punish the government including Tories and lib dems. This at the moment has meant labour has won big but unless they break from the base of capitalism they are based on they too will be carrying out the cuts and feeling the wrath of the anti cuts movement.
It is certainly going to be a very interesting period now with still only a estimated 9% of the cuts been seen so far many labour councils will have to make the cuts if they want to stay true to their capitalist masters. If they do break from this and do stand up for ordinary people and refuse to make the cuts all well and good that is what we want to happen but frankly from the evidence so far where labour control councils this does not appear to be the case at all.


If anything they seem to not even debate the cuts just interested in the speed of the cuts not the cuts passé. It is a good time for TUSC now we really have to keep our nerve and keep firm to our principles stand by what we’ve stood on and build on these elections.

Standing as broadly as we can in new areas building the TUSC name is key for this coming period between now and the next elections. We can’t just be seen as another party who is only seen at election time. We must be standing shoulder to shoulder with workers in struggle be that on strikes on demonstrations and mass movements as the crisis in capitalism will deepen there is no doubt about that.
As Marxists we see the struggle for a new society based on the needs of people over the profits of a few a process which can be and flow seeing our movement thrown back at times when other times we can advance consciousness and make gains. The recent elections have clearly given labour one last chance to prove they can stand up for ordinary people against the cuts. We know this won’t happen but people have to see this in action and will be betrayed. We have been told well why you don’t join the labour party to affect change from within. This is a dead end argument as we were in the labour party and were expelled for giving workers a voice. We are not prepared to sit in the labour party and sit by as the working class goes to hell in a handcart. We are actively trying to give a lead to workers and that alternative which is being searched for more and more.

As some commentators and others on the left think this will be the end for Tusk and the likes of Dave Nellist who unfortunately lost his seat to a new labour pro cuts candidate on Thursday but this is not the end if anything it is just the start and we will be there on the right side of the picket lines standing with ordinary workers who need our support against the boss’s

So onwards and upwards I say let labour show us what they are all about now as we will be watching closely and ready to expose them.

Attitudes towards racism and why it shouldn’t be taken lightly

As socialists we fight against all injustices and discriminations on a clear class basis. This is no different when it comes to racism and racial divides in society.

We in the socialist party take accusations of racism and the whole idea of racism very seriously indeed.
We have been on countless anti EDL and anti nazi demonstrations over the years and have lead the way on many anti racial movements and been at the fore front on combating racism and attempts to divide people.

But at the same time we will not shy away from the subject if we can’t win over our own members with our ideas of how to combat racism how are we supposed to convince the wider class out there about its dangers of divide and rule.
We also unlike others on the left call for “open borders” on a capitalist basis this would be a big mistake and due to the way the capitalist system woks we could find some countries being flooded with people and other countries being emptied out. This is clearly what we would stand for under a socialist society a free and open society wheel national borders didn’t matter but under the present system it would be wrong of us to put that slogan forward we feel.

In recent times attitudes have turned to an anti eastern European feel with lots of Pollish and eastern European coming to the UK to find work. This has of course tailed off now due to the economic crisis where there is simply few if any jobs for anyone about any longer.
The right-wing press attempts to blame immigrants for falling wages and the fact that the welfare state is falling apart. It is claimed that immigrant workers have driven down wages in the construction industry by 50%. Since when did Polish workers set the wage levels in different sectors of the economy, legislate for the minimum wage, or administer company pay-rolls? The fact is that big business will pay as little as it can get away with in the pursuit of profit. Sir Digby Jones, former head of the Confederation of British Industry, admitted as much when commenting that "you cannot blame migrants if they are prepared to come here and work for wages which, though they may seem low to us, are a lot higher than in their own country". Indeed! This is a clear admission that the blame for low wages lies with big business.
Big businesses are in competition with one another for market share and profits. If a business can cut its costs by paying lower wages and giving itself a competitive edge, then it will do just that. This forces competing businesses to follow suit. The result is the driving down of wages for all workers, which is not the fault of immigrant workers but down to the imperatives of the capitalist system itself.
Similarly, the claim that immigration is the cause of the problems with the welfare state is a fallacy. Since Thatcher's Tory government, whichever party has been in power has sought to break up and privatise the welfare state to keep their big-business friends in profit. This has resulted in the privatisation of council housing, cuts in benefits and pensions, and job losses and closures in the NHS. Yet again, it is the wilful decision of neo-liberal governments, Tory and Labour, to cut state expenditure and replace it with private, profit-driven provision that has led to the decline of the welfare state.
Wages are too low and the funding of public services inadequate. Immigration is used by big business and its representatives in government to excuse underinvestment in vital services and try and place the blame on anyone but themselves and their system. Official statistics estimate that immigrant workers contribute £2.5 billion to the economy each year. Rather than being a strain on the welfare state, most immigrant workers are aged in their 20s and 30s, and work when they get here. Less than 10% arrive with dependant family members, making them net contributors through the work they do and the taxes they pay. (The Independent, 23 August)
The main factors driving migration are also a result of the capitalist system. The restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 has been an unmitigated disaster. Unemployment in Poland and Slovakia stands officially at over 15%, pushing people to migrate to find work. As if to hammer home the way the imperatives of the capitalist system force migration, The Financial Times (29 August) reported that, because of rising skills shortages in Poland due to migration, "many Polish employers are beginning to turn to Ukrainians to fill the jobs gap"!
Other than false economic arguments, the right-wing press pushes as far as it can a racist and xenophobic line to further divide working people. It is in the interests of capitalism to sow divisions among the working people of the world. With globalisation, ownership of supposedly 'British' companies becomes more and more diffuse. Similarly, the different workforces around the world are more and more composed of different nationalities. For example, the National Farmers Union says British agriculture relies on 70,000 immigrant workers to bring in the harvest, and immigration now makes up 10% of the workforce in the construction industry, which still suffers from a lack of labourers (The Independent, 23 August).

