British Trotskyism in 2014

Britain has never had a strong movement of Trotskyism let’s be clear. In 2014 with the two major forces on the left identifying as Trotskyist as the socialist party SP and the Socialist Workers party – SWP Both have had high points in their history to the leading of the Liverpool City Council in the 1980’s of the former Militant Socialist party to the SWP who claim to be the leaders of the stop the war movement in and around 2003 with the estimated march of over a million on the streets of London opposing the Iraq war. Both claim to hold true to the true meaning of Trotsky and his perspectives and look to replicate a Russia 1917 all over again and be the head of that movement. In the UK we have many Trotskyist groups claiming to be the one true revolutionary group yet none getting the irony that Marxism is all about a working class party which does not seek to create other party’s to oppose it. Yet in the UK we have so many little left sects who all believe they are right and all the other groups are wrong. For me I have only been a member of one trot party that being the Socialist party of England and Wales. The SP for ease of reference. This party while similar to its others on the surface likes to boost about its proud tradition in the unions and in leading mass campaigns. Trotskyists are not anything if they are not unique in explaining why they are the real followers of Leon Trotsky and that how their tradition follows in his footsteps not any other group. For me seeing the SP and the SWP go into battle for the same battle ground saddened me in many ways we were almost taught to hate the SWP much like if we were a rangers fan we were born to hate Celtic fans and vice versa. Despite many not even gaining an understanding as to why and how our party came to hate this other lot and we must oppose them wherever we can. It’s just something many did not and will not question but accept that they are not part of our party so must be against us. I did find a lot of good SWP members and I am still in touch with many now who have left their own party for all together other reasons but are still sound people and are committed to changing society for the better despite no longer being in a party like myself but most importantly not wishing to continue the SWP’s and trotskyist poisonous politics any further. For me they are better for this. The authoritarian nature of these groups is no coincidence for me. Having put a term to the experiences I came across in the SP authoritarianism is something which is think is deeply held within certain parts of Marxism and Leninism as an extension of this tradition. For me the blind loyalty to a leadership you may have elected your delegate of your branch to go to congress to decide on your behalf if its good enough or not despite not knowing much on their inn’s and out’s is something which troubled me deeply. I was once a branch sectary of a local branch and felt as though I was carrying my branch’s thoughts and opinions on my shoulders yet when I got to congress I ended up falling in line with the majority decision of our region who felt we should all vote a retain w ay. This for me was me being part of a hierarchical structure of following those on high as those higher up must understand more and I should back them. This for me was one of many points in which I found myself catching myself to ask am I doing the correct thing here. For me I felt my views my opinions were getting sub subsumed into the party line I was pumping out the party line instead of my own thought out views and opinions on things. For me a political organisation of any sort can’t have a dictated line of which all should follow us all have our own minds and thoughts which must be put forward if so desired we can’t just elect others to represent us to then vote on our behalf. This is not democracy and for me is the reason why representative democracy is a sham and will not ever worked for the many. I think in Britain due to so many failures and few success’s many identified trotskyists try to get back to what Leon himself felt to be the true path to victory yet forgetting Trotsky himself never won as such. He came under huge scrutiny from the then Stalinist dictatorship which his previous supporters of Lenin and co who formed the communist party set in motion. Trotsky eventually came to his end by a Stalinist agent who tracked him down due to his opposition to a leadership not run by him and of him. So today’s British trotskyist party’s wish to recreate a movement where they are against the so called Stalinist leadership of the “right wing trade union leaders” which for the SP was a long held up bogey man which is the eternal baddie in the struggle and only a left wing Marxist leadership i.e. a socialist party run union leadership can make things right. Of course this would not solve anything as the PCS union shows who is lead by a left wing fighting leadership we are told which is in affect a socialist party run union with many of its own members at the head of this union. Only this weekend we have been told the union is under attack from the government not surprisingly of course as it has tried to resist some of the cuts in rhetoric anyway and have been under financial attack by the go who wish to end their “check off” system of how subs are paid as a consequence the union as seen fit to suspend all group and sector elections for the next 12 months. Ok the union is under attack but to suspend elections come on this is nothing but a b bureaucratic stitch up to muffle descent in the union and to centralise the union to doing what the leadership feel is necessary which in its view is staff cuts and its own version of austerity More can be read at http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/government-steps-up-political-attack-on-pcs One of the many irritating things about British Trotskyism as I cant speak for any other country’s own version is their dogmatic approach to selling papers and this idea of hyper activity if we are not filling our free days with activity of visiting a work place or having a paper sale we were wasting vital opportunities for convincing those mystic radical workers which were out there waiting for our call to come join us in our mission for global change. I spent many a morning on a cold damp paper sale trying to flog our latest line on why we need a “24 hour general strike” while ordinary people walked past wondering why we bother while they go about saving vital cash to afford their weekly shop. We rarely sold a paper when I was involved in a sale I gave away more than I sold I have to admit. Yes the paper fascinated me I contributed the odd article even but never did me feel this was vital to our work. The idea of pamphlets and literature explaining the current situation I’m not against what I am against is the contra sending shite we pumped out the stupid repetitive slogans of “strike now” “save our NHS” “vote for a socialist alternative against the boss’s party’s” and so on. I have been guilty of similar sloganeering on this very blog from my time in such party’s but stating the obvious has rarely got us anywhere in the past so why would it now? The political traditions that explicitly look towards the legacy of the Russian revolution have to some degree or another sought to replicate the political, ideological and organisational paradigms of Leninism. What is more, attitudes towards the USSR split the labour movement, sometimes in obvious ways such as attitudes to NATO, sometimes in less obvious ways, such as the anti-Communism of some union leaders being more motivated by opposing what they saw as outside interference in their own unions. Hugh Wilford’s excellent book “The CIA, the British Left and the Cold War: Calling the Tune?” highlights the degree to which British and American Trotskyism in the 1950s reflected the impact of individualist liberalism on the left, and itself reinforced anti-communism, and common sense misconceptions of “totalitarianism” that conflated communism and fascism, and overlooked the degree to which Western liberal freedoms were themselves founded upon the crimes of colonialism, and that the political liberties were predicated upon unequal economic power. Communism itself, in its Leninist form, assumed the overthrow of existing social relations, and therefore the need to create not only a new society but also a counter-hegemonic ideological project, founded upon a disciplined party. As Pierre Bourdieu has remarked “Once a system of mechanisms has been constituted capable of objectively ensuring the reproduction of the existing order by its own motion, the dominant class have only to let the system they dominate take its own course in order to exercise their domination; but until such a system exists, they have to work directly, daily personally, to produce and reproduce conditions of domination which are even then never entirely trustworthy”. I find many Marxists who define themselves as such today do not ever put their real politics to the front in arena’s such as elections in which they believe they can gain a platform from they always water down what they stand for to the supposed understanding of “ordinary people” this often comes across as highly condescending in my experience and does nothing to further their eventual goal. I still do know many good members of various British left sects and think they have a lot of good intentions but those with good intentions have been wrong in the past and directed us in a very dark direction. Taking a section of Trotsky’s many works on where he ended up and how many of today’s party’s follow such lines “In contrast to the Right Opposition, Leon Trotsky, ever since his expulsion from the Soviet Union in 1929, had worked strenuously to build up a Leninist faction internationally. The Trotskyists saw their prime task as the reform of the Comintern, with the idea of bringing it back onto the road of Leninism as well as the reintroduction of workers' democracy in the Soviet Union. Trotsky right up until 1933 and the victory of Hitler defended this perspective. The victory of Hitler constituted an historic turning point for Trotsky. The utter failure of the German debacle, which was caused primarily by the ultra-left policies of the Stalinists, to stir up any opposition or criticism within the ranks of the Communist International, meant that the Comintern was dead. Incredibly, the leadership of the Comintern declared their policies absolutely correct. "After Hitler", they said, "our turn!" The actions of the Stalinists were comparable to the betrayal of the social democrats in 1914. Trotsky drew the conclusion that reform of the Comintern was no longer tenable, and that new revolutionary parties would have to be built and a new international prepared. "After the shameful capitulation of the Communist International in Germany", stated Trotsky, "the Bolshevik-Leninists, without hesitating a moment, proclaimed: the Third International is dead!" “ Does this remind you of anything? The SP and its co thinkers now thinking the labour party is dead for workers and we no need a “new workers party” pumped out in article after article even from me at one point who was convinced “new workers party” is all we need to forward revolutionary matters for the working class in this country. If only we had a proper mass party to represent our views I used to think. Well creating a labour party mark 2 was my eventual conclusion and well if one labour party was bad enough why on earth were we trying to create another one on similar lines backed by the same tired out reformist bureaucratic union leadership who area apparently on the same left as us hilariously. The Left today is akin to ghosts which have arisen due to an improper burial service. Trotsky was never properly buried, so all sorts of distortions and revisions of his figure continue to haunt the scene of the Left to this day. His repressed legacy returns as the return of the repressed, which is what we find as the grotesque symptom of Leftist sectarianism in the contemporary political arena. I learnt a lot from my time in the SP and will be forever grateful for introducing me to class politics but the bad parts I will not take with me and will look to expose forever more and where I find it. A better world is possible, but not if we don’t learn from our past however uncomfortable that may be. I learnt many lessons inside and outside of various political party’s I conclude by thinking hierarchical political party’s have had their day in many ways and we need to start to think beyond them whilst not forgetting the good lessons they have taught us all.

