So as we near the biggest strike in decades next wednesday workers wil be wondering who do we have to vote for ? who can we rely on to speak up for us apart from our unions ?
The very same question cross's my mind regularly and i do not think it is the labour party any longer. Despite what some of their more left wing members say they cannot disguise the fact their leadership have been silent on the strikes and the public sector pensions dispute till now. On June the 30th Ed Miliband was quoted as saying these strikes are wrong while negotiations are still going on. Of course there were no negotiations going on Ed and his condemnation of the strikes angered many ordinary working people.
There is a change going on and if Ed fails to support next wednesdays action where up to 4 million workers could be downing tools and striking he will loose all credibility he ever had in the labour movement. He'll be a dead force and have no respect left.
So then who will support workers you ask. I think TUSC although a small force at the moment can gain hugely if we place ourselves on the picket lines offering an alternative to the big 3 pro capitalist parties putting greed before workers need everytime.
TUSC - Trade Union and Socialist Coalition were formed a year or two ago and stands against all cuts and no privatisation a stark contrast to labours pathetic too far too fast line to cuts.
It is interesting to note Unite the Union are operating a completely opposing policy to the labour leadership now and oppose labours too far too fast line. We dont believe there should be a single cut made and a explicit no to all cuts stance is needed. Afterall what is a fair cut ?
to us in the socialist party there is no such thing as a fair cut. Why should we dictate who looses their job over another. Why should we decide who is a more important worker. We shouldnt be and that is another reason why i'm against all cuts.
There is plenty money in our society plenty of money at the top of society. 14 billion in bankers bonus's alone last year and you tell me there is no money left to keep local youth centres open, keep our valuable libraries open for all to enjoy and benifit from ?
Nonsense and if you hear labour tell you we need to make the cuts there is no alternative tll them to look up Liverpool city council in the 80's where the Militant influenced council refused to make any cuts and had great success in building 5000 new affordable social housing, new sports centres, pulled down old delaperdated areas and invested in construction and new jobs. Not a single worker lost their job back then despite what people say and that is the route all labour councils shuld be at leas c onsidering. If one labour council refused to pass on the cuts it would have a huge affect on the movement. But just like this year i do not see this happening. Not on a mass scale anyhow. Maybe one or two labour councillors who still have principles may vote against the cuts. But understand they will be expelled for going against labour party policy. What does that say about a Labour Party who expells their own members and councillors who dare to fight for the working class ? absolutely shocking.
So it is essential TUSC is put forward on N30 as a alternative to the capitalist parties and we stand strong against all cuts as we must be providing a beacon to workers who are looking for an alternative to labour who sell them out time after time.
In stevenage this year we stood candidates in every ward and recieved a very good vote. Granted we did not get anyone elected yet but if we compare the Labour party's figures back when they first formed they were getting 1%'s and the like back then and some still supported the liberals for a time . So we need a new break from the pro capitalist parties and i believe TUSC is that force and can be built on and broadened out to bring in all workers in struggle, all anti cuts groups and anyone who opposes this rotten capitalist system.
To find out more about TUSC and how you can support us please visit
www.TUSC.org.uk
subscribe to this blog:
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label against the cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label against the cuts. Show all posts
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
Monday, 1 August 2011
Report from 16th July TUSC annual conference
a few weeks late i know but thought i'd republish the report from teh TUSC conference i attended written up by will. I hope it can help a few more people understand our aims and why we aer involved in TUSC and can hopefully get involved too.
The Conference morning session concentrated on the political context 12 months after the General Election, with Dave Nellist in the Chair. Hannah Sell (SP) argued that TUSC was establishing itself and had an important electoral role to play. Simon Hestor (SWP), the TUSC Agent in Tottenham, argued that socialists had an important role to play in the present capitalist crisis. TUSC could establish itself as a serious alternative. He was not sure TUSC should oppose Livingstone for Lord Mayor as he would be seen by the working class as the main opposition to Boris Johnson. John McInally (PCS Vice Pres) described how the PCS was balloting members on supporting anti cuts candidates. TUSC was a key element of the process that was unfolding, he argued.
A number of points were made from the floor, including:
■TUSC should contest all three aspects of the London elections – GLA, Constituency and Mayoral
■The mayoral elections enable political positions to be posted to every household via a booklet
■TUSC should build on what it has achieved so far
■It was important to campaign between elections, stressing the importance of fighting the cuts
■TUSC members should raise the issue of migrants rights in anti cuts committees, and support for migrants should be added to the TUSC policy statement
■London RMT members want to encourage left groups, TU branches and community groups to join them in building anti cuts electoral alternative that could become part of TUSC
■We need to involve service users more in the anti cuts movement
■We should move towards building a new Party and get national recognition
■The working class still votes Labour for class reasons
■The Murdoch crisis could yet force a general election
■Trade unions may want to stand candidates, not necessarily as TUSC
■We should aim to win seats despite the difficulties in doing that
■We need to grow and be open to others on the left
■Leicester Against the Cuts wrote to every candidate/party threatening to stand against any who would not oppose the cuts. They ended up standing 9 TUSC candidates as part of a broader coalition, and gained much publicity as a result.
■There is a need to expose Labour’s refusal to oppose cuts at Council level
The platform speakers summed up their positions and responded to the discussion.
The afternoon session was about building TUSC. Clive Heemskirk (SP) moved the Steering Committee proposals which reiterated the founding statement and that TUSC’s main aim was to provide an electoral title for orgaisations who wished to use it as part of a wider challenge. It went further by calling for a TUSC Conference before the end of 2011 to prepare for the 2012 Council Elections. It called for the Steering Committee to be enlarged to include a representative of independents through the TUSC Independent Socialist Network. The Steering Committee would also be able to include additional supporting political groups. It called for local TUSC Steering Committees to be established in areas TUSC would be standing candidates, and it stated clearly that these were interim arrangements and that discussions would continue on how best to organise TUSC as it developed, and this would be an agenda item at all future TUSC Conferences. Any prospective candidate would be asked to endorse TUSC’s Founding Statement and other relevant additional policy statements.
In motivating the proposals, Clive Heemskirk spoke of the need for a plan to develop TUSC. He argued for a wide electoral challenge. The national structure should remain federal, he argued, with individual trade unionists part of it as affiliation was not likely at present. TUSC was beginning to have an effect, with Milliband pulling out of the Durham Gala because Bob Crow had been invited to speak. He outlined why it was important for independent socialists to have a place on the Steering Committee. He concluded by saying TUSC was a work in progress, and at present it was particularly positive that the electoral title could be used by all socialists and anti cuts campaigners who agreed with the core policies. He was not opposed to the position being put forward by Rugby TUSC.
Pete McLaren moved the resolution from Rugby TUSC that Clive had referred to. It expressed satisfaction with TUSC’s performance in the Council elections, suggesting political foundations had been laid. Results showed there was support for socialist ideas, indicating TUSC had the potential to become a significant political force.
To build on these foundations, Rugby TUSC was suggesting that TUSC should campaign against all the attacks on the working class, including the cuts; that TUSC Branches should be built up and down the country; that candidates should be selected as part of preparing now for 2012; TUSC should work locally with anti cuts and community groups to provide a wide as possible challenge. The resolution concluded by suggesting TUSC should broaden out its structure at national level to welcome representation from local TUSC branches, trade union branches, political organisations and independents supportive of TUSC.
In motivation, Pete McLaren outlined what had been achieved in Rugby. TUSC had emerged out of Rugby Against the Cuts. This development was a result of Rugby Against the Cuts deciding to stand anti cuts candidates in all 16 wards where there was no anti cuts candidate. All retiring Councillors and prospective candidates were contacted, but none were prepared to sign the pledge against the cuts that was issued. A TUSC branch was set up, and seven candidates were selected. These included the Chair of Warwickshire FBU, the Rugby RMT Health & Safety Rep and the Warwickshire UNITE Youth Workers Secretary. In the event, Pete McLaren continued, TUSC averaged 7.2% across its 7 wards. Rugby TUSC candidate’s ratio to Labour votes was 1:4, compared to the TUSC national average of 1:10. Ten Media Releases had resulted in 12 press articles about TUSC, three radio interviews, two press letters about TUSC and two articles included on socialist blogs. There was now an active TUSC Branch with a contact list of 15 and plans laid for stalls and a Public Meeting. He then outlined the main points of the Rugby TUSC resolution, stressing that TUSC needed to build on the foundations it had laid – local branches should be set up, and they should campaign against the cuts and all attacks on the working class. TUSC should work within anti cuts committees. TUSC should also be built nationally and broaden its structures to welcome representatives of TUSC branches, TU branches, supportive political groups and independents, he argued. He concluded by stressing that the resolution did not suggest how groups and representatives could become a structural part of TUSC – this must be open for discussion. It could be a two tier structure – the SC much as now, and a National Council with reps directly elected from branches, organisations and the ISN – or it could be an enlarged SC with indirect elections – local branches elect two people to represent all branches; supportive TU branches elect two people to represent TU branches; political organisations elect two; ISN elects two, for example. He concluded by suggesting we use the TUSC Bulletin to debate the best method of achieving that level of representation.
Points made in the discussion included:
■Any organisation must be democratic, with the right to recall
■We must oppose all cuts
■The Labour Party was invisible on many anti cuts demonstrations
■We need to bring TUSC into daily struggles
■We need to stand as widely as possible and not worry about small votes
■We need to develop roots and build a national organisation with a national press strategy
■TUSC is a work in progress and its development will depend on objective circumstances
■There is a void on opposing the cuts that TUSC can fill – even the Green party, which is seen as anti cuts, has no actual strategy and, in Brighton, within the Anti Cuts Committee the Green party opposed TUSC’s ‘No Cuts’ position. Only one Green candidate supported an anti cuts pledge and, once elected, he withdrew his support!
■TUSC has huge potential. It can become professional and confident. The Bulletin already goes out to 1,500 supporters. There is more we could do to promote TUSC further – we should promote TUSC at every opportunity.
■We need to involve our supporters more
Clive Heemskirk replied to the debate. He agreed TUSC needed to develop structures, and he agreed with Pete McLaren’s motivation. Rugby was a model for others to follow, he suggested. We should stand widely. If there are TUs who want to stand candidates we should do our best to persuade them to stand as TUSC. He accepted we needed to use the national media. He again pointed at the success achieved in Rugby, and called on supporters to seize the opportunity.
Dave Nellist, from the chair, put both statements/motions to the vote. Both the Framework from the Steering Committee and the motion from Rugby were agreed without dissent as consultative/indicative votes dependent only on formal approval from the trade unions involved in the Steering Committee, in particular the RMT
Pete McLaren 18/07/11
The Conference morning session concentrated on the political context 12 months after the General Election, with Dave Nellist in the Chair. Hannah Sell (SP) argued that TUSC was establishing itself and had an important electoral role to play. Simon Hestor (SWP), the TUSC Agent in Tottenham, argued that socialists had an important role to play in the present capitalist crisis. TUSC could establish itself as a serious alternative. He was not sure TUSC should oppose Livingstone for Lord Mayor as he would be seen by the working class as the main opposition to Boris Johnson. John McInally (PCS Vice Pres) described how the PCS was balloting members on supporting anti cuts candidates. TUSC was a key element of the process that was unfolding, he argued.
A number of points were made from the floor, including:
■TUSC should contest all three aspects of the London elections – GLA, Constituency and Mayoral
■The mayoral elections enable political positions to be posted to every household via a booklet
■TUSC should build on what it has achieved so far
■It was important to campaign between elections, stressing the importance of fighting the cuts
■TUSC members should raise the issue of migrants rights in anti cuts committees, and support for migrants should be added to the TUSC policy statement
■London RMT members want to encourage left groups, TU branches and community groups to join them in building anti cuts electoral alternative that could become part of TUSC
■We need to involve service users more in the anti cuts movement
■We should move towards building a new Party and get national recognition
■The working class still votes Labour for class reasons
■The Murdoch crisis could yet force a general election
■Trade unions may want to stand candidates, not necessarily as TUSC
■We should aim to win seats despite the difficulties in doing that
■We need to grow and be open to others on the left
■Leicester Against the Cuts wrote to every candidate/party threatening to stand against any who would not oppose the cuts. They ended up standing 9 TUSC candidates as part of a broader coalition, and gained much publicity as a result.
■There is a need to expose Labour’s refusal to oppose cuts at Council level
The platform speakers summed up their positions and responded to the discussion.
The afternoon session was about building TUSC. Clive Heemskirk (SP) moved the Steering Committee proposals which reiterated the founding statement and that TUSC’s main aim was to provide an electoral title for orgaisations who wished to use it as part of a wider challenge. It went further by calling for a TUSC Conference before the end of 2011 to prepare for the 2012 Council Elections. It called for the Steering Committee to be enlarged to include a representative of independents through the TUSC Independent Socialist Network. The Steering Committee would also be able to include additional supporting political groups. It called for local TUSC Steering Committees to be established in areas TUSC would be standing candidates, and it stated clearly that these were interim arrangements and that discussions would continue on how best to organise TUSC as it developed, and this would be an agenda item at all future TUSC Conferences. Any prospective candidate would be asked to endorse TUSC’s Founding Statement and other relevant additional policy statements.
In motivating the proposals, Clive Heemskirk spoke of the need for a plan to develop TUSC. He argued for a wide electoral challenge. The national structure should remain federal, he argued, with individual trade unionists part of it as affiliation was not likely at present. TUSC was beginning to have an effect, with Milliband pulling out of the Durham Gala because Bob Crow had been invited to speak. He outlined why it was important for independent socialists to have a place on the Steering Committee. He concluded by saying TUSC was a work in progress, and at present it was particularly positive that the electoral title could be used by all socialists and anti cuts campaigners who agreed with the core policies. He was not opposed to the position being put forward by Rugby TUSC.
Pete McLaren moved the resolution from Rugby TUSC that Clive had referred to. It expressed satisfaction with TUSC’s performance in the Council elections, suggesting political foundations had been laid. Results showed there was support for socialist ideas, indicating TUSC had the potential to become a significant political force.
To build on these foundations, Rugby TUSC was suggesting that TUSC should campaign against all the attacks on the working class, including the cuts; that TUSC Branches should be built up and down the country; that candidates should be selected as part of preparing now for 2012; TUSC should work locally with anti cuts and community groups to provide a wide as possible challenge. The resolution concluded by suggesting TUSC should broaden out its structure at national level to welcome representation from local TUSC branches, trade union branches, political organisations and independents supportive of TUSC.
In motivation, Pete McLaren outlined what had been achieved in Rugby. TUSC had emerged out of Rugby Against the Cuts. This development was a result of Rugby Against the Cuts deciding to stand anti cuts candidates in all 16 wards where there was no anti cuts candidate. All retiring Councillors and prospective candidates were contacted, but none were prepared to sign the pledge against the cuts that was issued. A TUSC branch was set up, and seven candidates were selected. These included the Chair of Warwickshire FBU, the Rugby RMT Health & Safety Rep and the Warwickshire UNITE Youth Workers Secretary. In the event, Pete McLaren continued, TUSC averaged 7.2% across its 7 wards. Rugby TUSC candidate’s ratio to Labour votes was 1:4, compared to the TUSC national average of 1:10. Ten Media Releases had resulted in 12 press articles about TUSC, three radio interviews, two press letters about TUSC and two articles included on socialist blogs. There was now an active TUSC Branch with a contact list of 15 and plans laid for stalls and a Public Meeting. He then outlined the main points of the Rugby TUSC resolution, stressing that TUSC needed to build on the foundations it had laid – local branches should be set up, and they should campaign against the cuts and all attacks on the working class. TUSC should work within anti cuts committees. TUSC should also be built nationally and broaden its structures to welcome representatives of TUSC branches, TU branches, supportive political groups and independents, he argued. He concluded by stressing that the resolution did not suggest how groups and representatives could become a structural part of TUSC – this must be open for discussion. It could be a two tier structure – the SC much as now, and a National Council with reps directly elected from branches, organisations and the ISN – or it could be an enlarged SC with indirect elections – local branches elect two people to represent all branches; supportive TU branches elect two people to represent TU branches; political organisations elect two; ISN elects two, for example. He concluded by suggesting we use the TUSC Bulletin to debate the best method of achieving that level of representation.
Points made in the discussion included:
■Any organisation must be democratic, with the right to recall
■We must oppose all cuts
■The Labour Party was invisible on many anti cuts demonstrations
■We need to bring TUSC into daily struggles
■We need to stand as widely as possible and not worry about small votes
■We need to develop roots and build a national organisation with a national press strategy
■TUSC is a work in progress and its development will depend on objective circumstances
■There is a void on opposing the cuts that TUSC can fill – even the Green party, which is seen as anti cuts, has no actual strategy and, in Brighton, within the Anti Cuts Committee the Green party opposed TUSC’s ‘No Cuts’ position. Only one Green candidate supported an anti cuts pledge and, once elected, he withdrew his support!
■TUSC has huge potential. It can become professional and confident. The Bulletin already goes out to 1,500 supporters. There is more we could do to promote TUSC further – we should promote TUSC at every opportunity.
■We need to involve our supporters more
Clive Heemskirk replied to the debate. He agreed TUSC needed to develop structures, and he agreed with Pete McLaren’s motivation. Rugby was a model for others to follow, he suggested. We should stand widely. If there are TUs who want to stand candidates we should do our best to persuade them to stand as TUSC. He accepted we needed to use the national media. He again pointed at the success achieved in Rugby, and called on supporters to seize the opportunity.