We are often told about this so called “British interest” on the world stage and how we must protect and defend the British interest.
There is no such thing as a 'British interest'. Society is divided into different classes whose interests are at odds to one another. Capitalism's profits come from exploiting the labour of working-class people. Nationality, immigrant or indigenous, is unimportant to big business - it will pay as little as it can get away with.
At other times, the 'liberal' press attains an astonishingly similar reflection of right-wing hysteria. Jasmine Alibhai Brown, a frequent contributor to The Independent, comments that "[British] people are either too lazy or expensive to compete. Tax-paying immigrants past and present keep indolent British scroungers on their couches drinking beer and watching TV. We [immigrants] are despised because we seize opportunities these slobs don't want". (23 August) Competing with the right-wing press as to who can portray one group of workers as more 'lazy' than the other, does nothing to break down racism and xenophobia! No mention is made, for example, of the excessive overtime that British workers perform.
The concern of working-class people in Britain over the state of welfare provision and wage levels is totally legitimate. However, to place the blame on 'immigrants' does not address the causes of these problems or advance anything to improve the situation. The problem is the capitalist system itself

The path to beginning to solve the problem of low wages, under-funded public services and racism is workers' unity across ethnic, religious and national lines. This can only be built through the day-to-day experiences of working people. It is vital that the trade union movement makes the recruitment of migrant labour a top priority. Joint action of British-born and immigrant workers, organised in unions and based on a unity of interests, is how to stop big business using immigration as an excuse to cut wages and dismantle the welfare state.
But working people also need to be organised politically to fight for their interests in all areas of society. The need for a new mass workers' party has never been clearer. Unfortunately, many of the major unions continue to affiliate to New Labour - the principal executors of big-business, neo-liberal interests that provide such fertile ground for division and racism. Philip Stevens, commenting in The Financial Times (29 August), points out that "the erosion of old political boundaries is evident in the debate about the influx of workers from Eastern Europe... Labour MPs these days are almost as likely as their Tory counterparts to call for tougher restrictions on foreigners". In other words, Labour and the Tories try and out-compete each other in scapegoating immigrants to divert attention from the fact that both parties' policies caused these problems and will exacerbate them in the future.

The labour party on N30 and beyond

Alot of talk this week will be on the big one day public sector general strikes this wednesday of course but many including Len Mcklusky are still hoping the Labour party will back these strikes.

In this piece in the Morning Star :
http://t.co/aeezb0Sf


Len tries to make out Labour can be workers friends and that it can be reclaimed and will hopefully support the unions on strike this week. Sorry Len i do not share this optimism with you pal.

Len speaks a good game but i am yet to be convinced he is serious a bout taking back the labour party. The fact he thinks he can convince Ed Miliband who condemned the strikes on June 30th this year already means nothing to him clearly. It will be interesting to see if Len changes his mind if Ed fails to back these strikes which i suspect he will not.
The pension reforms being force fed to workers by this Con-Dem government and being threatened all the time with taking away any offers and increasing anti trade union laws is as thick and fast as ever from the tories.
But also dont forget these proposals were drawn up by a Labour lord Lord Hutton who suggested these cuts to workers pensions after the Labour government had negotiated a deal not so long ago that was fair.
Ed Balls yesterday on TV admitted that Labour would be having to do something similar making workers in the public sector work longer, pay morea nd get lessas a result of their agreement that workers must pay for a crisis that they did not cause.

With the labour leadership Balls and Miliband together workers do not have a ally at all in fact Miliband was photographed laughing and joking with David Cameron and Nick Clegg on 30th of June this year disgustingly.

I hear that many labour councils and labour members are supporting this week's strikes. I think this is great of course i'm not dogmatic against la bour if their membership supports striking workers that is a good thing but be under no illusion this is easy for the members to back as they hold little influence on the leadership and are many ordinary public sector workers too.
For them to be serious about opposing this government they must urge their councillors and MP's to move to a no to all cuts position and refuse to make cuts at a local council level next year.

As public sector workers prepare for the planned 30 November one-day strike, the question of a political voice of opposition to cuts, along with their strength in the union, is posed.

Pieces like this on Labour List only set to underline many socialist party members views that Labour cannot be reclaimed and a new workers party is needed.
http://t.co/3ZiFTFkE
In the piece the new labour member claims that strikes damage labours electorability and Labour should not be backing strikes instead siding on the side of the public. Not bothering to mention ordinary public sector workers are not only members of that same public but are also tax payers who can vote. This blairite writes them all off in one fail swoop.
I would think it is sufficient to say that as the Labour Party currently stands, it is not really possible to openly campaign for socialist policies, and even if we could, it wouldn't sound plausible to the electorate, bearing in mind the policies carried out over the 13 years of the previous Labour governments. So we see the clear need to independently put socialist policies before the electorate, and try to build a pole of attraction around which the unions can organise politically.

TUSC and the Socialist Party could and should be playing the part of exerting a gravitational pull on the labour movement (and party) towards socialism. But to be able to do that requires a medium (field) of comradely debate and approach.

On the other hand, we do believe that the few socialists who are labouring away to change the Labour Party are pursuing a futile task. Never in its history has the left been so weak both in the Parliamentary Labour Party and among the rank-and-file.

We have pointed out many times that they are like prisoners smuggling the occasional note between the bars to workers outside. Very few workers participate in what is increasingly an empty shell. In fact even the 'shell' may no longer exist if Miliband gets his way and further dissolves the party, particularly the influence of the trade unions within it.

Small cabals - who have no connection with the radical and heroic periods of Labour - run a machine totally alien to working class people. Any socialist - inside or outside the Labour Party, and it is mostly the latter - is bound to come into collision with them.


This would be the case if the LRC or Socialist appeal our comradely cousins still inside the Labour party from our militant days every organised properly into a serious force instead of working largely as individuals. If they took a stronger stance on cuts and fought the labour leadership and appealed to workers to rejoin the party on mass. But so far this is not happening.

It is unrealistic to think that workers who are losing their jobs - some of them never to work again - and many seeing vital services destroyed should engage in polite exchanges with 'Labour... Yes Labour councils and councillors'. It is legitimate to express anger and, yes, rage - not just against the Tories and Liberals - but against a Labour caste at local level which is inflicting terrible punishment on working people.

It is also necessary to forcefully take up and oppose those who seek to excuse Labour sell-outs. Some on the left refused to endorse the Socialist Party's implacable opposition to 'all cuts'. But we were at one with those like Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS civil servants union and Bob Crow, leader of the RMT transport workers union. Those who are prepared to accept 'some cuts' are acting as a left flank, apologists for Labour councillors and councils who are betraying everything which the Labour Party originally stood for.

For instance, Waltham Forest council - controlled by Labour - has inflicted £3 million of cuts to wages and conditions of its workers yet £18 million has been paid to 'consultants' whose main job is to make these cuts to jobs and services! And this is as typical of 'Labour' councils as Tory or Lib Dem.

Will local government emerge at the end of the 'cuts programme' in the absurd position of the NHS where "in 2006, Accountancy Age reported that the NHS was spending more on consultants than all Britain's manufacturers put together"? [London Review of Books.]

This scandal was pushed through by the likes of New Labour health ministers Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt, who then got cushy, well-paid jobs in the health private sector!


On reclaming the Labour party we can never say never where politics are concerned. Nor is it theoretically excluded that if a mass workers' party is not urgently built, the impulse for a new party could come from within even a bourgeois party.

Such is the depth of the present economic and social crisis that, in time, this can find an expression even in such a party leading to a left split, out of which could come the basis of a radical or even a new mass workers' party.

Something like this happened in Greece where the 'left-wing' of the liberal capitalist party the Centre Union - led by the late Andreas Papandreou - came out of that party following the overthrow of the Greek military junta in 1974.

Such was the sweep of the revolution in the post-1974 period and the colossal changes in consciousness which this evoked that the objective basis for the new mass socialist party Pasok was created. The present 'Pasok' is a million miles removed from its socialist origins.

But we do not think that it is likely that Labour could be transformed in Britain in the next period. We cannot just 'wait' for future events to hopefully change the Labour Party, while in the meantime the working class goes to hell in a handcart.

We have to seek to exert pressure now through a new workers' party, no matter how small initially. The Labour party has been transformed under the New Labour counter-revolution carried out first by Blair, then by Brown and today by Miliband into a capitalist formation.

In fact, Tony Blair recognised this when he declared that New Labour was an entirely 'new party'. Conversely if Labour is to be 'transformed', as some still hope, then this would effectively mean setting up a new party, which by standing on clear socialist policies would represent a clear break.

Labour's current policies are a continuation of Blair's pro-capitalist agenda. This is expressed in terms of policy; witness Miliband's completely pro-capitalist assault on the trade unions at the TUC. It is reflected also in the internal organisation and character of the Labour Party which is fundamentally different from what existed in the past.

The old Labour Party, of which we were a significant force (through Militant - now the Socialist Party), involved the participation of the working class and the trade unions. It was a 'bourgeois workers' party' - with a pro-capitalist leadership at the top but a base among workers below. But it was also very open and democratic, and the leadership was forced to take account of the rank-and-file and its views.

Those who seek to argue that 'nothing has fundamentally changed' in the character of the Labour Party are mistaken. Compare the present situation in the Labour Party to the 1960s. Harold Wilson, supported by Barbara Castle the Labour minister at the time, tried to push through anti-union legislation.