Dave Nellist, from the chair, put both statements/motions to the vote. Both the Framework from the Steering Committee and the motion from Rugby were agreed without dissent as consultative/indicative votes dependent only on formal approval from the trade unions involved in the Steering Committee, in particular the RMT
Pete McLaren 18/07/11
Saturday, 11 June 2011
My thoughts on this years annual NSSN conference
SO today i attended the National Shops Stewards Netowkr annual conference with fellow trade unionists and anti cuts activists.
The conference which is in its 5th year now was held at the south Camden community school which we are always grateful for their support in lending us the building for the day.
just before half past 11 400 or so trade union activists packed into the main hall there to listen to Rob Williams the chair of the NSSN give a appraisal of the last year and the magnificent struggles and protests the students lead last year following this the superb TUC demo attended by 3 quarters of a million trade unionistsa and workers .
A quick point to those who desserted the NSSN after a democratic decision was taken to form a anti cuts committee in late January it was excellent to see that this has not dampened the spirit of those who still attended and certainly numbers were still very impressive. I'd estimate about 400 maybe more.
But throughout the morning and the afternoon sessions we were given some brilliant speechs from such people like Tony Mulhearn who was involved in the famous Liverpool 47 struggle in the mid 80's where 47 labour councillors took on the tory government and won. In stark contrast to todays liverpool city council again run by a labour run administration headed by Joe Anderson who has seen through huge cuts and a lot of hand ringing to go with it. Tony made the point if Liverpool residents were given the choice today we are sure the good people of Liverpool would prefer a fighting council willing to put up a fight and bravely stand by their workers and residents than waht we have today a lot of nothing and a lot of deep unessesary cuts passed on by a labour council.
We had several more excellent speakers in the morning session chaired by Rob Williams who has faced some struggles himself in the trade union movement himself which i may look at with his dispute with Ford another time it was a interesting dispute.
We had the excellent Jane Aitchison who said to us "More people support nationalisation of the banks than rewards for the bankers" i could not agree more. I really do such feeling is growing more and more per day.
Only a year or two ago John Redwood was quoted by saying we all look for ways to avoid paying tax. SSuch ways of how things have changed is a remark like that today would be heavily frowned upon today where there is little sympathy for the bankers who caused this economic crisis with their wreckless gambling speculative culture.
There were so many excellent speechs i dont think i have enough room on this blog to do themall justice but i felt so inspired by the whole event to know that there are trade unionists and activists willing to stand up for our class and fight the austerity project being enforced on us today.
There were recouring themes throughout the conference i felt. Many in the trade union movement will know about the upcoming co-ordinated strike action which ballot vote permissing we will have up to 3 quarters of a million workers out on strike on that day alone. This will be in conjunction with big mass rally's and demonstrations in our towns and cities across the land on this same day.
I believe there is a big demo planned on London for this day with a march and a rally to westminster too i will blog about that nearer the time sending solidarity to all workers taking industrial action to defend the pensions that are heavily under threat by this condem government.
There has always been trade union victimisation and we got to hear from both suspended London Underground Tube drivers Arwyn Thomas and Eamonn Lynch Eamonn who has since won his job back through tribunal yet Arwyn has disgracefully not this is why the RMT has called 4 days of solid strike action to coincide with June 30th to stand up for their fellow trade unionist who was disgracefully targetted due to his trade union activities although London Underground will not admit to that.
It is a crying shame that in the Uk we have some of the harshest anti trade union laws in Europe this was said once by Tony Blair a labour prime minister. The travesty is that during the last labour government failed to repeal any of the anti trade union laws in 13 years of a labour government. This just confirms to me how much labour care for workers. They dont.
We had excellent contributions from all unions i think We had Martin Powell Davies from the NUT who his union are also balloting for strike action on June 30th to the leader of the CWU in London who's members face loosing many of their mail sorting depots very soon if the privatisation of the royal mail goes through
There was many references to Vince Cables attack on the unions this week when he spoke at the GMB conference in Brighton. Many at the NSSN conference today wanted to take on Vince and show him workers can fight back and are not scared of him.
One activist from the PCS stood up to say mmy dad told me to stand up to bullies and if they come back for more give them a bloody great punch in the nose. This is exactly what the trade union movement and the organised working class plan to do on June the 30th.
Of course June the 30th is not the end. It is just the start to building pressure on teh TUC and other big unions such as Unite and Unison to join in the battles later in the year building for a all out public sector general strike to defend all we have gained as a class in the last 100 or so years.
Another point that kept being raised was the inaction of Unison with Dave prentice the general secretary of this union dragging his heels and holding his members back. Saying that his members dont want to fight and have no desire to strike in the autumn. This is not waht i hear and many Unison members want to join mass action with other trade unions such as PCS, NUT, CWU, NUJ and many more hopefully to come aboard .
I am sure to revisit this conference next year and detail it more in this blog in the coming weeks as we lead up to June the 30th which will hopefully be the closest we have coem to a all out public sector general strike for some time. Certainly many workers will be new to strike action and taking industrail action. These workers must be supported and given solidarity and not left on their own. A injury to one is a injury to all in this movement.
Lastly i'd like to mention the inspirational Greek bus union leader who came to speak at our conference today. I was so pleased to hear of other workers across the world facing cuts are fighting back too. As this is not a battle just limited to Britain this is a attack on all workers all over the world and a chance for the capitailists to regain what crumbs we have to repower their system.
The Greek union leader spoke through a translater but his message was loud and clear. They are ready to stand with us across Europe too. He said that Greece now has VAT now 23%, retirement at 67 years old and this is just the start.
In Greece teachers salaries cut from 1300 to 1000 Euros this is staggering and all things we can see being tried over here in Britain before long.
There was a mass standing ovation for this guys speech and we here in Britain wish him and his workers luck in their battles in Greece too.
So all in all todays NSSN conference was excellenta nd helped us discuss and build a strategy for taking on and fighting the cuts. Many trade unions and trades councils are being reformed and turned into fighting unions. But the fight must go on and the struggle must continue inside and outside the unions. This is just the start lets keep building for a better future.
The conference which is in its 5th year now was held at the south Camden community school which we are always grateful for their support in lending us the building for the day.
just before half past 11 400 or so trade union activists packed into the main hall there to listen to Rob Williams the chair of the NSSN give a appraisal of the last year and the magnificent struggles and protests the students lead last year following this the superb TUC demo attended by 3 quarters of a million trade unionistsa and workers .
A quick point to those who desserted the NSSN after a democratic decision was taken to form a anti cuts committee in late January it was excellent to see that this has not dampened the spirit of those who still attended and certainly numbers were still very impressive. I'd estimate about 400 maybe more.
But throughout the morning and the afternoon sessions we were given some brilliant speechs from such people like Tony Mulhearn who was involved in the famous Liverpool 47 struggle in the mid 80's where 47 labour councillors took on the tory government and won. In stark contrast to todays liverpool city council again run by a labour run administration headed by Joe Anderson who has seen through huge cuts and a lot of hand ringing to go with it. Tony made the point if Liverpool residents were given the choice today we are sure the good people of Liverpool would prefer a fighting council willing to put up a fight and bravely stand by their workers and residents than waht we have today a lot of nothing and a lot of deep unessesary cuts passed on by a labour council.
We had several more excellent speakers in the morning session chaired by Rob Williams who has faced some struggles himself in the trade union movement himself which i may look at with his dispute with Ford another time it was a interesting dispute.
We had the excellent Jane Aitchison who said to us "More people support nationalisation of the banks than rewards for the bankers" i could not agree more. I really do such feeling is growing more and more per day.
Only a year or two ago John Redwood was quoted by saying we all look for ways to avoid paying tax. SSuch ways of how things have changed is a remark like that today would be heavily frowned upon today where there is little sympathy for the bankers who caused this economic crisis with their wreckless gambling speculative culture.
There were so many excellent speechs i dont think i have enough room on this blog to do themall justice but i felt so inspired by the whole event to know that there are trade unionists and activists willing to stand up for our class and fight the austerity project being enforced on us today.
There were recouring themes throughout the conference i felt. Many in the trade union movement will know about the upcoming co-ordinated strike action which ballot vote permissing we will have up to 3 quarters of a million workers out on strike on that day alone. This will be in conjunction with big mass rally's and demonstrations in our towns and cities across the land on this same day.
I believe there is a big demo planned on London for this day with a march and a rally to westminster too i will blog about that nearer the time sending solidarity to all workers taking industrial action to defend the pensions that are heavily under threat by this condem government.
There has always been trade union victimisation and we got to hear from both suspended London Underground Tube drivers Arwyn Thomas and Eamonn Lynch Eamonn who has since won his job back through tribunal yet Arwyn has disgracefully not this is why the RMT has called 4 days of solid strike action to coincide with June 30th to stand up for their fellow trade unionist who was disgracefully targetted due to his trade union activities although London Underground will not admit to that.
It is a crying shame that in the Uk we have some of the harshest anti trade union laws in Europe this was said once by Tony Blair a labour prime minister. The travesty is that during the last labour government failed to repeal any of the anti trade union laws in 13 years of a labour government. This just confirms to me how much labour care for workers. They dont.
We had excellent contributions from all unions i think We had Martin Powell Davies from the NUT who his union are also balloting for strike action on June 30th to the leader of the CWU in London who's members face loosing many of their mail sorting depots very soon if the privatisation of the royal mail goes through
There was many references to Vince Cables attack on the unions this week when he spoke at the GMB conference in Brighton. Many at the NSSN conference today wanted to take on Vince and show him workers can fight back and are not scared of him.
One activist from the PCS stood up to say mmy dad told me to stand up to bullies and if they come back for more give them a bloody great punch in the nose. This is exactly what the trade union movement and the organised working class plan to do on June the 30th.
Of course June the 30th is not the end. It is just the start to building pressure on teh TUC and other big unions such as Unite and Unison to join in the battles later in the year building for a all out public sector general strike to defend all we have gained as a class in the last 100 or so years.
Another point that kept being raised was the inaction of Unison with Dave prentice the general secretary of this union dragging his heels and holding his members back. Saying that his members dont want to fight and have no desire to strike in the autumn. This is not waht i hear and many Unison members want to join mass action with other trade unions such as PCS, NUT, CWU, NUJ and many more hopefully to come aboard .
I am sure to revisit this conference next year and detail it more in this blog in the coming weeks as we lead up to June the 30th which will hopefully be the closest we have coem to a all out public sector general strike for some time. Certainly many workers will be new to strike action and taking industrail action. These workers must be supported and given solidarity and not left on their own. A injury to one is a injury to all in this movement.
Lastly i'd like to mention the inspirational Greek bus union leader who came to speak at our conference today. I was so pleased to hear of other workers across the world facing cuts are fighting back too. As this is not a battle just limited to Britain this is a attack on all workers all over the world and a chance for the capitailists to regain what crumbs we have to repower their system.
The Greek union leader spoke through a translater but his message was loud and clear. They are ready to stand with us across Europe too. He said that Greece now has VAT now 23%, retirement at 67 years old and this is just the start.
In Greece teachers salaries cut from 1300 to 1000 Euros this is staggering and all things we can see being tried over here in Britain before long.
There was a mass standing ovation for this guys speech and we here in Britain wish him and his workers luck in their battles in Greece too.
So all in all todays NSSN conference was excellenta nd helped us discuss and build a strategy for taking on and fighting the cuts. Many trade unions and trades councils are being reformed and turned into fighting unions. But the fight must go on and the struggle must continue inside and outside the unions. This is just the start lets keep building for a better future.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Government Con-demned at the ballot box
The general election of May 2010 seems a lifetime ago. For the thousand richest people in Britain, whose wealth has increased by 18%, the year that followed has been a resounding success.
The number of billionaires increased from 53 to 73. For the rest us the year has brought pain, with the biggest fall in family income since 1977 and cuts and privatisation of public services on an unprecedented scale.
The misery inflicted by the Coalition has not been taken lying down. We have seen the biggest student movement in twenty five years, and the biggest trade union demonstration in Britain's history.
At the end of June co-ordinated strike action against the cuts will begin.
Last Thursday however, was the first opportunity for voters to pass judgement on the Coalition at the ballot box. As was widely predicted beforehand, the Liberal Democrats bore the brunt of the population's anger, losing 700 councillors in England and 12 members of the Scottish Parliament.
Slapped, punched and kicked...
As Jonathon Freedland put in the Guardian: "The party was not just given a bloody nose by the electorate: it was slapped, punched, kicked and finally knifed before being left for dead."
The overwhelming defeat of the AV referendum was also a reflection of the population's fury with its main advocates, the Liberal Democrats. Some media commentators have attacked the electorate for voting in the referendum on 'trivial' grounds.
But given a rotten choice between two bad systems, why not vote in order to punish the Liberal Democrats? As even Nick Clegg admitted before the election, AV was a 'dirty little compromise' which would have been no fairer or more proportional than the existing system.
The Tories, by contrast, are breathing a sigh of relief that they have, for now, escaped the electoral consequences of their brutal policies. There are several reasons for this.
In the working class cities of the North the Tories are still hated for the crimes of Thatcher. As a result they had no councillors to lose.
The same is true in parts of London, where there were no elections this year.
Tories
In most of England, however, Tory councils still dominate, despite some gains for Labour including in Gravesham and Ipswich. The Tories were even able to marginally increase their numbers of councillors, largely by making gains from the Liberal Democrats.
This is no surprise - after all why vote for the monkey if you can have the organ grinder?
However, it would be a major error to assume the Tories will escape in future elections. A year into the Coalition government, there is still a section of society who believe the Tory propaganda that it was New Labour's policies in government that were responsible for the misery that is now being inflicted.
However, the Tories have only escaped punishment because the cuts, brutal as they are, are only just beginning to bite at local level. As local services close around voters' ears, anger at the government will increase, including in the seemingly safe Tory shires.
The Tories are aware of the electoral dangers they face, as was demonstrated by their hasty retreat from Suffolk County Council's plans to become an 'Easy' council and privatise virtually all of its services.
Nationally Labour gained over 800 seats despite, not because of, its policies. Millions voted Labour to punish the government, and in the hope that Labour councils would cut less brutally than those led by the Tories or Liberal Democrats. However, they did so without real enthusiasm.
Scotland
In Scotland, the SNP beat Labour decisively. A major factor in this was Liberal Democrat voters switching to the SNP.
However, the SNP also won in some working class inner city seats which were traditional Labour strongholds. This reflected a feeling that the SNP would be far more likely than Labour to fight in the interest of the working class in Scotland.
In reality, the SNP will attack, not defend, workers' living standards. However, the rejection of Labour for a seemingly more combative alternative is an illustration of workers' distrust of Labour, not just in Scotland but across Britain.
Even in Wales, where Labour made gains, it was left one seat short of a majority. Fundamentally, Labour's woeful failure to provide a combative and coherent opposition to the government flows from its support for the essence of the government's policies.
When in power Labour acted in the interests of big business, and in particular of finance capital. More privatisation of public services took place when New Labour was in office than under any previous government.
The deregulation of the City which began under the last Tory government continued apace under New Labour.
When the economic crisis began, New Labour bailed out the banks and demanded that working class people paid the price. Just like the Tories and Lib Dems, Labour support huge cuts in public services, just at a marginally slower rate.
New Labour said it would carry out cuts
In the last election New Labour said it would carry out cuts equal to 4/5ths of those being carried out by the current government. It is no surprise that, at local level, Labour councils are implementing government cuts without hesitation.
Such is the weakness of the Labour leadership they do not even seem to seriously aspire to a majority Labour government. On the contrary, Ed Miliband has again appealed to the hated Lib Dems, obviously trying to prepare the ground for a future Labour/Liberal coalition.
Labour was founded a century ago because the working class was no longer prepared to back the capitalist Liberal party. The development of Labour as - at base - a mass party of the working class, albeit with a capitalist leadership, marginalised the Liberals for an historical era.
It is ironic that today Labour is chasing after the Liberal Democrats just as the Liberal Democrats face electoral annihilation. It confirms again that Labour today is not a mass party of the working class but is one more capitalist party.
These elections demonstrate the worthlessness of the unspoken strategy of most national trade union leaders - to defeat the cuts by voting Labour. The election results will have bought home the need for coordinated strike action against the cuts to many trade unionists.
The weakness of the Coalition government has also been graphically highlighted by the election campaign. The cracks in the Coalition have become fissures.
This does not mean that it is about to collapse, although the pressure of different events - in particular of a mass movement of the working class - could break the government apart within a short period of time.
However, as the attempts since the election of Cameron and Clegg to declare peace show, neither party has any interest in breaking up the Coalition. For the cash-strapped and profoundly unpopular Liberal Democrats, triggering an early general election would be committing Hari Kari.
Coalition
Some on the right wing of the Tory party are bleating that Cameron should take advantage of the election results and break up the coalition in the vain hope that the collapse of the Liberal Democrats would deliver a Tory majority.
The leadership of the Tory party know better and, given their complete dominance of the Coalition, have no pressing reason to bring it to an end. However, as Philip Stevens commented in the Financial Times, "coalitions rot from the bottom up".
At the top, the Coalition parties are clinging to each other and to power. For the Lib Dem activists who are watching their party being destroyed, however, it is a different story.