This was massively opposed by the rank-and-file of the party and the majority of the National Executive Committee. If Wilson had not retreated he would have been compelled to resign. Neither could he militarily support US imperialism on the Vietnam War- despite the urgings of the then US President Johnson - for the same reason.

Tony Blair, however, got the support of Labour's conference delegates - who in the past were solidly to the left of the leadership - for the obscene and criminal Iraq war.

Some object that to describe New Labour as 'capitalist' is an 'exaggeration', because workers are still voting Labour. This, it is argued, indicates that Labour - 'warts and all' - is 'different' from the other two capitalist parties.

Yes, Labour is 'different', in the same way as the Democratic Party in the US differs from the right-wing Republican Party. The Democrats are more 'liberal' but are still a pronounced capitalist party.

So also was the Liberal Party in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. Sections of the working class and the trade unions in Britain saw it as an alternative until mighty events - the decline of British imperialism and its inability to continue to grant concessions to the working class - undermined this. This prepared the way for the rise of the Labour Party itself as a mass political expression of the trade unions.

Those who furnished the mass basis for the Labour Party were the sons and daughters of workers who previously voted Liberal. This will happen with the building of a new party.

Even to those who hope that Labour can be changed, we pose the questions: 'What do we do now in the political and electoral arenas? How does the labour movement exert pressure on Labour in order to defeat and change its present craven capitulation to big business, which is disheartening its former and present supporters? By propaganda or vague hopes for the future alone? The bureaucratic caste which dominates Labour is totally impervious to this.

But Labour's reaction could be different if a new party was formed, with a solid base among trade unionists. Electoral success for such a party could force change in the current anti-working class, anti-union stance of New Labour. More importantly, it would provide a political voice to millions who are effectively disenfranchised.
We face much ridicule from others on the left and even from some within the Labour party which i accept is enivitable while people still feel the labour party can be changed.
But Keir Hardie in Britain and James Connolly in Ireland - who were pioneers, like we are today for workers' parties - were also ridiculed. They got very small votes initially (Hardie gained 8% of the vote in his first parliamentary election in the Lanarkshire coalfields). They were proven to be correct and their critics silenced by the development of the kind of parties they campaigned for.

What is TUSC ?

The trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) was set-up last year to enable trade unionists, community campaigners and socialists who wanted to resist the pro-cuts consensus of the establishment parties to stand candidates in the 2010 general election.

By registering TUSC with the electoral commission, candidates could appear on the ballot paper as Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition rather than as 'Independent' which they would otherwise have to do under electoral law.

TUSC came out of a series of discussions by participants in the No2EU-Yes to Democracy coalition, which contested the 2009 European elections with the official support of the RMT transport workers' union, the Socialist Party, and others - the first time a trade union had officially backed a national electoral challenge to Labour since the party's foundation.

TUSC is a coalition with a steering committee which includes, in a personal capacity, the RMT general secretary Bob Crow, and fellow executive member Owen Herbert; the assistant general secretary of the PCS civil servants union, Chris Baugh, and the union's vice-president, John McInally; the president of the National Union of Teachers, Nina Franklin; and the recently retired general secretary of the Prison Officers Association, Brian Caton. The Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party are also represented on the committee.

TUSC is a federal 'umbrella' coalition, with agreed core policies endorsed by all its candidates but with participating organisations accountable for their own campaigns. Its core policies include, among others, opposition to public spending cuts and privatisation, student grants not fees, and the repeal of the anti-trade union laws.

It makes a clear socialist commitment to "bringing into democratic public ownership the major companies and banks that dominate the economy, so that production and services can be planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the environment".

private rents in 55% of local authorities unaffordable, demand decent affordable housing now

Just 12% of areas in England have affordable rents, research by housing charity Shelter found
Private rents are now unaffordable in 55% of local authorities in England, the housing charity Shelter has said.

Homes in these areas cost more than 35% of median average local take-home pay - the level considered unaffordable by Shelter's Private Rent Watch report.

The charity said 38% of families with children who rent privately have cut back on buying food to help pay rent.

Shelter's research found rents had risen at one-and-a-half times the rate of incomes in the 10 years up to 2007.

'Dramatic impact'

It said private rents in 8% of England's local authorities were "extremely unaffordable" - with average rents costing at least half of full-time take-home pay.

Just 12% of areas were affordable, it added.

Shelter analysed two-bedroom homes because they were so widely found and used Valuation Office Agency and Office for National Statistics data.



Average monthly rent for two-bedroom home in London is £1,360 - almost two-and-a-half times more than the rest of England
Kensington and Chelsea is the highest at £2,714 a month
Burnley in Lancashire the lowest at £394 a month
Oxford is the least affordable area outside London
Blackpool is the least affordable in north of England
Source: Shelter



It is high time we started to demand decent affordable housing for all. Not just a few or just for those who are in work like Ed Miliband likes to put forward. There is no reason why everyone shouldnt have a right to a decent affordable home for themselves. The fact that successive governments have turned a blind eye to this housing crisis is to their eternal shame. Even a labour government did not build nearly enough affordable homes in their time in government. With Ed Miliband coming out at his conference in support of Margret Thatchers right to buy scheme it shows where his and his parties priorities lay. Not with the working class.