Clegg
The ousted Lib Dem leader of Nottingham City Council has called for Clegg to resign immediately.
In response to the pressure of the party rank and file, Clegg has promised to be more "independent" of the Tories and for "a louder Lib Dem voice in government".
Objectively, the Lib Dem voice in government is now weaker than ever, but the pressure of Clegg and co. to stand up the Tories over the destruction of the NHS and the scale of the cuts is enormous.
To fail to do so will also be to commit Hari Kari, albeit more slowly.
Therefore the removal of Clegg, splits in the Lib Dems, and even their withdrawal from the government are all possibilities. The Lib Dems might then back an unstable Tory minority government from outside on a 'grace and favour' basis, or perhaps trigger a general election.
There are a number of fault lines for the government, including the difficulties that could be created at a later stage by a referendum in Scotland on independence.
Profound crisis of capitalism
But however it is manifested, the root of the government's weakness is the continuing profound crisis of capitalism in general and British capitalism in particular.
Far from being over, the economic crisis in Britain is ongoing. According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research Britain output will not reach the levels of 2008 until 2013. And even this may be optimistic.
The latest figures show that manufacturing, previously the part of the economy that had stuttered into growth, now has the second lowest level of new orders since the recovery began in 2009.
The fall in orders is a reflection of very weak demand in Britain, rather than reflecting the weakness Britain's puny exports.
No wonder. On average, workers are taking home £1,088 less a year than two years ago.
Their real pay has fallen by 5% since the beginning of 2009, which was half way through the recession. As the Bank of England governor Mervyn King admitted, workers are already suffering the most sustained fall in wages since the 1920s.
Bad as they are, the government's cuts have only just begun to bite, and will dramatically further depress demand. It is a pipe dream to imagine that British capitalism will be able to compensate with increased exports against a background of a profound crisis of Europe and world capitalism.
No way out
Half-million strong TUC demo, central London, 26 March 2011, against the government's cuts, photo Senan (Click to enlarge)
British capitalism has no way out other than to attempt to offload the crisis on the working class.
However, they are already facing mass resistance to their attempts to do so. The working class flexed its muscles on 26 March - when over half a million people marched in opposition to the cuts.
At the end of June the PCS and NUT, perhaps along with others, will strike together against the cuts and in defence of public sector pensions. In the other public sector unions the call for co-ordinated strike action is growing.
A 24 hour public sector general strike is on the agenda for 2011. This would terrify the government.
The working class in Britain now needs its own political voice more urgently than ever. The Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts candidates in the local elections, who received 25,000 votes, were a step in that direction.
Over the next year the anti-cuts movement can draw the conclusion that it is necessary to stand far more widely to offer an electoral alternative to the axe men and women.
Most importantly, faced with the barbarity of twenty first century capitalism, a growing number of workers and young people are searching for socialist ideas.
Our most important task in the immediate period is to reach them with a clear socialist programme.
The number of billionaires increased from 53 to 73. For the rest us the year has brought pain, with the biggest fall in family income since 1977 and cuts and privatisation of public services on an unprecedented scale.
The misery inflicted by the Coalition has not been taken lying down. We have seen the biggest student movement in twenty five years, and the biggest trade union demonstration in Britain's history.
At the end of June co-ordinated strike action against the cuts will begin.
Last Thursday however, was the first opportunity for voters to pass judgement on the Coalition at the ballot box. As was widely predicted beforehand, the Liberal Democrats bore the brunt of the population's anger, losing 700 councillors in England and 12 members of the Scottish Parliament.
Slapped, punched and kicked...
As Jonathon Freedland put in the Guardian: "The party was not just given a bloody nose by the electorate: it was slapped, punched, kicked and finally knifed before being left for dead."
The overwhelming defeat of the AV referendum was also a reflection of the population's fury with its main advocates, the Liberal Democrats. Some media commentators have attacked the electorate for voting in the referendum on 'trivial' grounds.
But given a rotten choice between two bad systems, why not vote in order to punish the Liberal Democrats? As even Nick Clegg admitted before the election, AV was a 'dirty little compromise' which would have been no fairer or more proportional than the existing system.
The Tories, by contrast, are breathing a sigh of relief that they have, for now, escaped the electoral consequences of their brutal policies. There are several reasons for this.
In the working class cities of the North the Tories are still hated for the crimes of Thatcher. As a result they had no councillors to lose.
The same is true in parts of London, where there were no elections this year.
Tories
In most of England, however, Tory councils still dominate, despite some gains for Labour including in Gravesham and Ipswich. The Tories were even able to marginally increase their numbers of councillors, largely by making gains from the Liberal Democrats.
This is no surprise - after all why vote for the monkey if you can have the organ grinder?
However, it would be a major error to assume the Tories will escape in future elections. A year into the Coalition government, there is still a section of society who believe the Tory propaganda that it was New Labour's policies in government that were responsible for the misery that is now being inflicted.
However, the Tories have only escaped punishment because the cuts, brutal as they are, are only just beginning to bite at local level. As local services close around voters' ears, anger at the government will increase, including in the seemingly safe Tory shires.
The Tories are aware of the electoral dangers they face, as was demonstrated by their hasty retreat from Suffolk County Council's plans to become an 'Easy' council and privatise virtually all of its services.
Nationally Labour gained over 800 seats despite, not because of, its policies. Millions voted Labour to punish the government, and in the hope that Labour councils would cut less brutally than those led by the Tories or Liberal Democrats. However, they did so without real enthusiasm.
Scotland
In Scotland, the SNP beat Labour decisively. A major factor in this was Liberal Democrat voters switching to the SNP.
However, the SNP also won in some working class inner city seats which were traditional Labour strongholds. This reflected a feeling that the SNP would be far more likely than Labour to fight in the interest of the working class in Scotland.
In reality, the SNP will attack, not defend, workers' living standards. However, the rejection of Labour for a seemingly more combative alternative is an illustration of workers' distrust of Labour, not just in Scotland but across Britain.
Even in Wales, where Labour made gains, it was left one seat short of a majority. Fundamentally, Labour's woeful failure to provide a combative and coherent opposition to the government flows from its support for the essence of the government's policies.
When in power Labour acted in the interests of big business, and in particular of finance capital. More privatisation of public services took place when New Labour was in office than under any previous government.
The deregulation of the City which began under the last Tory government continued apace under New Labour.
When the economic crisis began, New Labour bailed out the banks and demanded that working class people paid the price. Just like the Tories and Lib Dems, Labour support huge cuts in public services, just at a marginally slower rate.
New Labour said it would carry out cuts
In the last election New Labour said it would carry out cuts equal to 4/5ths of those being carried out by the current government. It is no surprise that, at local level, Labour councils are implementing government cuts without hesitation.
Such is the weakness of the Labour leadership they do not even seem to seriously aspire to a majority Labour government. On the contrary, Ed Miliband has again appealed to the hated Lib Dems, obviously trying to prepare the ground for a future Labour/Liberal coalition.
Labour was founded a century ago because the working class was no longer prepared to back the capitalist Liberal party. The development of Labour as - at base - a mass party of the working class, albeit with a capitalist leadership, marginalised the Liberals for an historical era.
It is ironic that today Labour is chasing after the Liberal Democrats just as the Liberal Democrats face electoral annihilation. It confirms again that Labour today is not a mass party of the working class but is one more capitalist party.
These elections demonstrate the worthlessness of the unspoken strategy of most national trade union leaders - to defeat the cuts by voting Labour. The election results will have bought home the need for coordinated strike action against the cuts to many trade unionists.
The weakness of the Coalition government has also been graphically highlighted by the election campaign. The cracks in the Coalition have become fissures.
This does not mean that it is about to collapse, although the pressure of different events - in particular of a mass movement of the working class - could break the government apart within a short period of time.
However, as the attempts since the election of Cameron and Clegg to declare peace show, neither party has any interest in breaking up the Coalition. For the cash-strapped and profoundly unpopular Liberal Democrats, triggering an early general election would be committing Hari Kari.
Coalition
Some on the right wing of the Tory party are bleating that Cameron should take advantage of the election results and break up the coalition in the vain hope that the collapse of the Liberal Democrats would deliver a Tory majority.
The leadership of the Tory party know better and, given their complete dominance of the Coalition, have no pressing reason to bring it to an end. However, as Philip Stevens commented in the Financial Times, "coalitions rot from the bottom up".
At the top, the Coalition parties are clinging to each other and to power. For the Lib Dem activists who are watching their party being destroyed, however, it is a different story.
Clegg
The ousted Lib Dem leader of Nottingham City Council has called for Clegg to resign immediately.
In response to the pressure of the party rank and file, Clegg has promised to be more "independent" of the Tories and for "a louder Lib Dem voice in government".
Objectively, the Lib Dem voice in government is now weaker than ever, but the pressure of Clegg and co. to stand up the Tories over the destruction of the NHS and the scale of the cuts is enormous.
To fail to do so will also be to commit Hari Kari, albeit more slowly.
Therefore the removal of Clegg, splits in the Lib Dems, and even their withdrawal from the government are all possibilities. The Lib Dems might then back an unstable Tory minority government from outside on a 'grace and favour' basis, or perhaps trigger a general election.
There are a number of fault lines for the government, including the difficulties that could be created at a later stage by a referendum in Scotland on independence.
Profound crisis of capitalism
But however it is manifested, the root of the government's weakness is the continuing profound crisis of capitalism in general and British capitalism in particular.
Far from being over, the economic crisis in Britain is ongoing. According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research Britain output will not reach the levels of 2008 until 2013. And even this may be optimistic.
The latest figures show that manufacturing, previously the part of the economy that had stuttered into growth, now has the second lowest level of new orders since the recovery began in 2009.
The fall in orders is a reflection of very weak demand in Britain, rather than reflecting the weakness Britain's puny exports.
No wonder. On average, workers are taking home £1,088 less a year than two years ago.
Their real pay has fallen by 5% since the beginning of 2009, which was half way through the recession. As the Bank of England governor Mervyn King admitted, workers are already suffering the most sustained fall in wages since the 1920s.
Bad as they are, the government's cuts have only just begun to bite, and will dramatically further depress demand. It is a pipe dream to imagine that British capitalism will be able to compensate with increased exports against a background of a profound crisis of Europe and world capitalism.
No way out
Half-million strong TUC demo, central London, 26 March 2011, against the government's cuts, photo Senan (Click to enlarge)
British capitalism has no way out other than to attempt to offload the crisis on the working class.
However, they are already facing mass resistance to their attempts to do so. The working class flexed its muscles on 26 March - when over half a million people marched in opposition to the cuts.
At the end of June the PCS and NUT, perhaps along with others, will strike together against the cuts and in defence of public sector pensions. In the other public sector unions the call for co-ordinated strike action is growing.
A 24 hour public sector general strike is on the agenda for 2011. This would terrify the government.
The working class in Britain now needs its own political voice more urgently than ever. The Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts candidates in the local elections, who received 25,000 votes, were a step in that direction.
Over the next year the anti-cuts movement can draw the conclusion that it is necessary to stand far more widely to offer an electoral alternative to the axe men and women.
Most importantly, faced with the barbarity of twenty first century capitalism, a growing number of workers and young people are searching for socialist ideas.
Our most important task in the immediate period is to reach them with a clear socialist programme.
Monday, 4 April 2011
socialists and trade unionists against the cuts in the local council elections
I've been meanign to do a post on this matter for a while but tonights branch meeting gave me some more thoughts.
As we all know the local council elections are fast approaching us on the 5th of May and the cuts are boundto play a big part in where the votes go. But a little known part under the banner of TUSC trade unionists socialist coalition a left wing umbrella taking people who want to stand against the status quo which is the big 3 main political parties who are all in favour of cuts just at varying paces but all for cuts none the less dont let them tell you any different.
Please do feel free to check out their site here .
http://www.tusc.org.uk/
As socialists we oppose all the cuts not just some of the cuts like labour we offer a real alternative to working class people who want something different who stands up for working class peoples needs.
TUSC has agreed the policy platform, outlined below, on which it is proposing to contest the elections to local councils that will take place next May in every area of England bar London. TUSC is also involved in discussions to organise an election challenge for the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly elections (there are no local elections in Scotland and Wales in 2011).
The local elections policy platform, agreed at a conference of TUSC supporters in January, is the basis on which any prospective council candidate who wishes to can stand under the TUSC name in May's elections.
The local elections policy platform is a supplement to the core policy statement that TUSC candidates endorsed when they stood in the general election in May 2010, which still stands as the basic policy position of the TUSC coalition (see 'Trade Unionists and Socialist Coalition Policies' below).
The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition policy platform for the 2011 local elections in England:
THE LOCAL council elections in May 2011 will be the first opportunity voters will have in England to register public opposition at the ballot box to the Con-Dem government's unparalleled attack on our public services.
But the elections are not just a chance to make a one-day 'protest vote'. They are also an opportunity to elect councillors who can actually stop many of the cuts from being implemented locally.
Over the years, it is true, local councils have been stripped of many of their powers over different services. Margaret Thatcher, who began this process, famously said, "I must take more power to the centre to stop socialism" - in other words, that public services that 'crowded out' the private sector should be curbed or, where they exist, should be opened up to private companies to make profits from public needs. It is a matter of record that the New Labour government carried on with this approach throughout its 13 years in office - the turnover of private companies running public services reached over £80 billion in 2008, for example, 126% higher than 1995-96 under the previous Tory government.
But councils still have enormous powers and responsibilities, controlling budgets totalling billions of pounds, spent on services from housing to schools, youth clubs, libraries, adult social care, crime reduction, sports centres, highways maintenance and refuse collection, to name but a few. They have legal powers, over some non-council provided services for example, including many of those now privatised, that they can exercise for our benefit.
What councillors do, therefore, can still affect the quality of our daily lives. They certainly don't have to accept every dictate from central government to cut or privatise our services. They have a choice. Even a minority group on a council, or a single councillor, can make a difference, by using their position as democratically elected local representatives to appeal to and help organise community campaigns and trade unionists to fight.
The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) is an alliance which includes individual trade unionists, community campaigners and different political parties. Yet, while we each have our own general policies and programme, all our candidates are committed to using every opportunity open to councillors - from public campaigning to presenting policy motions at council meetings - to do everything possible to protect and improve our public services. Voting for TUSC councillors will make a difference.
All TUSC councillors will:
* Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.
* Reject above inflation increases in council tax, rent and service charges to compensate for government cuts.
* Vote against the privatisation of council services, or the transfer of council services to 'social enterprises' or 'arms-length' management organisations, which are first steps to privatisation.
* Use all the legal powers available to councils, including powers to refer local NHS decisions, initiate referenda and organise public commissions and consultations, to oppose both the cuts and government polices which centrally impose the transfer of public services to private bodies.
* When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts. We will support councils which in the first instance use their reserves and prudential borrowing powers to avoid passing them on - while arguing that the best way to mobilise the mass campaign that is necessary to defeat the cuts is to set a budget that meets the needs of the local community and demands that the government makes up the shortfall.
We in the socialist party argue that there needs to be a new workers party formed as labour no longer represent working class peoples views and needs as a political force. They also do not represent trade unions and take their funding but back them very little. So TUSC may well be a stop gap but it is the best we have as a left alternative at the moment.
In Stevenage we are fielding 5 candidates in wards we feel we can do well in and one in my hometown of Ware. We hope to do ok but to us as socialists we are not really interested in totally getting elected this time around. If we do all well and good but we are not expecting to at all if any of our candidates gain power they will be supported by the local community and the rest of the labour movement and supported to back the policies we stand by in voting against cuts.
But as a party and comrades we feel it is far more benificail to get out there on the doorsteps and use it as a opputunity to build the movement and answer peoples questions on our policies and what we'd do. If we win them over to our cause all the better but it is more about getting ourselves out there and talking to peopl if we can more so than getting elected. Of course what the policy points do not say that if a candidate from TUSC stands and wins and gets elected they will only take the wage of a average skilled worker just as the socialist party advocates. To not raise themselves above the working class rooting themselves firmly within the movement and being able to emphasise with their supporters and the wider working class. The rest of the money they recieve will be donated back to the cause of socialism and fighting for fairness for all not just the few.
As we all know the local council elections are fast approaching us on the 5th of May and the cuts are boundto play a big part in where the votes go. But a little known part under the banner of TUSC trade unionists socialist coalition a left wing umbrella taking people who want to stand against the status quo which is the big 3 main political parties who are all in favour of cuts just at varying paces but all for cuts none the less dont let them tell you any different.
Please do feel free to check out their site here .
http://www.tusc.org.uk/
As socialists we oppose all the cuts not just some of the cuts like labour we offer a real alternative to working class people who want something different who stands up for working class peoples needs.
TUSC has agreed the policy platform, outlined below, on which it is proposing to contest the elections to local councils that will take place next May in every area of England bar London. TUSC is also involved in discussions to organise an election challenge for the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly elections (there are no local elections in Scotland and Wales in 2011).
The local elections policy platform, agreed at a conference of TUSC supporters in January, is the basis on which any prospective council candidate who wishes to can stand under the TUSC name in May's elections.
The local elections policy platform is a supplement to the core policy statement that TUSC candidates endorsed when they stood in the general election in May 2010, which still stands as the basic policy position of the TUSC coalition (see 'Trade Unionists and Socialist Coalition Policies' below).
The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition policy platform for the 2011 local elections in England:
THE LOCAL council elections in May 2011 will be the first opportunity voters will have in England to register public opposition at the ballot box to the Con-Dem government's unparalleled attack on our public services.
But the elections are not just a chance to make a one-day 'protest vote'. They are also an opportunity to elect councillors who can actually stop many of the cuts from being implemented locally.
Over the years, it is true, local councils have been stripped of many of their powers over different services. Margaret Thatcher, who began this process, famously said, "I must take more power to the centre to stop socialism" - in other words, that public services that 'crowded out' the private sector should be curbed or, where they exist, should be opened up to private companies to make profits from public needs. It is a matter of record that the New Labour government carried on with this approach throughout its 13 years in office - the turnover of private companies running public services reached over £80 billion in 2008, for example, 126% higher than 1995-96 under the previous Tory government.
But councils still have enormous powers and responsibilities, controlling budgets totalling billions of pounds, spent on services from housing to schools, youth clubs, libraries, adult social care, crime reduction, sports centres, highways maintenance and refuse collection, to name but a few. They have legal powers, over some non-council provided services for example, including many of those now privatised, that they can exercise for our benefit.
What councillors do, therefore, can still affect the quality of our daily lives. They certainly don't have to accept every dictate from central government to cut or privatise our services. They have a choice. Even a minority group on a council, or a single councillor, can make a difference, by using their position as democratically elected local representatives to appeal to and help organise community campaigns and trade unionists to fight.
The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) is an alliance which includes individual trade unionists, community campaigners and different political parties. Yet, while we each have our own general policies and programme, all our candidates are committed to using every opportunity open to councillors - from public campaigning to presenting policy motions at council meetings - to do everything possible to protect and improve our public services. Voting for TUSC councillors will make a difference.
All TUSC councillors will:
* Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.
* Reject above inflation increases in council tax, rent and service charges to compensate for government cuts.
* Vote against the privatisation of council services, or the transfer of council services to 'social enterprises' or 'arms-length' management organisations, which are first steps to privatisation.
* Use all the legal powers available to councils, including powers to refer local NHS decisions, initiate referenda and organise public commissions and consultations, to oppose both the cuts and government polices which centrally impose the transfer of public services to private bodies.
* When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts. We will support councils which in the first instance use their reserves and prudential borrowing powers to avoid passing them on - while arguing that the best way to mobilise the mass campaign that is necessary to defeat the cuts is to set a budget that meets the needs of the local community and demands that the government makes up the shortfall.
We in the socialist party argue that there needs to be a new workers party formed as labour no longer represent working class peoples views and needs as a political force. They also do not represent trade unions and take their funding but back them very little. So TUSC may well be a stop gap but it is the best we have as a left alternative at the moment.
In Stevenage we are fielding 5 candidates in wards we feel we can do well in and one in my hometown of Ware. We hope to do ok but to us as socialists we are not really interested in totally getting elected this time around. If we do all well and good but we are not expecting to at all if any of our candidates gain power they will be supported by the local community and the rest of the labour movement and supported to back the policies we stand by in voting against cuts.
But as a party and comrades we feel it is far more benificail to get out there on the doorsteps and use it as a opputunity to build the movement and answer peoples questions on our policies and what we'd do. If we win them over to our cause all the better but it is more about getting ourselves out there and talking to peopl if we can more so than getting elected. Of course what the policy points do not say that if a candidate from TUSC stands and wins and gets elected they will only take the wage of a average skilled worker just as the socialist party advocates. To not raise themselves above the working class rooting themselves firmly within the movement and being able to emphasise with their supporters and the wider working class. The rest of the money they recieve will be donated back to the cause of socialism and fighting for fairness for all not just the few.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Tories plans still not working
News today is telling us the British economy shrank by 0.5% in fourth quarter of 2010 instead of the 0.6% previously reported by the Office of National Statistics
Over the last three months of 2010, the total value of the goods the UK imported was £26.8bn higher than the total value of the goods it exported.
However, the UK exports more services than it imports, so the total goods and services trade gap is narrower, at almost £10.5bn.
The trade figures was released alongside the final revision of GDP for the fourth quarter of the year, which put it at -0.5%, slightly down from the previous estimate of -0.6%.
All this must look worrying news for George Osbourne and his tory friends inteh cabinet. It is even more worrying to those of us at the bottom of the scale who have no say in what happens at teh top. Decisions to cut spending now is looking increasingly foolish. No one is denying teh deficit has to be dealt with but these massive cuts on the working class which are far too disproportional in my view are simply unfair. As i've previously stated i'm against all cuts as a collection of tax evaders totalling roughly 120 billion pounds would more than cover our deficit. But will the tories do this ? i doubt it somehow, It would mean upsetting a lot of their friends in the city and we cant have that now. So the poor and the working class must suffer as usual. Figures like this just bring it home what the tories are doing to this country more harm than good that's for sure.
More figures like these will lead us back into a recession which i feel we're not too far away from now. Any minimal growth last year was carried over from before but now we're running on empty. As socialists we call on nationalising the banks and bringing them into workers ownership, public ownership. Not the semi nationalisation what happened with RBS in 2008 a total nationalisation of all the banks and demand they open their books for transparancy there is evidence that there is plenty of wealth sloshing around at the top lets see more of it used to protect our public services and stop this attack on the working class.
Over the last three months of 2010, the total value of the goods the UK imported was £26.8bn higher than the total value of the goods it exported.
However, the UK exports more services than it imports, so the total goods and services trade gap is narrower, at almost £10.5bn.
The trade figures was released alongside the final revision of GDP for the fourth quarter of the year, which put it at -0.5%, slightly down from the previous estimate of -0.6%.
All this must look worrying news for George Osbourne and his tory friends inteh cabinet. It is even more worrying to those of us at the bottom of the scale who have no say in what happens at teh top. Decisions to cut spending now is looking increasingly foolish. No one is denying teh deficit has to be dealt with but these massive cuts on the working class which are far too disproportional in my view are simply unfair. As i've previously stated i'm against all cuts as a collection of tax evaders totalling roughly 120 billion pounds would more than cover our deficit. But will the tories do this ? i doubt it somehow, It would mean upsetting a lot of their friends in the city and we cant have that now. So the poor and the working class must suffer as usual. Figures like this just bring it home what the tories are doing to this country more harm than good that's for sure.
More figures like these will lead us back into a recession which i feel we're not too far away from now. Any minimal growth last year was carried over from before but now we're running on empty. As socialists we call on nationalising the banks and bringing them into workers ownership, public ownership. Not the semi nationalisation what happened with RBS in 2008 a total nationalisation of all the banks and demand they open their books for transparancy there is evidence that there is plenty of wealth sloshing around at the top lets see more of it used to protect our public services and stop this attack on the working class.
Sunday, 27 March 2011
26th march TUC protest how i saw it
So as i've been blogging about for months now the 26th of March has come and gonea nd to be honest i'm not sure waht i feel now to be honest. a sense of deflation, relief or confidence that we can now go on and defeat the cuts. I guess a mixture of feelings really.
What started off as a good day i awoke early to be picked up by a fellow comrade we headed to Stevenage to catch the 10 am train to London already he train was packed out. Announcements on the platform of a big demonstration in London today and London was to be avoided added nervous anticipation to myself really.
I myself have not been on many protests this being my second big one after March 5th lobbbying Labour party councillors to vote against the cuts.
But today was different a lot different we arrived at Charing Cross station and moved towards the Embankment where the feeder protests were forming. We had a long long wait to join any march let alone the main TUC demo of the day.
Today was bigger than i could even expect police estimates say about 700,000 possibly more. This was huge really really big i cannot stress that nearly enough. Our comrades from the Stevenage socialist party congragated on the Embankment and held the Stevenage trades council banner aloft in solidarity.
We marched or should i say shuffled forward pace by pace
It took our little crowd of comrades 2 and a bit hours to even get on the main march in the first place. My legs were even aching even by this point. Later on the march really got going a lot more and as we walked up towards parliament square and Trafalgur square the march rally got going. I did enjoy walking past Downing Strett and giving a huge boo down it and telling David Cameron what i thought of him. In normal everyday circumstances you cuold not do that but on a march like today it was fair game. I wont repeat what i shouted on here but it was far from complimentary about his idea of cuts to the disabled.
There was a terrific atmosphere on the whole of the march with so many from all over the country there today. We met so many from various different trade unions by that Unite, RMT, FBU, Unison, PCS, UCU, CWU, ASLEF, NUT and many many more smaller ones too. The day was huge i thought i was blown away by the sheer scale of the event. As we passed through various parts of London we gota rael sense of the anger and betrayel of our political system over years and years of taking us all for granted. There were splinter marchs organised by UK Uncut which i have previously blogged about on here and their excellent work of highlighting tax evaders such as Phillip Green. Today they did some excelent work occupying many shops in Oxford street who's establishment doesnt pay its total share of tax. They also orchestrated organised sit in's in big well known banks to highlight that the bankers must pay for this mess not the ordinary working class.
All these messages from today sent out a big message to the tories and the lib dems in this sham government of ours to sit up and listen to the real big society.
One thing i did find quite hard to accept was the fact so many Labour party councillors who had weeks ago just voted through big savage spending cuts in their local councils marching today against the cuts. How hypocritical can you get ? a few weeks back voting for the cuts weeks later marching against the very cuts you have just voted for. Totally shameful i think. Another thing which bugged me was none other than the Labour party leader Ed miliband who got up on stage in Hyde Park to speak to protesters. I personally find this insulting as he called to people he stands with us. Like hell he does from his middle class background and not being anti cuts at all. How dare he say to us he knows how we feel. He and his party support cuts all be it at a slower less deeper rate, yet they are still cuts all the same. As we chanted today there is no such thing as a fair cut. We are against all cuts as the socialist party. No cuts to the working class, who i firmly believe did not cause this financial crisis and should not be made to pay for the mistakes of the capitalist political class and bankers.
Sadly i didnt get to see any of the speechs from today but i will later revisit them i hope wehn videos appaer on you tube. I do hope to cover them in greater detail in further blogposts in the future.
The BBC's coverage as what you'd expect from a capitalist media source was highlighting the actions of groups like UK uncut who were occupying shopsa nd banks rather than focusing on the main march which was very peaceful i might add. As i write this i cant be sure but when i last checked there were still supposed protesters in Trafalgur square being kettled by police and setting things on fire and causing mayhem from all sounds of it. Whilst loud and militant protest is good in our eyes as socialists i persoanlly dont believe attacking the police for a game of cat and mouse ultimatly achieves much. As a further thought i really dont think this sort of action we have seen late into the night in Trafalgur square does not help the anti cuts movement at all and i would put the actions down largely to anarchist groups intent on causing troublea nd ruining the peaceful party planned in Trafalgur square for the evening which i saw no problem in.
A few weeks ago i had seen tweets and messages from John Mcdonald a Labour party MP who is apparently a socialist calling for mass camping in trafalguar square and turning it in to a mini Tahrir square just like what we have seen in Cairo in Egypt in the last few months. Really i never saw this idea being big and the police were always going to take issue with this kind of tactic who prefer people return home. I like the sentiment but not sure the UK is really at the stage of a Egypt style revolution yet.
As i say i am sure to revisit today the 26th of March over the next few weeks in this blog with hopefully comments a and analysis from others who were also there on the day so this is just a first few thoughts on today really.
Many socialist party leaflets were handed outa nd the main theme of them was calling for a one day mass public sector general strike. I myself am hugely in favour of thisa nd will do all i can to support such action to be taken as what i have said earlier on twitter today cannot be the end . People who have never protested in their life may well have come along today and loved every minute of it. Yes i did too but i'm also very aware that protests just like the against the war demo back in the last decade was totally ignored by Tony blair who railroded us into a illegal war which i hasent to add we will never forget or forgive for that.
So thera re big limitations to large scale protests of this nature we aer well aware of that. But as as socialists we believe that todays demo must be followed with serious industrial action now. We must now start the campaign fora one day general public sector strike to try to defend workers jobs, pensions and rights. This cannot be the one day we say we've donea ll we can and let the cuts happen, Further resistance is needed and we in our local communities and areas need to come together now in class unity to defend our public services, jobs and ultimatly our welfare state.
So my message to you all tonight is lets not let this be the end, let this march today be the start of something big. Something that will change the face of our struggel for good. Lets keep on fighting for fairness.
What started off as a good day i awoke early to be picked up by a fellow comrade we headed to Stevenage to catch the 10 am train to London already he train was packed out. Announcements on the platform of a big demonstration in London today and London was to be avoided added nervous anticipation to myself really.
I myself have not been on many protests this being my second big one after March 5th lobbbying Labour party councillors to vote against the cuts.
But today was different a lot different we arrived at Charing Cross station and moved towards the Embankment where the feeder protests were forming. We had a long long wait to join any march let alone the main TUC demo of the day.
Today was bigger than i could even expect police estimates say about 700,000 possibly more. This was huge really really big i cannot stress that nearly enough. Our comrades from the Stevenage socialist party congragated on the Embankment and held the Stevenage trades council banner aloft in solidarity.
We marched or should i say shuffled forward pace by pace
It took our little crowd of comrades 2 and a bit hours to even get on the main march in the first place. My legs were even aching even by this point. Later on the march really got going a lot more and as we walked up towards parliament square and Trafalgur square the march rally got going. I did enjoy walking past Downing Strett and giving a huge boo down it and telling David Cameron what i thought of him. In normal everyday circumstances you cuold not do that but on a march like today it was fair game. I wont repeat what i shouted on here but it was far from complimentary about his idea of cuts to the disabled.
There was a terrific atmosphere on the whole of the march with so many from all over the country there today. We met so many from various different trade unions by that Unite, RMT, FBU, Unison, PCS, UCU, CWU, ASLEF, NUT and many many more smaller ones too. The day was huge i thought i was blown away by the sheer scale of the event. As we passed through various parts of London we gota rael sense of the anger and betrayel of our political system over years and years of taking us all for granted. There were splinter marchs organised by UK Uncut which i have previously blogged about on here and their excellent work of highlighting tax evaders such as Phillip Green. Today they did some excelent work occupying many shops in Oxford street who's establishment doesnt pay its total share of tax. They also orchestrated organised sit in's in big well known banks to highlight that the bankers must pay for this mess not the ordinary working class.
All these messages from today sent out a big message to the tories and the lib dems in this sham government of ours to sit up and listen to the real big society.
One thing i did find quite hard to accept was the fact so many Labour party councillors who had weeks ago just voted through big savage spending cuts in their local councils marching today against the cuts. How hypocritical can you get ? a few weeks back voting for the cuts weeks later marching against the very cuts you have just voted for. Totally shameful i think. Another thing which bugged me was none other than the Labour party leader Ed miliband who got up on stage in Hyde Park to speak to protesters. I personally find this insulting as he called to people he stands with us. Like hell he does from his middle class background and not being anti cuts at all. How dare he say to us he knows how we feel. He and his party support cuts all be it at a slower less deeper rate, yet they are still cuts all the same. As we chanted today there is no such thing as a fair cut. We are against all cuts as the socialist party. No cuts to the working class, who i firmly believe did not cause this financial crisis and should not be made to pay for the mistakes of the capitalist political class and bankers.
Sadly i didnt get to see any of the speechs from today but i will later revisit them i hope wehn videos appaer on you tube. I do hope to cover them in greater detail in further blogposts in the future.
The BBC's coverage as what you'd expect from a capitalist media source was highlighting the actions of groups like UK uncut who were occupying shopsa nd banks rather than focusing on the main march which was very peaceful i might add. As i write this i cant be sure but when i last checked there were still supposed protesters in Trafalgur square being kettled by police and setting things on fire and causing mayhem from all sounds of it. Whilst loud and militant protest is good in our eyes as socialists i persoanlly dont believe attacking the police for a game of cat and mouse ultimatly achieves much. As a further thought i really dont think this sort of action we have seen late into the night in Trafalgur square does not help the anti cuts movement at all and i would put the actions down largely to anarchist groups intent on causing troublea nd ruining the peaceful party planned in Trafalgur square for the evening which i saw no problem in.
A few weeks ago i had seen tweets and messages from John Mcdonald a Labour party MP who is apparently a socialist calling for mass camping in trafalguar square and turning it in to a mini Tahrir square just like what we have seen in Cairo in Egypt in the last few months. Really i never saw this idea being big and the police were always going to take issue with this kind of tactic who prefer people return home. I like the sentiment but not sure the UK is really at the stage of a Egypt style revolution yet.
As i say i am sure to revisit today the 26th of March over the next few weeks in this blog with hopefully comments a and analysis from others who were also there on the day so this is just a first few thoughts on today really.
Many socialist party leaflets were handed outa nd the main theme of them was calling for a one day mass public sector general strike. I myself am hugely in favour of thisa nd will do all i can to support such action to be taken as what i have said earlier on twitter today cannot be the end . People who have never protested in their life may well have come along today and loved every minute of it. Yes i did too but i'm also very aware that protests just like the against the war demo back in the last decade was totally ignored by Tony blair who railroded us into a illegal war which i hasent to add we will never forget or forgive for that.
So thera re big limitations to large scale protests of this nature we aer well aware of that. But as as socialists we believe that todays demo must be followed with serious industrial action now. We must now start the campaign fora one day general public sector strike to try to defend workers jobs, pensions and rights. This cannot be the one day we say we've donea ll we can and let the cuts happen, Further resistance is needed and we in our local communities and areas need to come together now in class unity to defend our public services, jobs and ultimatly our welfare state.