We say :
§ Build a million affordable new homes to ease the housing crisis immediately.
§ Nationalise the construction industry, banks and financial institutions, under democratic workers' control and management.


then look to build more homes as the need is wanted. This will not only provide new decent affordable homes for ordinary people but will provide jobs in the construction industry which has seen its work hit as a lack of building projects as a result of the cuts. This could be just one way of getthing things moving again. Of course as socialists we'd want to go further but this would be a key first step and would make a big difference to many ordinary working class people today.

Povety minimum wage

On tonights BBC panarama it was shown that many companies avoid and use ways of getting around paying the national minimum wage to workers. The lowest paid workers in society and already feeling the strain who are constantly under attack from their boss's have very little room to breath with living standards falling and the cost of living rising sharply.

Many companies will try and get round having to pay minimum wage which for adults which now sits at £6.08 p which is scandelous in itself in my view. They will try to do this by putting misleading clauses in the small print of workers contracts that's if they get a contract which again by law they must have. They may claim that the worker is self employed for example many trainee hairdressers in this country now are classed as "self employed" getting their employers out of paying any holiday pay and can pay under the minimum wage. This is also the case notably in the care sector which it is estimated up to 200,00 care workers could be being paid less than the national legal minimum wage.

Another area which companies use to exploit workers are graduates who straight out of university with a degree desperatly wishing to find work to start paying some of their huge debt they have mounted up via tuitian fees are finding they are having to take internships and jobs below the minimum wage.


This is a disgrace again and is total exploitation of young people and workers. Due to the shortage of jobs at the moment with nearly 1 million young people unemployed its no wonder young people will take anything they can get to get money and avoid being labeled unemployed as it would seem the media have turned it into something of a stigma .

I will blog about this in another blog but unpaid internships should be abolished in my view. They are deeply unfair to those who cannot afford to work for nothing to gain experience and often you end up doing the same job as if you were employed properly only difference being you get paid nothing at all maybe only expenses for travel if your lucky.

This is quite common amongst our very own MP;s the shining light of democracy and upholding of morals and the law note the sarcasm there unpaid internships with MP's and their offices is rife right across the political spectrum in Westminster from tories to Labour and Liberals.

So when a MP starts banging on about internships and how unfair they are do remember to think they are probably employing unpaid interns for work that should be paid for legally.


A Labour Research Department publication has stated that the TUC welcomed the government's confirmation that the National Minimum Wage (NMW) for workers aged 21 and over will go up by 2.5%. This really is the TUC clutching at straws because this percentage increase amounts to a 15p increase in the hourly rate from October taking the NMW to £6.08.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said that the increases showed that the government "understands the NMW must remain an important part of working life". He apparently went on to point out that there was evidence that workers on the NMW spent all their pay rises where they work and live.

Someone should point out to Brendan Barber that on the current level of the national minimum wage and the pay rise workers could not afford to travel far to spend it. The closest Brendan Barber comes to criticising what amounts to a drop in the living standards for those on the national minimum wage, given price rises, is when he called the proposed rises "modest".

Barber of course does not criticise the current level of the national minimum wage because it was his New Labour friends in government that maintained it at a poverty level. I don't recall generous increases when they were in power during a so-called boom.

If this so-called increase for 21 year-olds and over is not a disgrace enough, the rate for young workers, - 18 to 20 year olds and 16 to 17 year olds will only rise by 1.2% and 1.1% respectively. For many all capitalism can offer is legalised poverty, where young workers are valued less and exploited more than older workers.

If Barber and most of the other trade union leaders won't lead the fightback against the Con-Dems or any other government that seeks to place the burden of the crisis of capitalism on our shoulders, then they should stand aside for those who will.

The Socialist Party fights for a minimum wage of £8 per hour for all.
We feel a fair days work should be equalled with a fair days pay no if's and no buts. Employees should think more of their workers rights than their profits. Onlya change in society will bring this fully into line i believe.

The money is certainly available in society, but it's by only working people getting organised and fighting for a socialist society, that we will be able to meet our needs and redistribute the wealth of society in a planned and democratic way.

NOT ONLY do Britain's employers and government want us to work for longer years for smaller pensions. They also want us to work more hours a week - and they'd rather we toiled unpaid too!

Employees in Britain work the longest hours in western Europe but a TUC survey shows that millions of workers do £23 billion worth of unpaid overtime a year. They regularly put in extra hours - averaging about two months a year - without getting paid a penny for it.

The worker pressed into unpaid overtime would receive an extra £4,650 if he or she got paid at the proper rate. The total shortfall adds up to £23 billion.

Teachers and lecturers get the worst deal, doing on average 11 hours and 36 minutes unpaid overtime a week - and that could be a huge under-estimate. Lecturers' union NATFHE calculates that their members are underpaid by £215 a week for their overtime.

who are the striking workers on november 30th going to vote for next year ?