So my message to you all tonight is lets not let this be the end, let this march today be the start of something big. Something that will change the face of our struggel for good. Lets keep on fighting for fairness.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
What has socialism got to do with the cuts ?
In the special edition of the socialist a paper by the socialist party for the 26th march TUC demo ther eis a excellent article relating socialism to the cuts and how socialism can help us to a better world. i've reproduced it underneath. You can join the party at www.socialistparty.org.uk
What has socialism got to do with fighting the cuts?
Socialist Party members sell The Socialist, photo Paul Mattsson
Each week members of the Socialist Party sell copies of the Socialist newspaper at workplaces, colleges, stations, town centres and working class estates all over England and Wales, as well as at protests and meetings. Sellers are often questioned about socialist ideas. Here Tom Pearse records such a discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialist seller (S): Fight the cuts - no ifs, no buts, fight all cuts!
Potential buyer (B): Ok, I'm against the cuts but what is the alternative? The government says there is a massive public sector deficit and, if we don't cut it, then it will grow to unacceptable levels. Then the country will go bankrupt.
S: Well, the first thing I'd say is that we, the working people, who are the majority in this country, didn't create this deficit. The rich and their system of capitalism, particularly the bankers, are mainly responsible for this deficit. The previous government stepped in and bailed them out to the tune of about £80 billion directly, with up to £1 trillion in loan guarantees etc.
Also, because of the crisis of capitalism - which again we didn't create - over 2.5 million people in Britain don't have a job - including a million young people between the ages of 16 and 24.
It's the largesse handed out to the bankers and the increased cost to the state in unemployment and other benefits which accounts for most of the deficit.
B: Yes, yes - but this deficit exists. How are we going to pay for it? How can we ultimately eliminate it?
S: Did you know that the total deficit could be wiped out if the rich paid taxes like ordinary people do? Tax avoidance by the rich, according to the PCS civil service union, comes to £120 billion a year, which is almost equal to the total government budget deficit, £143 billion, to be eliminated over four years.
But the Con-Dems are using this situation to pursue a scorched earth policy against all the historical achievements of working class people, the NHS, pay and conditions etc.
This represents an attempt to turn back the wheel of history to the 1930s and in some senses to the 19th century. Working class people are being made to pay for rescuing capitalism in a severe crisis.
B: But if we try to make the rich pay for the deficit, won't they just take their money out of the country?
S: Yes, they might attempt that. But then they would be openly acting selfishly by seeking to flout the democratic wishes of the majority of the British people. We would therefore have every right to introduce measures to prevent them from doing so.
B: But isn't that to attack the principle of private property?
S: When socialists talk about 'private property' we're not talking about the personal possessions of ordinary people - houses, cars, fridges, etc. The private property of the rich and the super-rich comes through the super-exploitation of us, working class people.
They would argue that their profit, which is what Karl Marx called "the unpaid labour of the working class", is necessary in order to keep the system going. We should never forget that profit is achieved by exploitation - sometimes ruthlessly so in China and elsewhere today - of the labour power of the working class.
B: Don't we need rich people to create jobs and anyway, doesn't competition drive invention?
S: There is a grain of truth in the arguments of the bosses. In the past, by investing this surplus - profits if you like - in industry, they played a role in developing society, providing jobs and increased wealth for a time.
But for the last 20 to 30 years investment in factories, in what we would call the 'means of production' - the organisation of labour, science and technique - and the actual making of real things, has dropped dramatically.
Instead they sought to boost their profits in a massive orgy of 'financialisation', the building up of the financial sector at the expense of real production and the creation of jobs. This created a massive financial bubble which has now burst, resulting in the present devastating crisis.
This is a real indictment of the failure of capitalism. The International Monetary Fund has calculated that during this economic crisis, in 2008 alone, the total loss in assets devalued worldwide came to $50 trillion - roughly equal to the value of one year's global output of goods and services! This wealth is being destroyed because capitalism is a system based on production for profit for the few and not the social need of the many.
B: OK, the capitalists failed. But you still haven't said how you would stop them from avoiding any attacks on their wealth.
Selling The Socialist in Waltham Forest, photo Alison Hill
S: If they tried to continue with evasion, if they tried to take their loot out of the country, then a radical socialist government should introduce state controls of all capital coming in and out of the country.
This would be accompanied by the 'opening of the books'. The accounts of all companies should be inspected by mass committees of workers and consumers. This would be a form of workers' control, which is vital as a means of revealing the real wealth and how it is to be controlled for the benefit of the majority.
B: How can you do this in an open and free economy?
S: By nationalising the banks and finance houses.
B: Didn't the British government try this at the beginning of the financial crisis when they took big stakes in the banks?
S: Up to a point yes. But it was not complete nationalisation. And it certainly wasn't carried out in a way that was beneficial to the majority of the people of this country. New Labour left control in the hands of big business managers.
Even when the banks are nominally under our control - that is the state - they are run by and in the interests of the capitalists. Look at the tops of the majority-nationalised RBS bank - they are paying out millions in bonuses to themselves!
Instead we want real democratic nationalisation, conducted in a socialist manner through workers' control and management. This would involve the workers in the banking and financial sector, together with representatives of workers in general and government representatives, as well as depositors and other users, controlling and managing the banks on behalf of the people as a whole, providing cheap loans, mortgages, etc.
B: Won't big business take fright and sabotage any efforts to rein them in?
S: It is entirely possible that this could happen or be threatened. In the past, when minimal measures were taken against them, the capitalists threatened a strike of capital. When the Labour government in the 1970s - led by Harold Wilson as prime minister - introduced a tax on capital, big business, with the help of the newspapers, conducted a ferocious struggle which resulted in 174 amendments to the bill, and effectively nullified the proposed tax increases against the rich.
B. Well there we go. You can't do anything.
S: Now, I didn't say that. If we, the Socialist Party, have majority support, we could do a great deal to counter the undemocratic defiance by a handful of capitalists, seeking to thwart the wishes of the majority.
Harold Wilson and the Labour government, because they would not go outside the framework of capitalism, bent the knee to the bosses' pressure and capitulated. We would have called their bluff and proposed to Parliament a bill to take over these big companies who were threatening to defy and blackmail the elected representatives of the people.
B: But again, would that not mean violating the age-old principles of private property?
S: To invoke this alleged 'principle' is a smokescreen to mask the colossal and undemocratic concentration of power in the hands of a handful of the rich.
A few figures to illustrate this: of the hundred largest economies in the world 52 are corporations and 48 are countries; the top 500 companies control 70% of world trade; the top 200 companies' combined sales are equal to 28% of world GDP but employ only 0.82% of the world's workforce.
In the US, 2% of companies account for almost 75% of business activity. Here in Britain, the Socialist Party points out that 150 companies control 70-75% of the wealth of this country.
In other words a handful of billionaires control what are, in effect, monopoly concerns, which determine what will and will not be produced. They control who will and who will not work, which party they would like to see elected in which government to best represent their interests.
We do not live in a real democracy. Capitalist democracy is where everybody, at least in theory, can say what they like so long as big business, a handful of monopoly companies, can decide what takes place in practice.
B: But how can you break the power of the rich and the big monopolies?
S: That's a very good question. We will propose that these companies be taken over - nationalised by a socialist government which would then organise a democratic socialist plan of production. This plan would be drawn up through the involvement of working class people, representatives of the middle class, such as small shopkeepers, small businesses etc, the users and customers of industry, etc.
B: Two questions spring to mind. Wouldn't nationalisation be, in effect, 'expropriation' of the assets of people who, through diligent work, have built up this wealth over generations?
Secondly, if you take over industry, don't you also 'nationalise' the savings of many, not necessarily wealthy, people who invested in stocks and shares - for instance trade union members who have their pensions invested on the stock exchange?
S: Firstly this wealth and power of big business has been built up, as we showed earlier, by the exploitation of the labour power of the working class.
In the past there was some justification for this - despite the horrors of capitalism in the Industrial Revolution, the slave trade, etc. This was because it built up industry and was therefore ultimately laying the basis for abolishing shortages and boosting living standards.
But capitalism is a system which cannot fully utilise the full potential of the productive forces, as has been shown by the series of crises throughout its history and particularly the present crisis. Karl Marx pointed out that when it begins to hold back production, to destroy wealth, capitalism betrays its "historical mission", which was to develop production.
When it begins to hold back production it becomes obsolete. This does not mean, however, that capitalism will 'automatically' disappear. It needs to be 'helped' off the stage of history by the actions of the working class and the labour movement. So we need a new social system - one that involves a state acting for the majority and not the privileged minority - which is democratic at every level both in the running of industry and society.
But we, that is the working class and the labour movement, are not impervious to the interests of the small investors. Even to the big investors we will be more generous than they are to the poor, those on benefits, etc. Compensation will be paid on the basis of proven need to all whose assets are being taken over by a democratic socialist workers' state.
B: And the ordinary people?
S: It goes without saying that, of course, trade union members and their pensions will be safeguarded; in fact, pensions will be rapidly increased from the current miserable level which the coalition government intends to cut further. All workers - as well as the unemployed, those on low wages, pensioners etc - will enormously benefit from a socialist planned economy.
B: How can you possibly guarantee that, by waving some kind of magical 'socialist' wand, things will improve in the way you describe?
S: There will be no hocus-pocus; there is no mystery in how a socialist planned economy would be organised and will be superior to outmoded capitalism.
Capitalism is a system which cannot utilise the full productive potential of its own system. The output of the world economy is back to the levels of 1989.
But in the 17 countries forming the eurozone, joblessness among the young now officially stands at over 20% (although it's much higher in many areas) alongside closed factories.
In Ireland we have the phenomena of empty 'ghost estates' while millions throughout the world lack basic shelter. One billion people on the planet go to bed hungry every night, an increase of 150 million compared to 15 years ago.
A planned economy would use all the resources which now lie idle, as well as cutting out the colossal waste from unnecessary advertising, duplication of production, etc.
Instead of the measly growth rate of capitalist economies at present - with Britain not really growing at all - a socialist planned economy could rapidly increase production on an environmentally sustainable basis and generate huge extra resources in Europe and the world.
It would increase the participation of the workforce in running society, including production, as well as consumers - through cutting the working day without any loss in pay. This would not lead to a decrease in production but give an enormous boost to it. In schools, in housing, in education, instead of the current cuts, there would be a big expansion. Undreamed of plenty is possible on the basis of socialism.
B: But didn't 'socialism' fail in Russia? Instead of democracy there was dictatorship by people like Stalin.
S: The Russian revolution, in the period immediately after 1917, when the October revolution took place, established the most democratic state in history. It proceeded to take into public ownership the land, industry and finance.
For the first time the majority - that is the working class and the poor peasantry - were in power. They ruled through a system of workers' and peasants' councils.
There were no privileges for the representatives of the people, who lived on the average wage, were subject to recall, etc. These councils, for the first time in history, raised the working class to power and allowed them to rule.
The Russian revolution was seen as just the beginning of the European and the world revolution. Unfortunately, despite favourable opportunities, this did not transpire because of the betrayal of the workers' leaders in the social democratic parties (like the Labour Party in Britain) in the West at that stage. Therefore Russia was isolated and, on the basis of scarcity, a low cultural level and a privileged elite, the bureaucracy began to emerge, personified by Stalin.
This bureaucratic caste betrayed the ideals of the Russian revolution - although the planned economy was still maintained and therefore the system which remained was still relatively progressive compared to capitalism - and gradually established a one-party totalitarian regime.
B: What guarantee is there that your British version of socialism will not go the same way?
S: This will not happen in a socialist Britain. I know this is a bold assertion but it's based on a sober assessment of the different conditions between Britain today and Russia at the time of the revolution. We live in an advanced industrial country, with a high level of culture, access to computers, the social media, etc. We have a powerful and educated working class with its own organisations, the trade unions.
Once working people here carry through such a big social change they will not allow a repetition of Stalinism, for power and privilege to be concentrated in a few hands.
B: But won't those in power just get greedy?
S: Yes, there is always a danger of a bureaucratic layer seeking to control everything. Look at the trade unions today. There are leaderships sometimes on salaries several times that of trade union members. There are leaderships who fear the active participation of the members, particularly militant fighters like members of the Socialist Party fighting to transform the unions so that they reflect the real will of working people.
The only way to check this bureaucracy is through democracy. Trade union and other officials should be elected subject to recall. Such will be the advantages of socialism, particularly implemented democratically, that there would be no possibility of going back to capitalism. This would be as absurd and as utopian as anybody today hoping to return to feudalism, to the hardship of the middle ages.
B: But do you think that the capitalists will just allow you to go ahead and expropriate them without resistance?
S: We will have a democratic majority and under the rules of democracy a minority should abide by the will of the majority. Of course the rights of minorities would be protected. Not just the working class but the intermediate layers of society can be won to socialist system.
Once the mass of working people come together in struggle, a huge social movement, all of those layers of society who are subject to attack by the system, gravitate to the workers' side. This was shown, after all, in the revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the Middle East.
The Con-Dems are attacking the police by proposing to cut their numbers. Even servicemen, on returning from Afghanistan, could be thrown on the dole. Many then can be open to the idea of fighting the cuts. But also this can open up for them the vista of a new society where all the talents can be used.
Nevertheless we are realistic. History has shown that it is not the left, it is not the working class movement, which resorts to force to attain its ends. We are absolutely opposed to the methods of terrorism. But we're not pacifists; we will defend all democratic rights from any forceful attempt to take them away. We fight with democratic means for a democratic majority. But the ruling class does not always abide by even its own 'rules' when its vital interests are threatened.
B: Ok, you've made the case for a socialist Britain. But what kind of set-up will you have in relations with Europe and the world?
S: We don't believe in socialism in one country. Russia shows that there is no possibility of any one country moving towards socialism by itself. Leon Trotsky, the great socialist theoretician of the workers' movement, continually argued against this idea and he was proved right.
The development of the productive forces has completely outgrown the narrow limits of the nation state. The failed attempt of the capitalists in Europe to come together through the European Union is one expression of this.
If Egypt can detonate and assist the movement in Wisconsin, in the belly of the beast, the US itself, imagine if Britain was to go socialist. It would begin to transform the world. The same would apply in any country in Europe, or for that matter the relatively developed countries in Latin America or Asia.
What has socialism got to do with fighting the cuts?
Socialist Party members sell The Socialist, photo Paul Mattsson
Each week members of the Socialist Party sell copies of the Socialist newspaper at workplaces, colleges, stations, town centres and working class estates all over England and Wales, as well as at protests and meetings. Sellers are often questioned about socialist ideas. Here Tom Pearse records such a discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialist seller (S): Fight the cuts - no ifs, no buts, fight all cuts!
Potential buyer (B): Ok, I'm against the cuts but what is the alternative? The government says there is a massive public sector deficit and, if we don't cut it, then it will grow to unacceptable levels. Then the country will go bankrupt.
S: Well, the first thing I'd say is that we, the working people, who are the majority in this country, didn't create this deficit. The rich and their system of capitalism, particularly the bankers, are mainly responsible for this deficit. The previous government stepped in and bailed them out to the tune of about £80 billion directly, with up to £1 trillion in loan guarantees etc.
Also, because of the crisis of capitalism - which again we didn't create - over 2.5 million people in Britain don't have a job - including a million young people between the ages of 16 and 24.
It's the largesse handed out to the bankers and the increased cost to the state in unemployment and other benefits which accounts for most of the deficit.
B: Yes, yes - but this deficit exists. How are we going to pay for it? How can we ultimately eliminate it?
S: Did you know that the total deficit could be wiped out if the rich paid taxes like ordinary people do? Tax avoidance by the rich, according to the PCS civil service union, comes to £120 billion a year, which is almost equal to the total government budget deficit, £143 billion, to be eliminated over four years.
But the Con-Dems are using this situation to pursue a scorched earth policy against all the historical achievements of working class people, the NHS, pay and conditions etc.
This represents an attempt to turn back the wheel of history to the 1930s and in some senses to the 19th century. Working class people are being made to pay for rescuing capitalism in a severe crisis.
B: But if we try to make the rich pay for the deficit, won't they just take their money out of the country?
S: Yes, they might attempt that. But then they would be openly acting selfishly by seeking to flout the democratic wishes of the majority of the British people. We would therefore have every right to introduce measures to prevent them from doing so.
B: But isn't that to attack the principle of private property?
S: When socialists talk about 'private property' we're not talking about the personal possessions of ordinary people - houses, cars, fridges, etc. The private property of the rich and the super-rich comes through the super-exploitation of us, working class people.
They would argue that their profit, which is what Karl Marx called "the unpaid labour of the working class", is necessary in order to keep the system going. We should never forget that profit is achieved by exploitation - sometimes ruthlessly so in China and elsewhere today - of the labour power of the working class.
B: Don't we need rich people to create jobs and anyway, doesn't competition drive invention?
S: There is a grain of truth in the arguments of the bosses. In the past, by investing this surplus - profits if you like - in industry, they played a role in developing society, providing jobs and increased wealth for a time.
But for the last 20 to 30 years investment in factories, in what we would call the 'means of production' - the organisation of labour, science and technique - and the actual making of real things, has dropped dramatically.
Instead they sought to boost their profits in a massive orgy of 'financialisation', the building up of the financial sector at the expense of real production and the creation of jobs. This created a massive financial bubble which has now burst, resulting in the present devastating crisis.
This is a real indictment of the failure of capitalism. The International Monetary Fund has calculated that during this economic crisis, in 2008 alone, the total loss in assets devalued worldwide came to $50 trillion - roughly equal to the value of one year's global output of goods and services! This wealth is being destroyed because capitalism is a system based on production for profit for the few and not the social need of the many.
B: OK, the capitalists failed. But you still haven't said how you would stop them from avoiding any attacks on their wealth.
Selling The Socialist in Waltham Forest, photo Alison Hill
S: If they tried to continue with evasion, if they tried to take their loot out of the country, then a radical socialist government should introduce state controls of all capital coming in and out of the country.
This would be accompanied by the 'opening of the books'. The accounts of all companies should be inspected by mass committees of workers and consumers. This would be a form of workers' control, which is vital as a means of revealing the real wealth and how it is to be controlled for the benefit of the majority.
B: How can you do this in an open and free economy?
S: By nationalising the banks and finance houses.
B: Didn't the British government try this at the beginning of the financial crisis when they took big stakes in the banks?
S: Up to a point yes. But it was not complete nationalisation. And it certainly wasn't carried out in a way that was beneficial to the majority of the people of this country. New Labour left control in the hands of big business managers.
Even when the banks are nominally under our control - that is the state - they are run by and in the interests of the capitalists. Look at the tops of the majority-nationalised RBS bank - they are paying out millions in bonuses to themselves!
Instead we want real democratic nationalisation, conducted in a socialist manner through workers' control and management. This would involve the workers in the banking and financial sector, together with representatives of workers in general and government representatives, as well as depositors and other users, controlling and managing the banks on behalf of the people as a whole, providing cheap loans, mortgages, etc.
B: Won't big business take fright and sabotage any efforts to rein them in?
S: It is entirely possible that this could happen or be threatened. In the past, when minimal measures were taken against them, the capitalists threatened a strike of capital. When the Labour government in the 1970s - led by Harold Wilson as prime minister - introduced a tax on capital, big business, with the help of the newspapers, conducted a ferocious struggle which resulted in 174 amendments to the bill, and effectively nullified the proposed tax increases against the rich.
B. Well there we go. You can't do anything.
S: Now, I didn't say that. If we, the Socialist Party, have majority support, we could do a great deal to counter the undemocratic defiance by a handful of capitalists, seeking to thwart the wishes of the majority.
Harold Wilson and the Labour government, because they would not go outside the framework of capitalism, bent the knee to the bosses' pressure and capitulated. We would have called their bluff and proposed to Parliament a bill to take over these big companies who were threatening to defy and blackmail the elected representatives of the people.
B: But again, would that not mean violating the age-old principles of private property?
S: To invoke this alleged 'principle' is a smokescreen to mask the colossal and undemocratic concentration of power in the hands of a handful of the rich.
A few figures to illustrate this: of the hundred largest economies in the world 52 are corporations and 48 are countries; the top 500 companies control 70% of world trade; the top 200 companies' combined sales are equal to 28% of world GDP but employ only 0.82% of the world's workforce.
In the US, 2% of companies account for almost 75% of business activity. Here in Britain, the Socialist Party points out that 150 companies control 70-75% of the wealth of this country.
In other words a handful of billionaires control what are, in effect, monopoly concerns, which determine what will and will not be produced. They control who will and who will not work, which party they would like to see elected in which government to best represent their interests.
We do not live in a real democracy. Capitalist democracy is where everybody, at least in theory, can say what they like so long as big business, a handful of monopoly companies, can decide what takes place in practice.
B: But how can you break the power of the rich and the big monopolies?
S: That's a very good question. We will propose that these companies be taken over - nationalised by a socialist government which would then organise a democratic socialist plan of production. This plan would be drawn up through the involvement of working class people, representatives of the middle class, such as small shopkeepers, small businesses etc, the users and customers of industry, etc.
B: Two questions spring to mind. Wouldn't nationalisation be, in effect, 'expropriation' of the assets of people who, through diligent work, have built up this wealth over generations?
Secondly, if you take over industry, don't you also 'nationalise' the savings of many, not necessarily wealthy, people who invested in stocks and shares - for instance trade union members who have their pensions invested on the stock exchange?
S: Firstly this wealth and power of big business has been built up, as we showed earlier, by the exploitation of the labour power of the working class.
In the past there was some justification for this - despite the horrors of capitalism in the Industrial Revolution, the slave trade, etc. This was because it built up industry and was therefore ultimately laying the basis for abolishing shortages and boosting living standards.
But capitalism is a system which cannot fully utilise the full potential of the productive forces, as has been shown by the series of crises throughout its history and particularly the present crisis. Karl Marx pointed out that when it begins to hold back production, to destroy wealth, capitalism betrays its "historical mission", which was to develop production.
When it begins to hold back production it becomes obsolete. This does not mean, however, that capitalism will 'automatically' disappear. It needs to be 'helped' off the stage of history by the actions of the working class and the labour movement. So we need a new social system - one that involves a state acting for the majority and not the privileged minority - which is democratic at every level both in the running of industry and society.
But we, that is the working class and the labour movement, are not impervious to the interests of the small investors. Even to the big investors we will be more generous than they are to the poor, those on benefits, etc. Compensation will be paid on the basis of proven need to all whose assets are being taken over by a democratic socialist workers' state.
B: And the ordinary people?
S: It goes without saying that, of course, trade union members and their pensions will be safeguarded; in fact, pensions will be rapidly increased from the current miserable level which the coalition government intends to cut further. All workers - as well as the unemployed, those on low wages, pensioners etc - will enormously benefit from a socialist planned economy.
B: How can you possibly guarantee that, by waving some kind of magical 'socialist' wand, things will improve in the way you describe?
S: There will be no hocus-pocus; there is no mystery in how a socialist planned economy would be organised and will be superior to outmoded capitalism.
Capitalism is a system which cannot utilise the full productive potential of its own system. The output of the world economy is back to the levels of 1989.
But in the 17 countries forming the eurozone, joblessness among the young now officially stands at over 20% (although it's much higher in many areas) alongside closed factories.
In Ireland we have the phenomena of empty 'ghost estates' while millions throughout the world lack basic shelter. One billion people on the planet go to bed hungry every night, an increase of 150 million compared to 15 years ago.
A planned economy would use all the resources which now lie idle, as well as cutting out the colossal waste from unnecessary advertising, duplication of production, etc.
Instead of the measly growth rate of capitalist economies at present - with Britain not really growing at all - a socialist planned economy could rapidly increase production on an environmentally sustainable basis and generate huge extra resources in Europe and the world.
It would increase the participation of the workforce in running society, including production, as well as consumers - through cutting the working day without any loss in pay. This would not lead to a decrease in production but give an enormous boost to it. In schools, in housing, in education, instead of the current cuts, there would be a big expansion. Undreamed of plenty is possible on the basis of socialism.
B: But didn't 'socialism' fail in Russia? Instead of democracy there was dictatorship by people like Stalin.
S: The Russian revolution, in the period immediately after 1917, when the October revolution took place, established the most democratic state in history. It proceeded to take into public ownership the land, industry and finance.
For the first time the majority - that is the working class and the poor peasantry - were in power. They ruled through a system of workers' and peasants' councils.
There were no privileges for the representatives of the people, who lived on the average wage, were subject to recall, etc. These councils, for the first time in history, raised the working class to power and allowed them to rule.
The Russian revolution was seen as just the beginning of the European and the world revolution. Unfortunately, despite favourable opportunities, this did not transpire because of the betrayal of the workers' leaders in the social democratic parties (like the Labour Party in Britain) in the West at that stage. Therefore Russia was isolated and, on the basis of scarcity, a low cultural level and a privileged elite, the bureaucracy began to emerge, personified by Stalin.
This bureaucratic caste betrayed the ideals of the Russian revolution - although the planned economy was still maintained and therefore the system which remained was still relatively progressive compared to capitalism - and gradually established a one-party totalitarian regime.
B: What guarantee is there that your British version of socialism will not go the same way?
S: This will not happen in a socialist Britain. I know this is a bold assertion but it's based on a sober assessment of the different conditions between Britain today and Russia at the time of the revolution. We live in an advanced industrial country, with a high level of culture, access to computers, the social media, etc. We have a powerful and educated working class with its own organisations, the trade unions.
Once working people here carry through such a big social change they will not allow a repetition of Stalinism, for power and privilege to be concentrated in a few hands.
B: But won't those in power just get greedy?
S: Yes, there is always a danger of a bureaucratic layer seeking to control everything. Look at the trade unions today. There are leaderships sometimes on salaries several times that of trade union members. There are leaderships who fear the active participation of the members, particularly militant fighters like members of the Socialist Party fighting to transform the unions so that they reflect the real will of working people.
The only way to check this bureaucracy is through democracy. Trade union and other officials should be elected subject to recall. Such will be the advantages of socialism, particularly implemented democratically, that there would be no possibility of going back to capitalism. This would be as absurd and as utopian as anybody today hoping to return to feudalism, to the hardship of the middle ages.
B: But do you think that the capitalists will just allow you to go ahead and expropriate them without resistance?
S: We will have a democratic majority and under the rules of democracy a minority should abide by the will of the majority. Of course the rights of minorities would be protected. Not just the working class but the intermediate layers of society can be won to socialist system.
Once the mass of working people come together in struggle, a huge social movement, all of those layers of society who are subject to attack by the system, gravitate to the workers' side. This was shown, after all, in the revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the Middle East.
The Con-Dems are attacking the police by proposing to cut their numbers. Even servicemen, on returning from Afghanistan, could be thrown on the dole. Many then can be open to the idea of fighting the cuts. But also this can open up for them the vista of a new society where all the talents can be used.
Nevertheless we are realistic. History has shown that it is not the left, it is not the working class movement, which resorts to force to attain its ends. We are absolutely opposed to the methods of terrorism. But we're not pacifists; we will defend all democratic rights from any forceful attempt to take them away. We fight with democratic means for a democratic majority. But the ruling class does not always abide by even its own 'rules' when its vital interests are threatened.
B: Ok, you've made the case for a socialist Britain. But what kind of set-up will you have in relations with Europe and the world?
S: We don't believe in socialism in one country. Russia shows that there is no possibility of any one country moving towards socialism by itself. Leon Trotsky, the great socialist theoretician of the workers' movement, continually argued against this idea and he was proved right.
The development of the productive forces has completely outgrown the narrow limits of the nation state. The failed attempt of the capitalists in Europe to come together through the European Union is one expression of this.
If Egypt can detonate and assist the movement in Wisconsin, in the belly of the beast, the US itself, imagine if Britain was to go socialist. It would begin to transform the world. The same would apply in any country in Europe, or for that matter the relatively developed countries in Latin America or Asia.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Where i see the anti cuts movement heading
SO as i've blogged about previously about the speed and advance of the anti cuts movement and how it is still yet to really get going i'd say i thought i'd look at how i see the movement progressing or not.
The TUC demonstration on 26 March will mark a turning point. At last year’s TUC conference it was the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN), in a move initiated by Socialist Party members, which organised a lobby demanding that the TUC call a national demonstration. The demonstration is only taking place belatedly, when many tens of thousands of jobs have already gone. Nonetheless, it will raise the confidence of the hundreds of thousands of workers who take part, and the millions who watch it on TV. It will demonstrate palpably to all those living in fear for their jobs that they are not alone and that a fight-back is possible. A demonstration, however, is only a starting point.
Unfortunately, the majority of national trade union leaders do not see the possibility of defeating the cuts, in many cases even accepting the argument of New Labour that cuts are necessary, but need to take place more slowly. Therefore, they see their role as no more than organising token resistance and trying to ameliorate the worst effects of the cuts. The strategy put forward at the TUC demonstration is likely to centre on voting Labour in the local elections five weeks later. Even though many of those demonstrating on 26 March will vote Labour in May, in order to punish the ConDems, this ‘strategy’ will rightly be seen as a capitulation given the appalling scale of cuts already being implemented by Labour councils just as much as by Liberal and Tory ones.
The movement as i say has been slow to really get going and the splits are already emerging i think.
Our starting point has to be opposition to all cuts in jobs and services. This slogan is essential if real unity of the anti-cuts movement is to be achieved. To accept some cuts is to allow the movement to be divided between service users and workers, public- and private-sector workers, benefit claimants and pensioners etc.
The anti-cuts movement will inevitably be multi-faceted given the huge scope of the cuts. The student movement, which led the way so magnificently before Christmas, will remain an important part of the struggle. Already Manchester swimming pool users are threatening to occupy their local pool to prevent it closing. Many similar campaigns will develop. Rent strikes will also be on the cards. A mighty struggle to defend the NHS is required. A movement of benefit claimants is urgently needed, as the vicious cuts literally drive those worst effected to despair. According to the Disability Alliance, nearly one in ten of those claiming the threatened Disability Living Allowance say that losing the benefit may make "life not worth living".
All of these movements and more are essential and inevitable, but to maximise their effectiveness they need to be linked to the enormous potential power of the organised working class in the trade unions. The trade union movement needs to demonstrate that by allying itself clearly with all of those struggling to defend their benefits and services. If the trade unions were to lead a determined struggle against the cuts they would be able to win the active support of many millions more who are not currently organised in the trade unions. Such would be the popular support for such a movement it would be possible to sweep the anti-trade union laws aside.
OUR CENTRAL DEMAND on 26 March will be for a one-day public-sector strike, as a step towards a 24-hour general strike. There is widespread support among public-sector trade unionists for a co-ordinated public-sector strike. At a recent 250-strong Hackney Unison AGM there was a unanimous vote for a one-day public-sector strike. A motion calling for Hackney council to set a needs budget was also carried overwhelmingly. In Scotland, despite the leadership of Unison twice attempting to push through a rotten deal, the Scottish Council has twice stuck to its guns in demanding militant action. In the wake of 26 March, even the most right-wing trade union leaders could be forced to support co-ordinated strike action as a result of the enormous pressure building up from their membership.
Socialists have to support every step towards a public-sector general strike. We are campaigning for those trade unions planning national ballots, both on pensions and cuts, to co-ordinate their strike action and then to appeal to other unions to join them. Such action, even if it was only a partial public-sector general strike in the first instance, would scare the government and tremendously lift the confidence of the working class, preparing the ground for an escalation of the struggle.
To demand co-ordinated action, however, does not mean arguing that workers whose jobs and conditions are under threat should wait for other sections of the working class before taking action. As is being tragically demonstrated in many parts of local government, only speedy and determined action can prevent devastating cuts. If such an approach is taken, council workers fighting in even just one local authority can win victories. At the start of this year, Kirklees Unison, by threatening strike action, was able to force the council to retreat from compulsory redundancies and from reducing redundancy pay and some other measures. This was not a complete victory, but the concessions were won only by threatening militant action and opposing all cuts. The leaderships of many other Unison branches seem to be trying to prevent compulsory redundancies simply by pleading. Contrast Kirklees’ fighting stance to the statement by the Manchester Unison branch which, in the face of devastation, does not say it will fight the cuts but only offers to "assist members during this extremely difficult process".
Strike action needs to be linked to political action. At the moment, Labour is complacent that, despite carrying out government cuts, it will reap the electoral rewards from the government’s unpopularity. The anti-cuts movement urgently needs to discuss standing as many anti-cuts candidates as possible in May’s elections. They should be encouraged to stand under the banner of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), the electoral coalition involving militant trade unionists like Bob Crow alongside the Socialist Party and others, which has an important role to play in co-ordinating this.
I think that the actions of labour councillors and labour Mp's will become clearer by the week as this onslaught from the government continues. It will become clear pretty quickly who's side they are really on. Be it side with the mass resistance and fight all cuts including any cuts they would have made or join with the tories in the safety of the Westminster bubble which seems detached from the rest of reality.
BUT DOES THIS mean that socialists should never call for support for Labour or Green candidates? No. On the contrary, we would enthusiastically build support for the stand of any council that was prepared to fight. At the same time, we do not create illusions that this is likely. The number of Labour councillors who have pledged to defy the cuts can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Not a single Labour council has even considered doing so. This contrasts sharply with the situation in the 1980s when Labour was at base a workers’ party, even though it had a leadership that acted in the interests of the capitalists. When it came to the crunch in the 1980s only the Militant-led Liverpool city council, alongside Lambeth, was prepared to defy the government. Another 18 Labour councils, however, at least pledged to do so, before betraying the struggle at a later stage. Today, even John McDonnell MP, who does support councils defying the government, has made the point that Labour councillors are, in general, among the most right-wing section of the Labour Party, not least because of the salaries they now receive.
The vast majority of Green councillors also rule out voting against cuts. For example, Samir Jeeraj of the Green Party was a platform speaker at the November conference of the Coalition of Resistance (CoR), in the workshop on ‘what should political representatives do?’ He argued that "many of the tools used by radical councils in the 1980s are no longer available to councillors". Therefore, it is no longer possible to take the ‘Liverpool and Lambeth road’. Bill Randall, the convenor of the Green group on Brighton city council (the largest group of Green councillors in the country), stated clearly: "We can’t stop the cuts, but we believe the blow can be softened by adopting an open-book approach involving councillors, staff, trade unions, the third sector, the business community and services users to find ways to deal with the grievous cuts inflicted upon our city by the government. We urge other parties on the council to join us in negotiating the best possible outcome for the city in these very difficult circumstances". This is identical to the position put by New Labour.