Who are the strikers going to vote for in the May 2012 elections?
Next May sees local government elections across the country as well as elections for the Greater London Assembly and London Mayor. We need to start preparing our campaigns now. Raise the issue with your local anti-cuts campaign and local trade union branches. Do they want to support an anti-cuts candidate?
In London, initial discussions have taken place between union representatives in the RMT and FBU at a regional level and it has been agreed to seek support from other trade unionists to stand anti-cuts candidates for the GLA.

TUSC networking in the South East is underway
Brighton TUSC has recently won over socialist greens to join them:http://bit.ly/mn4I9R. Dave Hill from Brighton recently spoke at Lewes TUSC to make connections there. If you are setting up a local TUSC then let us know and we will advertise it in the bulletin tuscbulletin@yahoo.co.uk – it will encourage others in your region to do the same.

Get writing to the local press – it is quick and free publicity for TUSC

This is very important i feel as if we can gain some national publicity we can really start to broaden out our message and appeal to more. I feel that having struggles with big strikes will help raise the ideas fora new workers party With Ed Miliband and his Labour party looking to move further away from the trade unions and ordinary working people by weakening the democratic structures of his labour party even more.

The question will come back again next year who do workers vote for if labour do seemingly do not represent us ?

Well there is an alternative its TUSC, Trade union and socialist coalition. standing against all cuts, to all jobs and services saying no to privatisation.

you can find out more at our site here
www.tusc.org.uk

The need for a new workers party has more traction more than ever the conditions are right but the contiousness still isnt quite there. The main thing is ordinary people get to know they have a voice if they wish to use it. If they wish to stand for TUSC or get involved in our campaigns we'd be happy to involve anyone.

As long as you oppose all cuts to all jobs and services and stand with ordinary working people and not look to make a quick career driven financial gain we'd be happy for you to help us fight for workers.


National meeting of TUSC Independent Socialist Network – can you make it?

The ISN is for all socialists and trade union members who are not members of existing left groups (eg SP, SWP etc) who want to build a new socialist party to represent the working class and who want to build TUSC as part of that process. The first national meeting of the TUSC Independent Socialist Network will take place on Saturday October 29 in central London – it will start at 12 noon and finish at 5.30. The venue and agenda will be carried in the next bulletin. There will be a registration fee to pay for the venue. If you want to attend or would like more information e-mail wsmcmahon@yahoo.co.uk




So Next year 2012 looks to be a even bigger year than 2011 where alot has happened. But after the 24 hour public sector general strike on 30th november workers will be wondering who can we vote for. We have to get the message out there that there is a party for them and trade unionists. TUSC will stand shoulder to shoulder with all striking workers and lend support wherever we can.

Their fight is our fight.

As inner cities erupt a mass workers movement is required to defeat the government

this excellent article posted on the socialist party's websitea nd due to be in this weeks socialist newspaper by Hannah Sell, the deputy General secretary of the socialist party. More great articles are available to read online at
www.socialistparty.org.uk

Hannah Sell, Socialist Party deputy general secretary
"The scenes of despair and explosions of anger like those of 1981 will be back on our streets.

"Deprived areas of major cities - if not the central areas, then the 'banlieus' or outskirts as in France - will be the scene of new conflagrations."

This is the warning that the Socialist Party gave just four months ago, in our article on the anniversary of the Brixton riots. This morning thousands of people have woken up to the devastation of their communities.

Today is a tragedy for the small shopkeepers whose businesses have been looted or set alight, the workers whose cars have been burnt out, and perhaps worst of all for those who have seen their homes go up in smoke.

Firefighters have faced horrendous problems trying to fight the fires in the midst of the riots.

The current outbursts of street anger are the biggest Britain has seen since the mid-1980s. Belatedly government ministers have dragged themselves back from their holidays in order to try and 'restore order'.

Parliament has been recalled for Thursday, but so far the only response of the capitalist politicians has been to shriek about "the mob", "criminals" and "mindless violence".

Workers living in the communities affected are inevitably angry at the destruction that has taken place, but will also be enraged by the government's attempts to absolve itself of responsibility for the situation.

Unfortunately, New Labour's response has been essentially the same as that of the Tories. Ed Miliband has simply called the riots "disgraceful criminal behaviour" and has demanded that David Cameron orders "the strongest possible police response".

Diane Abbot, MP for Hackney North and historically on the left of the Labour Party, has called for a curfew to be considered.

The leadership of New Labour has done nothing to point out the reasons why young people are rioting. This is not surprising.

Mass unemployment, cuts in public services and police harassment and stop and search all grew when New Labour was in power. Despite all the capitalist politicians' attempts to ignore reality, it is no coincidence that Britain is burning in August 2011 - it flows from the social conditions faced by a generation of young people in the inner cities.

During the 1980s disturbances, the then Tory government decried those on the streets as "hooligans". Now that those riots are a distant memory, Edwina Currie and other Tories are willing to recognise that the rioters had the legitimate grievances of mass unemployment and police prejudice, but claim everything is different today.

In reality nothing fundamental has changed for youth in inner city areas.

The present events are a cry of rage and despair by members of a generation that has been thrown on the scrapheap. They are not race riots, but involve poor young people, living in the inner-cities, from every ethnic background.


Angry and deprived
The motives of those involved vary, but they centre on a single theme, summed up by one woman interviewed on the Today radio four programme: "I am not a thief but I am angry.

"What have we got? - nothing." Unlike her, others had taken part in order to loot shops. Electrical goods and sportswear shops were targeted in many areas, but so were supermarkets.

In Tottenham, Aldi was emptied, in Lewisham, Morrisons. It was not only 'luxury' goods, but the most basic necessities of life that people were queuing up to take.

What does it say about Britain, an 'advanced' capitalist country, that so many people are desperate enough, and unconcerned enough about the consequences, to take part in mass looting of shops? Young people with a job worth having, and prospects for a future, do not generally take part in such actions.

But in Britain today there are almost a million unemployed young people who have been effectively told they have no prospects for the future. As the world's stock markets tumble, the feeling that capitalism offers no prospects for the 'lost generation' is inevitably growing.

Already, across London youth unemployment is 23%, in inner city areas it is far higher.

Hackney and Tower Hamlets have the highest youth unemployment in the country, with Tottenham not far behind. These young people live a very few miles from the millionaires and billionaires of the City of London, yet have little prospect of earning the minimum wage, never mind getting a decent job.

The real looters are the city financiers who have made billions from gambling on the world's stock markets and looting the economy of whole countries, driving entire populations - as in Greece - into dire poverty.

Is it any wonder, in a society that encourages private entrepreneurs to make a profit by any means necessary, that unemployed youth decide to try and obtain a few goods by whatever means they can?


Ethnic minorities
While the riots are not 'race riots', and involve young people from all ethnic groups, it is true that many are black. The capitalist politicians try to dismiss the idea that racism still exists in Britain today, but that is simply not true.

All ethnic minorities in Britain still earn less, on average, than white people, with differences amongst men ranging from earning an average of 10% less for Chinese men, to 27% less for Bangladeshi men.

Even those ethnic minority communities with very high levels of higher education qualifications still suffer worse pay. All ethnic minorities have higher than average rates of poverty.

Rates of poverty are highest for Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and black Africans, reaching nearly two thirds for Bangladeshis.

At the same time ethnic minorities are barely represented as the managers and employers of big companies. None of the 98 high court judges come from ethnic minorities, and only four of the 563 circuit judges.

Less than 1% of the army come from ethnic minorities. There are pathetically few black and Asian MPs.

British capitalism has proved itself incapable of qualitatively improving the living conditions of all but a tiny minority of black and Asian people.

Anger at police harassment is a major factor in the explosion that has taken place. In Tottenham the spark was anger at the police shooting of Mark Duggan.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has already had to admit that, despite police claims that Mark Duggan had fired at them first, the bullet embedded in a police radio was actually police issue.

People in Tottenham are right to have no faith in the IPCC to carry out an independent investigation. The trade union movement must demand a genuinely independent inquiry, made up of elected representatives from the local trade unions, community organisations and especially the youth.

A similar enquiry is needed into the riots that have taken place and their causes. Many of those interviewed taking part in the riots across the country express fury at the endless police stop and searches that they face.

From 2005 to 2009 police searches of Asian people increased 84% and black people by 51%. Now the state wants to go even further using 'Section 60' to extend their powers to stop and search without grounds for suspicion.

Peaceful protests have taken place on these issues, but nothing has changed, leading to a feeling that 'more' is needed. In Tottenham the family and friends of Mark Duggan had marched to the police station and waited in vain for hours for a senior officer to address them.

This was not an isolated occurrence. One young man in Tottenham told NBC: "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you? Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press.

"Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."


Riot police in Hackney, 8.8.11, photo Paul Mattsson (Click to enlarge)
Cuts in services
Mass unemployment and police harassment have created an explosive situation. For many, the final straw has been the taking away of the few crumbs which were designed to at least ameliorate the effects of mass youth unemployment.

The government has abolished the EMA grant, despite mass protests, which had at least made it possible for working class young people to attend college.

Despite endless demands on young people to 'better themselves' and 'get an education' the one concrete measure that made it possible to get an education has now been taken away.

In addition, the raising of university tuition fees to £9,000 a year has deterred many working class youth from considering the avenue of higher education.

Other government cuts in already overstretched public services, implemented by Labour as well as Tory and Liberal councils, have also contributed to the situation.

Rather than defend their local communities and refuse to implement the cuts, as the Socialist Party demands and Liverpool City Council did in the 1980s - every single Labour council has slashed public services.

In Tottenham the youth service has been cut by 75%. Nationally, Connexions, the service that provided careers and benefits advice for young people, has been destroyed.

Many local authorities now provide no advice service at all for young people. Yet this is only the first year of cuts; councils plan to implement far more in the coming years.

The government is now trying to dismiss any link between cuts and the riots, yet just weeks before the general election, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg warned that Tory cuts would lead to riots.

It is a sign of the extreme short-sightedness of the current government that it has encouraged cuts in the services which provided an element of 'social control' by the government over young people.

The relatively small sums saved by the cuts will now have to spent ten times over in dealing with the consequences of the riots. In the wake of the riots, community campaigns to demand immediate reopening of all closed youth facilities and of Connexions, funded by central government, could force the government to reverse these cuts.