However, most councils have time to prepare before taking this road. By using their reserves and borrowing powers to avoid making cuts, councils can gain time to build a mass movement in their support. Manchester city council, for example, is estimated to have £100 million in reserves. To strengthen such a stand – and this answers the lie that there is ‘nothing Labour can do’ – Ed Miliband could promise that an incoming Labour government would write off all local authority debts incurred from avoiding cuts.
SOME LABOUR COUNCILLORS’ groups, not yet in power, may stand on a platform that comes closer to opposition to cuts than those of Labour councils. Many will have their pledges tested very quickly when they are swept to power in May. In Hull, to give one example, the leader of the Labour group spoke at a 450-strong local anti-cuts rally and pledged to demand the return of the £80 million that has been cut from the council grant by central government, to oppose compulsory redundancies, and bring at least some privatised services back in house. The idea of introducing a local Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) has also been mooted.
The anti-cuts movement in Hull has managed to exert huge pressure on the Labour group. It now needs to draw up an anti-cuts programme and demands that the Labour group stands on it in May’s elections. If the whole Labour group does not adopt it, then individual councillors should be asked to give explicit guarantees to support the whole anti-cuts programme and, if not, to specify which they will support and why they do not support others. Verbal pledges from councillors in anti-cuts meetings, when they are feeling the heat of local workers’ anger, are one thing but are not enough. Concrete, written pledges are required. Any anti-cuts programme needs to include opposition to all cuts in services, jobs, pay and conditions. Given the scale of the cut in the funds Hull receives from central government, any pledge short of this will, in reality, mean devastating cuts.
Potentially, a promise not to carry out compulsory redundancies could mean merely using this as a bargaining chip in order to extract agreements to major cuts in pay and conditions – as Barnsley council has done, for example. Polly Toynbee has shamefully held up Barnsley council as a good example, but for local authority workers in Barnsley it is a council of axe men and women. Nor has accepting cuts in pay and conditions avoided compulsory redundancies. Determined to do the government’s bidding and ‘balance the books’, the council has still had to make some compulsory redundancies.
It is necessary for Labour groups which say they oppose cuts to understand that it is only by coming into conflict with the government, and building a movement to defeat it, that it will be possible to avoid cuts. It may be possible to set a ‘balanced budget’ initially without making cuts – by spending reserves and using borrowing powers, and the local anti-cuts campaign should make proposals on this. But this would only be to gain time in order to prepared for the inevitable conflict with the government at a later stage.
THESE KINDS OF concrete discussions between anti-cuts organisations and Labour and Green candidates will enable workers to see clearly who really opposes cuts. It is a completely different approach to that taken by the leadership of Right to Work (RtW) and CoR who have uncritically built up New Labour and Green councillors as leaders of the movement, without a word of criticism of them for failing to actually oppose the cuts. Such an approach is to prepare the movement for betrayals and defeats.
There is a clear comparison here with the movement against the Iraq war. The leaderships of both CoR and RtW led the Stop the War Coalition (STWC). Against the objections of the Socialist Party representatives on the STWC committee, the Socialist Workers Party and its allies bulldozed the decision through the committee to allow a platform to the Liberal Democrats – without any public criticisms of them – before hundreds of thousands at the massive anti-war demonstration in London in February 2003.
They also refused to allow any speaker on behalf of a socialist organisation. This burnished the ‘anti-war’ credentials of Charles Kennedy and the Lib-Dems. Undoubtedly, this helped to build up their ‘radical’ image, particularly amongst young people. Today, Nick Clegg boasts of his anti-war stance then, while enthusiastically embracing Osborne’s axe today as well as the continued occupation of Afghanistan! To repeat the same mistake in the anti-cuts movement would have even more serious consequences. That this is a real danger is demonstrated by a RtW advert for a lobby of Manchester Labour council, which is making 2,000 workers redundant. The advert declared: "We want to show the Con-Dem government that we will stand with our councillors in opposing the cuts" – without a mention of the fact that the councillors are the ones voting through the cuts!
The reason given for this is that ‘the broadest and most united possible’ anti-cuts movement is needed to beat the government. This is complete misunderstanding. It is wrong to imagine, in Manchester for example, that the road to involving more local authority workers and service users in the anti-cuts movement is to have the councillors who are decimating services in the leadership of the movement. Without doubt, workers rightly lay the primary blame for the cuts at the feet of the Con-Dem government. But this does not mean that they consider the Labour councils carrying out cuts to be blameless.
We favour united local anti-cuts campaigns, but not to the extent of involving people who are voting through cuts and who inevitably demand that the campaign does not lay any blame at their feet. We have already the example in Coventry of Labour councillors threatening to set up an alternative campaign to Coventry Against the Cuts if it did not desist from its plans to lobby the Labour council for voting through £101 million worth of cuts.
This does not mean that we expect local anti-campaigns to be ‘chemically pure’. There are bound to be workers who are attracted to the local anti-campaigns, seeing them as the best fighters, but do not see the possibility of opposing all cuts at this stage. Such workers are welcome in the struggle. However, this is a different issue to giving a platform to councillors who are implementing cuts. In the anti-poll tax struggle the activists included people of many different political persuasions, including Tory voters. All who supported mass non-payment were welcome. Councillors jailing non-payers were not.
Socialists have a vital role to play in the anti-cuts movement. Potentially, our role, together with the best workers, could make the difference between the success and failure of the movement. At the same time, there will be greater opportunities to win workers to socialism and to Marxism than has been the case for many decades. Undoubtedly, there is an ideological element in the Tories’ messianic drive to destroy public services. In essence, however, the cuts arise from the concrete position that capitalism finds itself at the current time. Across Europe, capitalist governments, regardless of their political stripe, are carrying out similar savage attacks on public spending. Governments can certainly be forced to retreat by mass struggle, but the only way to permanently end the attacks on public services is to end capitalism. In Britain, the Con-Dems could be thrown out of office, but they would be replaced by a Labour government that would also try and continue to cut, albeit at a slightly slower pace. It is essential that socialists are not just the best fighters against the cuts but also link the fight against the cuts to the need to build mass independent workers’ parties with a clear socialist programme.
So as the struggle continues we must be wary of rogues looking to take the movement in a different direction that will suit them best. We must not allow the labour party to hi-jack the movement for their own political gains. That would be wrong and it would be not only betraying the movement it would also be betraying the public who once swept along by new labours anti cuts moto will soon be betrayed when new labour regain power and start implimenting their own cuts. That is a very dangerous position to get in to so we must be careful who we join with.
All in all i see the movement as slowly gathering pace as we head towards 26th of March but it is waht happens in the weeks, months and ultimatly years after that date which will show what legacy this movement will have in history. Whetehr we push forward for general strike action or sit back thinking our work here is done. We must not get complacent as any concession we do win off the government you can be sure something else will be being taken away from us behind our backs. That is the nature of capitalists they are driven by greed. Even to the extent of taking it from those who are the poorest in society and those who need the support most.
Lets keep our eye on the ball at all times during this struggle and be sure to make our stance clear that we are no to all cuts, Labour, tory or lib dem cuts. They are all the same when you are working class i'm afraid.
The TUC demonstration on 26 March will mark a turning point. At last year’s TUC conference it was the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN), in a move initiated by Socialist Party members, which organised a lobby demanding that the TUC call a national demonstration. The demonstration is only taking place belatedly, when many tens of thousands of jobs have already gone. Nonetheless, it will raise the confidence of the hundreds of thousands of workers who take part, and the millions who watch it on TV. It will demonstrate palpably to all those living in fear for their jobs that they are not alone and that a fight-back is possible. A demonstration, however, is only a starting point.
Unfortunately, the majority of national trade union leaders do not see the possibility of defeating the cuts, in many cases even accepting the argument of New Labour that cuts are necessary, but need to take place more slowly. Therefore, they see their role as no more than organising token resistance and trying to ameliorate the worst effects of the cuts. The strategy put forward at the TUC demonstration is likely to centre on voting Labour in the local elections five weeks later. Even though many of those demonstrating on 26 March will vote Labour in May, in order to punish the ConDems, this ‘strategy’ will rightly be seen as a capitulation given the appalling scale of cuts already being implemented by Labour councils just as much as by Liberal and Tory ones.
The movement as i say has been slow to really get going and the splits are already emerging i think.
Our starting point has to be opposition to all cuts in jobs and services. This slogan is essential if real unity of the anti-cuts movement is to be achieved. To accept some cuts is to allow the movement to be divided between service users and workers, public- and private-sector workers, benefit claimants and pensioners etc.
The anti-cuts movement will inevitably be multi-faceted given the huge scope of the cuts. The student movement, which led the way so magnificently before Christmas, will remain an important part of the struggle. Already Manchester swimming pool users are threatening to occupy their local pool to prevent it closing. Many similar campaigns will develop. Rent strikes will also be on the cards. A mighty struggle to defend the NHS is required. A movement of benefit claimants is urgently needed, as the vicious cuts literally drive those worst effected to despair. According to the Disability Alliance, nearly one in ten of those claiming the threatened Disability Living Allowance say that losing the benefit may make "life not worth living".
All of these movements and more are essential and inevitable, but to maximise their effectiveness they need to be linked to the enormous potential power of the organised working class in the trade unions. The trade union movement needs to demonstrate that by allying itself clearly with all of those struggling to defend their benefits and services. If the trade unions were to lead a determined struggle against the cuts they would be able to win the active support of many millions more who are not currently organised in the trade unions. Such would be the popular support for such a movement it would be possible to sweep the anti-trade union laws aside.
OUR CENTRAL DEMAND on 26 March will be for a one-day public-sector strike, as a step towards a 24-hour general strike. There is widespread support among public-sector trade unionists for a co-ordinated public-sector strike. At a recent 250-strong Hackney Unison AGM there was a unanimous vote for a one-day public-sector strike. A motion calling for Hackney council to set a needs budget was also carried overwhelmingly. In Scotland, despite the leadership of Unison twice attempting to push through a rotten deal, the Scottish Council has twice stuck to its guns in demanding militant action. In the wake of 26 March, even the most right-wing trade union leaders could be forced to support co-ordinated strike action as a result of the enormous pressure building up from their membership.
Socialists have to support every step towards a public-sector general strike. We are campaigning for those trade unions planning national ballots, both on pensions and cuts, to co-ordinate their strike action and then to appeal to other unions to join them. Such action, even if it was only a partial public-sector general strike in the first instance, would scare the government and tremendously lift the confidence of the working class, preparing the ground for an escalation of the struggle.
To demand co-ordinated action, however, does not mean arguing that workers whose jobs and conditions are under threat should wait for other sections of the working class before taking action. As is being tragically demonstrated in many parts of local government, only speedy and determined action can prevent devastating cuts. If such an approach is taken, council workers fighting in even just one local authority can win victories. At the start of this year, Kirklees Unison, by threatening strike action, was able to force the council to retreat from compulsory redundancies and from reducing redundancy pay and some other measures. This was not a complete victory, but the concessions were won only by threatening militant action and opposing all cuts. The leaderships of many other Unison branches seem to be trying to prevent compulsory redundancies simply by pleading. Contrast Kirklees’ fighting stance to the statement by the Manchester Unison branch which, in the face of devastation, does not say it will fight the cuts but only offers to "assist members during this extremely difficult process".
Strike action needs to be linked to political action. At the moment, Labour is complacent that, despite carrying out government cuts, it will reap the electoral rewards from the government’s unpopularity. The anti-cuts movement urgently needs to discuss standing as many anti-cuts candidates as possible in May’s elections. They should be encouraged to stand under the banner of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), the electoral coalition involving militant trade unionists like Bob Crow alongside the Socialist Party and others, which has an important role to play in co-ordinating this.
I think that the actions of labour councillors and labour Mp's will become clearer by the week as this onslaught from the government continues. It will become clear pretty quickly who's side they are really on. Be it side with the mass resistance and fight all cuts including any cuts they would have made or join with the tories in the safety of the Westminster bubble which seems detached from the rest of reality.
BUT DOES THIS mean that socialists should never call for support for Labour or Green candidates? No. On the contrary, we would enthusiastically build support for the stand of any council that was prepared to fight. At the same time, we do not create illusions that this is likely. The number of Labour councillors who have pledged to defy the cuts can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Not a single Labour council has even considered doing so. This contrasts sharply with the situation in the 1980s when Labour was at base a workers’ party, even though it had a leadership that acted in the interests of the capitalists. When it came to the crunch in the 1980s only the Militant-led Liverpool city council, alongside Lambeth, was prepared to defy the government. Another 18 Labour councils, however, at least pledged to do so, before betraying the struggle at a later stage. Today, even John McDonnell MP, who does support councils defying the government, has made the point that Labour councillors are, in general, among the most right-wing section of the Labour Party, not least because of the salaries they now receive.
The vast majority of Green councillors also rule out voting against cuts. For example, Samir Jeeraj of the Green Party was a platform speaker at the November conference of the Coalition of Resistance (CoR), in the workshop on ‘what should political representatives do?’ He argued that "many of the tools used by radical councils in the 1980s are no longer available to councillors". Therefore, it is no longer possible to take the ‘Liverpool and Lambeth road’. Bill Randall, the convenor of the Green group on Brighton city council (the largest group of Green councillors in the country), stated clearly: "We can’t stop the cuts, but we believe the blow can be softened by adopting an open-book approach involving councillors, staff, trade unions, the third sector, the business community and services users to find ways to deal with the grievous cuts inflicted upon our city by the government. We urge other parties on the council to join us in negotiating the best possible outcome for the city in these very difficult circumstances". This is identical to the position put by New Labour.
However, most councils have time to prepare before taking this road. By using their reserves and borrowing powers to avoid making cuts, councils can gain time to build a mass movement in their support. Manchester city council, for example, is estimated to have £100 million in reserves. To strengthen such a stand – and this answers the lie that there is ‘nothing Labour can do’ – Ed Miliband could promise that an incoming Labour government would write off all local authority debts incurred from avoiding cuts.
SOME LABOUR COUNCILLORS’ groups, not yet in power, may stand on a platform that comes closer to opposition to cuts than those of Labour councils. Many will have their pledges tested very quickly when they are swept to power in May. In Hull, to give one example, the leader of the Labour group spoke at a 450-strong local anti-cuts rally and pledged to demand the return of the £80 million that has been cut from the council grant by central government, to oppose compulsory redundancies, and bring at least some privatised services back in house. The idea of introducing a local Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) has also been mooted.
The anti-cuts movement in Hull has managed to exert huge pressure on the Labour group. It now needs to draw up an anti-cuts programme and demands that the Labour group stands on it in May’s elections. If the whole Labour group does not adopt it, then individual councillors should be asked to give explicit guarantees to support the whole anti-cuts programme and, if not, to specify which they will support and why they do not support others. Verbal pledges from councillors in anti-cuts meetings, when they are feeling the heat of local workers’ anger, are one thing but are not enough. Concrete, written pledges are required. Any anti-cuts programme needs to include opposition to all cuts in services, jobs, pay and conditions. Given the scale of the cut in the funds Hull receives from central government, any pledge short of this will, in reality, mean devastating cuts.
Potentially, a promise not to carry out compulsory redundancies could mean merely using this as a bargaining chip in order to extract agreements to major cuts in pay and conditions – as Barnsley council has done, for example. Polly Toynbee has shamefully held up Barnsley council as a good example, but for local authority workers in Barnsley it is a council of axe men and women. Nor has accepting cuts in pay and conditions avoided compulsory redundancies. Determined to do the government’s bidding and ‘balance the books’, the council has still had to make some compulsory redundancies.
It is necessary for Labour groups which say they oppose cuts to understand that it is only by coming into conflict with the government, and building a movement to defeat it, that it will be possible to avoid cuts. It may be possible to set a ‘balanced budget’ initially without making cuts – by spending reserves and using borrowing powers, and the local anti-cuts campaign should make proposals on this. But this would only be to gain time in order to prepared for the inevitable conflict with the government at a later stage.
THESE KINDS OF concrete discussions between anti-cuts organisations and Labour and Green candidates will enable workers to see clearly who really opposes cuts. It is a completely different approach to that taken by the leadership of Right to Work (RtW) and CoR who have uncritically built up New Labour and Green councillors as leaders of the movement, without a word of criticism of them for failing to actually oppose the cuts. Such an approach is to prepare the movement for betrayals and defeats.
There is a clear comparison here with the movement against the Iraq war. The leaderships of both CoR and RtW led the Stop the War Coalition (STWC). Against the objections of the Socialist Party representatives on the STWC committee, the Socialist Workers Party and its allies bulldozed the decision through the committee to allow a platform to the Liberal Democrats – without any public criticisms of them – before hundreds of thousands at the massive anti-war demonstration in London in February 2003.
They also refused to allow any speaker on behalf of a socialist organisation. This burnished the ‘anti-war’ credentials of Charles Kennedy and the Lib-Dems. Undoubtedly, this helped to build up their ‘radical’ image, particularly amongst young people. Today, Nick Clegg boasts of his anti-war stance then, while enthusiastically embracing Osborne’s axe today as well as the continued occupation of Afghanistan! To repeat the same mistake in the anti-cuts movement would have even more serious consequences. That this is a real danger is demonstrated by a RtW advert for a lobby of Manchester Labour council, which is making 2,000 workers redundant. The advert declared: "We want to show the Con-Dem government that we will stand with our councillors in opposing the cuts" – without a mention of the fact that the councillors are the ones voting through the cuts!