Hackney, 8.8.11, photo Paul Mattsson (Click to enlarge)
Rioting- no solution
However, rioting is not the means to defeat the government, but, on the contrary, only damages the communities in which working-class people live, and gives the capitalist class an excuse to increase the repressive apparatus of the state.

The Socialist Party does not agree with those on the left who condone the riots, such as the Socialist Workers Party, whose posters in the areas affected by riots declare them to be a step from 'riot to revolution'.

The present disturbances are an indication of blind rage against the system. Undoubtedly, some of the young people involved will have taken inspiration from the revolutions that have overthrown dictatorships in the Middle East, and the movement of the squares in Greece and Spain.

However, these movements were of a very different character to the riots. While each country has had different characteristics, all the occupations of the squares - from Spain to Egypt - were relatively disciplined mass protests which both opposed and largely prevented acts of violence against local shops etc.

This is one reason that, while all the movements largely began with young people, they were able to reach out to, and win the support of the wider population.

By contrast, while the riots have received huge media coverage, they are allowing the capitalist media and the government to further demonise young people, and to potentially divide the struggle against the government.

However, the government can only be defeated by building a mass, united movement of all those under attack from it. The organised working class in the trade unions have the key role to play.

In Egypt it was when the working class organised general strike action that Mubarak was finally defeated. Historically in Britain, Thatcher's poll tax was not defeated, as some on the left claim, as a result of the March 1990 riot, but because of an organised mass campaign of non payment, involving 18 million people.

Trade union action
This year in Britain, the day that has frightened the government most was 30 June, when 750,000 public sector workers took strike action. Unfortunately, however, on 30 June it was only around one fifth of public sector workers who were called out by the trade union leaders to take strike action.

The leaders of the biggest public sector unions argued against participating, despite widespread demands for action from their members. The failure of the leadership of the trade union movement in Britain to lead a serious struggle to defeat all the cuts is a central reason why the riots have erupted.


Riot police in Hackney, 8.8.11, photo Paul Mattsson (Click to enlarge)
Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, warned that the cuts would lead to riots, but has not been prepared to take the action that could have prevented them.

If, as we demanded, the TUC had conducted a serious battle to defeat the government, mobilising its seven million members, the government could have been forced from office by now.

If the TUC had called a national demonstration against cuts in October last year, mobilised for joint action with the students in November, and called a one-day public sector strike, it would have mobilised huge popular support, and would have been able to act as a pole of attraction for the most oppressed sections of young people.

Having delayed, the TUC needs to act decisively now. It should immediately call a national trade union demonstration to oppose all cuts and demand a future for young people.

This should be a step towards the next day of coordinated strike action in the autumn, which this time should involve all 4 million public sector workers, and be combined with a one-day strike of school, college and university students.

A trade union demonstration needs to show clearly that the trade unions stand together with young people. The widespread trade union support for Youth Fight for Jobs (YFJ), and its Jarrow March against youth unemployment in the autumn, is one important means to demonstrate this.

However, it is also important the demonstration is called around clear demands. These should include the immediate reinstatement of EMA and abolition of university tuition fees.

It should also oppose any attempts by the government to use the riots in order to increase harassment of young people.

On the contrary it should demand the withdrawal of the stop and search laws being used to harass young people, and clearly oppose any attempts to increase the repressive apparatus of the state; Teresa May previously made clear she would like to bring water cannon and teargas to Britain, and the immediate use of rubber bullets is being considered.

If this is done it will be used in the future against workers and student demonstrations, just as police brutality was used against the students last year.

The trade union movement should also call for control of the police to be placed under the auspices of democratically elected local police committees.

The explosion of anger on Britain's streets is above all a condemnation of capitalism, and its inability to offer the next generation even the measly standard of living that workers have had in the last twenty years.

The trade union movement needs to act to show it is on the side of young people, but to be fully effective this needs to be linked to the struggle to develop a new mass party for workers and youth which stands for a socialist society.

Only by taking the big corporations that dominate Britain's economy into democratic public ownership would it be possible to begin to provide a real future for young people.

Capitalism is incapable of providing even the basics - a decent job, a home, an education - to the next generation. Democratic socialism would mean production could be planned to meet the needs of all and not for profits of a few.

The Socialist Party demands:
An independent trade union-led inquiry into the death of Mark Duggan and into the causes of and policing of the riots. Scrap the IPCC. We need police accountability through democratic control by local people.
End stop and search. No to section 60.
For control of the police to be placed under the auspices of democratically elected local committees involving representatives from trade unions, councils, tenants associations, and community organisations.
For the government to immediately cover the uninsured losses and repairs of all small businesses and homeowners affected by the riots.
For councils to immediately re-house those who lost their homes in the riots. For investment in social house building and renovation, creating jobs and improving health.
For the immediate reversal of the closure of local youth and Connexions services. Funding from central government to pay for it.
No to all cuts in jobs and public services. Free education and training for all. Reinstate EMA and abolish tuition fees. We demand huge public investment in job creation and services.
Build a mass campaign to fight for these demands but also to fight for socialist change in the way society is run, with democratic planning of how we use the wealth and resources of society - under working class control and management, not that of the millionaires.