The reason given for this is that ‘the broadest and most united possible’ anti-cuts movement is needed to beat the government. This is complete misunderstanding. It is wrong to imagine, in Manchester for example, that the road to involving more local authority workers and service users in the anti-cuts movement is to have the councillors who are decimating services in the leadership of the movement. Without doubt, workers rightly lay the primary blame for the cuts at the feet of the Con-Dem government. But this does not mean that they consider the Labour councils carrying out cuts to be blameless.
We favour united local anti-cuts campaigns, but not to the extent of involving people who are voting through cuts and who inevitably demand that the campaign does not lay any blame at their feet. We have already the example in Coventry of Labour councillors threatening to set up an alternative campaign to Coventry Against the Cuts if it did not desist from its plans to lobby the Labour council for voting through £101 million worth of cuts.
This does not mean that we expect local anti-campaigns to be ‘chemically pure’. There are bound to be workers who are attracted to the local anti-campaigns, seeing them as the best fighters, but do not see the possibility of opposing all cuts at this stage. Such workers are welcome in the struggle. However, this is a different issue to giving a platform to councillors who are implementing cuts. In the anti-poll tax struggle the activists included people of many different political persuasions, including Tory voters. All who supported mass non-payment were welcome. Councillors jailing non-payers were not.
Socialists have a vital role to play in the anti-cuts movement. Potentially, our role, together with the best workers, could make the difference between the success and failure of the movement. At the same time, there will be greater opportunities to win workers to socialism and to Marxism than has been the case for many decades. Undoubtedly, there is an ideological element in the Tories’ messianic drive to destroy public services. In essence, however, the cuts arise from the concrete position that capitalism finds itself at the current time. Across Europe, capitalist governments, regardless of their political stripe, are carrying out similar savage attacks on public spending. Governments can certainly be forced to retreat by mass struggle, but the only way to permanently end the attacks on public services is to end capitalism. In Britain, the Con-Dems could be thrown out of office, but they would be replaced by a Labour government that would also try and continue to cut, albeit at a slightly slower pace. It is essential that socialists are not just the best fighters against the cuts but also link the fight against the cuts to the need to build mass independent workers’ parties with a clear socialist programme.
So as the struggle continues we must be wary of rogues looking to take the movement in a different direction that will suit them best. We must not allow the labour party to hi-jack the movement for their own political gains. That would be wrong and it would be not only betraying the movement it would also be betraying the public who once swept along by new labours anti cuts moto will soon be betrayed when new labour regain power and start implimenting their own cuts. That is a very dangerous position to get in to so we must be careful who we join with.
All in all i see the movement as slowly gathering pace as we head towards 26th of March but it is waht happens in the weeks, months and ultimatly years after that date which will show what legacy this movement will have in history. Whetehr we push forward for general strike action or sit back thinking our work here is done. We must not get complacent as any concession we do win off the government you can be sure something else will be being taken away from us behind our backs. That is the nature of capitalists they are driven by greed. Even to the extent of taking it from those who are the poorest in society and those who need the support most.
Lets keep our eye on the ball at all times during this struggle and be sure to make our stance clear that we are no to all cuts, Labour, tory or lib dem cuts. They are all the same when you are working class i'm afraid.
Saturday, 26 February 2011
The fight has just begun
So as we see councils across the country passing their budgets for the year 2011/2012 it wont be long now untill the first real cuts start to bite in early April. With a national budget set to unviel even more cuts and probably tax rises for fuel and other such taxable items they can get their hands on we are left wondering about the battle ahead.
So far the cuts are happening so widespread and scattered its hard to know where to focus all of your energies. I do think the anti cuts movement do need to step it up a bit over the next few months as the cuts begin to deepen as local communities begin to suffer at the hands of this tory lead government of ours.
A few key dates will be on the 5th of March myself and other comrades will be getting out in protest for the first official NSSN anti cuts body's big scale protest. This will be a joint protest with comrades on teh same day taking their voices and placards down to cardiff where the lib dems are meeting. The one i will be attending in London will be the national conference of labour councillors. To highlight their hypocrisy of putting through cuts in their areas whilst saying they are against the cuts.
We need to make them realise they are just as much to blame for the cuts as the tories and lib dems. Ok maybe they are not the governing party of the country of course but when cuts are being passed down to a local level it is then their choice if they do the tories dirty work for them or not.
I was at the budget council meeting for the stevenage borough council this week which is a labour run council and was saddened to hear that they all voted through the cuts resoundingly. Very sad i thought to myself as i came away from the meeting.
We put up a good if small protest before the setting of the budget but it came to nothing as the cuts agenda rolls on.
Back in the 80's there were labour councils out there prepared to fight back against Margret Tatcher and say no to her cuts. They were almost successful. They even gained 60 million pounds of concessions from teh cuts through a well organised mass campaign and for them days a 60 million addition to your budget was a lot and something to feel very proud of.
This came about due to the role of militant labour in the city who along with Terry fielding and Derek Hatton took a stand against teh government. Along with Lambeth council who a few interesting stories of councillors being expelled from teh labour group there made a admirable stand.
The main reason these campaign eventually broke down was due to a mass purge from the labour right including the then leader neil Kinnock. The isolation of these brave councils, who were not realy brave if you think about it they were just doing right by their residents and people who voted them in.
Which i'm afraid is what we expect of all of our elected representitives sadly a left wing labour council as Dave nellist rightly said at the last NSSN conference is as rare as a poor banker in this day and age.
If one labour council stood up and said they are not doing the tories dirty work and refuse to put through their cuts it will send a message out there that other councils may follow in inspiration. Its all it might take to spark a wave of resistance to teh cuts which will send shockwaves back to Eric Pickles and the tory party. We should not be scared of big fat Eric Pickes coming in and setting our budgets for us as if in between refusing to vote the cuts through a mass campaign linking local anti cuts groups, unions, public sector staff and local charities and workers can rally around and create a mass resistance to Eric Pickes and his nasty tories. I really do think if you do not even attempt to fight back you have no chance of winning. Even if you fail you have still made a stand and stood by your principles.
People talk to me saying you cant set a illegal budget when setting your council budget. But a illegal budget is only when you havent set a budget at all. A needs budget is not illegal at all and is something i'm hugely in favour of.
An needs budget is where you set out which key essential services you cannot loose and what your local community and area needs and cant do without and spend its reserves and borrow in order to save jobs and services as the campaign builds
Councils are able to borrow at a good rate and can do this to bridge the gap in cut in funding. Quite often councils have large pool of funds they can draw on in the emergency/reserve budget that can keep local councils going if they do get stuck.
I found this piece which i have refered back to plenty of times to people in debates over council budget and cuts debates i've engaged in. This is a piece from the socialist a newspaper produced by the socialist party on The 7th of October 2010 and which i feel highlights things brilliantly and explains why councillors should fight the cuts.
IN THE mid-1980s Liverpool Labour council, under the political influence of the Militant (forerunner of the Socialist Party) and the pressure of a mass working class movement, successfully led a campaign to secure extra resources for the city's urban renewal programme from a hostile Tory government intent on cutting funding.
Subsequently, in an act of political revenge, 47 Liverpool Labour councillors were undemocratically removed from office and surcharged thousands of pounds. Every penny of the surcharges was raised from the labour movement in a magnificent fund-raising campaign.
If any council today showed a milligram of the courage and conviction of the 47 Liverpool councillors we would be living in a better place. Unfortunately New Labour councillors are raising the spectre of surcharge as an excuse for not fighting coalition cuts, but instead for passing them on.
I have done a quick question and answer guide of council law for New Labour councillors worried that the twin terminator toffs - Cameron and Clegg - will come and batter them.
If I don't vote for these cuts and annoy the government I will be surcharged and lose my home?
Oh no you won't! The power of surcharge was identified as wrong by the Nolan Commission and abolished as part of the 2000 Local Government Act. The only possible remnant of this system is if a councillor personally benefits from any financial losses incurred by a council.
But if I go against the cuts I could be barred from office.
If you do not "have regard" to financial advice given by your council's chief finance officer and fail to explain the reasons for not going along with his or her advice then, according to their statutory duty, you could be referred to the standards board for breach of your council's code of conduct which could bar you from office for a period.
But it would not be easy for a finance officer to do this if, like Liverpool, you took a stand as part of a mass campaign to defend your services and communities. Remember it is the local people who put you where you are, not unelected finance officers.
Margaret Thatcher's vicious Tory regime only moved to surcharge the Liverpool councillors after the 1984-85 miners' strike ended and Liverpool council was left isolated by the Labour leadership. If the twenty other Labour councils that had pledged to defy the Tory government had not crumbled at the first hurdle, the government would not have been able to surcharge the Liverpool councillors. On the contrary, the government would have been swept from office.
But the government will just take over and send in commissioners to run things.
Despite the threat, it did not happen in Liverpool. Instead the Labour Party, under the spineless leadership of Neil Kinnock did Thatcher's dirty work for her in witch-hunting the district party. Recently, the only notable time when commissioners were sent in was in Doncaster following a media storm about the running of social services.
For a weak coalition government to try this against a council fighting to preserve services, and especially one with local workers mobilised in support, would be an entirely different matter.
Naturally all this would depend on mobilising support but tens of thousands supported the councillors in Liverpool on mass demonstrations. This organised fightback actually won extra cash for services.
The next Labour councillor who tries to back away from saving local services should recognise that by voting for massive cuts they will in effect be voting to abolish themselves. After all, if the services go, what is the point of having these surplus-to-requirement back bench councillors anyway?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local democracy
Just how responsive to local people was the Militant-influenced Liverpool city council? London Evening Standard journalist Simon Jenkins recently wrote:
"The most distinctive feature of the militant Left's rule of Liverpool in the Eighties was its impact on urban renewal. Responding to the local public, the council smashed most of the hated towers to the ground and left neighbourhood groups to plan their replacements. The result was no more decks, stairwells and broken lifts set in windy parks, as dictated by professional architects. Instead people decided to revert to terrace houses, like those taken from them in the Sixties. It was an object lesson in democracy."
A far cry from today's councils!
So as the cuts austerity project rolls on by the tories and attacks fall on the ordinary good people of this country this is just where the fight begins.
Lastly i do hope you can join me on the protest for an alternative on the 26th of March in central London where myself and hundreds if not thousands will be marching against the government and telling them there is another way.
Lets keep the fight going to preserve our public services before it is too late!!
So far the cuts are happening so widespread and scattered its hard to know where to focus all of your energies. I do think the anti cuts movement do need to step it up a bit over the next few months as the cuts begin to deepen as local communities begin to suffer at the hands of this tory lead government of ours.
A few key dates will be on the 5th of March myself and other comrades will be getting out in protest for the first official NSSN anti cuts body's big scale protest. This will be a joint protest with comrades on teh same day taking their voices and placards down to cardiff where the lib dems are meeting. The one i will be attending in London will be the national conference of labour councillors. To highlight their hypocrisy of putting through cuts in their areas whilst saying they are against the cuts.
We need to make them realise they are just as much to blame for the cuts as the tories and lib dems. Ok maybe they are not the governing party of the country of course but when cuts are being passed down to a local level it is then their choice if they do the tories dirty work for them or not.
I was at the budget council meeting for the stevenage borough council this week which is a labour run council and was saddened to hear that they all voted through the cuts resoundingly. Very sad i thought to myself as i came away from the meeting.
We put up a good if small protest before the setting of the budget but it came to nothing as the cuts agenda rolls on.
Back in the 80's there were labour councils out there prepared to fight back against Margret Tatcher and say no to her cuts. They were almost successful. They even gained 60 million pounds of concessions from teh cuts through a well organised mass campaign and for them days a 60 million addition to your budget was a lot and something to feel very proud of.
This came about due to the role of militant labour in the city who along with Terry fielding and Derek Hatton took a stand against teh government. Along with Lambeth council who a few interesting stories of councillors being expelled from teh labour group there made a admirable stand.
The main reason these campaign eventually broke down was due to a mass purge from the labour right including the then leader neil Kinnock. The isolation of these brave councils, who were not realy brave if you think about it they were just doing right by their residents and people who voted them in.
Which i'm afraid is what we expect of all of our elected representitives sadly a left wing labour council as Dave nellist rightly said at the last NSSN conference is as rare as a poor banker in this day and age.
If one labour council stood up and said they are not doing the tories dirty work and refuse to put through their cuts it will send a message out there that other councils may follow in inspiration. Its all it might take to spark a wave of resistance to teh cuts which will send shockwaves back to Eric Pickles and the tory party. We should not be scared of big fat Eric Pickes coming in and setting our budgets for us as if in between refusing to vote the cuts through a mass campaign linking local anti cuts groups, unions, public sector staff and local charities and workers can rally around and create a mass resistance to Eric Pickes and his nasty tories. I really do think if you do not even attempt to fight back you have no chance of winning. Even if you fail you have still made a stand and stood by your principles.
People talk to me saying you cant set a illegal budget when setting your council budget. But a illegal budget is only when you havent set a budget at all. A needs budget is not illegal at all and is something i'm hugely in favour of.
An needs budget is where you set out which key essential services you cannot loose and what your local community and area needs and cant do without and spend its reserves and borrow in order to save jobs and services as the campaign builds
Councils are able to borrow at a good rate and can do this to bridge the gap in cut in funding. Quite often councils have large pool of funds they can draw on in the emergency/reserve budget that can keep local councils going if they do get stuck.
I found this piece which i have refered back to plenty of times to people in debates over council budget and cuts debates i've engaged in. This is a piece from the socialist a newspaper produced by the socialist party on The 7th of October 2010 and which i feel highlights things brilliantly and explains why councillors should fight the cuts.
IN THE mid-1980s Liverpool Labour council, under the political influence of the Militant (forerunner of the Socialist Party) and the pressure of a mass working class movement, successfully led a campaign to secure extra resources for the city's urban renewal programme from a hostile Tory government intent on cutting funding.
Subsequently, in an act of political revenge, 47 Liverpool Labour councillors were undemocratically removed from office and surcharged thousands of pounds. Every penny of the surcharges was raised from the labour movement in a magnificent fund-raising campaign.
If any council today showed a milligram of the courage and conviction of the 47 Liverpool councillors we would be living in a better place. Unfortunately New Labour councillors are raising the spectre of surcharge as an excuse for not fighting coalition cuts, but instead for passing them on.
I have done a quick question and answer guide of council law for New Labour councillors worried that the twin terminator toffs - Cameron and Clegg - will come and batter them.
If I don't vote for these cuts and annoy the government I will be surcharged and lose my home?
Oh no you won't! The power of surcharge was identified as wrong by the Nolan Commission and abolished as part of the 2000 Local Government Act. The only possible remnant of this system is if a councillor personally benefits from any financial losses incurred by a council.
But if I go against the cuts I could be barred from office.
If you do not "have regard" to financial advice given by your council's chief finance officer and fail to explain the reasons for not going along with his or her advice then, according to their statutory duty, you could be referred to the standards board for breach of your council's code of conduct which could bar you from office for a period.
But it would not be easy for a finance officer to do this if, like Liverpool, you took a stand as part of a mass campaign to defend your services and communities. Remember it is the local people who put you where you are, not unelected finance officers.
Margaret Thatcher's vicious Tory regime only moved to surcharge the Liverpool councillors after the 1984-85 miners' strike ended and Liverpool council was left isolated by the Labour leadership. If the twenty other Labour councils that had pledged to defy the Tory government had not crumbled at the first hurdle, the government would not have been able to surcharge the Liverpool councillors. On the contrary, the government would have been swept from office.
But the government will just take over and send in commissioners to run things.
Despite the threat, it did not happen in Liverpool. Instead the Labour Party, under the spineless leadership of Neil Kinnock did Thatcher's dirty work for her in witch-hunting the district party. Recently, the only notable time when commissioners were sent in was in Doncaster following a media storm about the running of social services.
For a weak coalition government to try this against a council fighting to preserve services, and especially one with local workers mobilised in support, would be an entirely different matter.
Naturally all this would depend on mobilising support but tens of thousands supported the councillors in Liverpool on mass demonstrations. This organised fightback actually won extra cash for services.
The next Labour councillor who tries to back away from saving local services should recognise that by voting for massive cuts they will in effect be voting to abolish themselves. After all, if the services go, what is the point of having these surplus-to-requirement back bench councillors anyway?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local democracy
Just how responsive to local people was the Militant-influenced Liverpool city council? London Evening Standard journalist Simon Jenkins recently wrote:
"The most distinctive feature of the militant Left's rule of Liverpool in the Eighties was its impact on urban renewal. Responding to the local public, the council smashed most of the hated towers to the ground and left neighbourhood groups to plan their replacements. The result was no more decks, stairwells and broken lifts set in windy parks, as dictated by professional architects. Instead people decided to revert to terrace houses, like those taken from them in the Sixties. It was an object lesson in democracy."
A far cry from today's councils!
So as the cuts austerity project rolls on by the tories and attacks fall on the ordinary good people of this country this is just where the fight begins.
Lastly i do hope you can join me on the protest for an alternative on the 26th of March in central London where myself and hundreds if not thousands will be marching against the government and telling them there is another way.
Lets keep the fight going to preserve our public services before it is too late!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)