Going hungry this christmas

This christmas many in this country will go hungry disgracefully. To be poor is not a crime – yet in Britain, the poor have been criminalized and demonized by a propaganda campaign that gives new meaning to the word 'vicious.' In the UK, with Christmas approaching, hunger stalks the land. An ever-increasing number of lives have been reduced to misery and despair, yet for those at the top, 'austerity' remains nothing more than a word in the dictionary. It is proof that British society has now officially departed the 21st century and is heading at high-speed towards the Victorian era of the late 19th century. This is the only conclusion to be drawn from a week in which it has been revealed that food poverty – or hunger, to use the proper word – is a fact of life for millions of UK citizens. A recently published report by an All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Hunger and Food Poverty in Britain leaves no doubt that the UK in 2014 is governed by a gang of rich, privately educated sociopaths whose contempt for the poor is such that they are content to let them starve. That four million people in Britain are in danger of going hungry, that 500,000 children live in families that can’t afford to feed them, and that 325,000 adults do not get enough to eat, with close to a million forced to rely on food banks (charities set up to feed people unable to feed themselves), this is a despicable state of affairs. Moreover, the fact that it is happening in a country that presumes to lecture others on human rights and justice, this comes as yet more evidence of the rank hypocrisy and double-standards which lie at the heart of the British establishment. Compounding matters are the sentiments of Tory Baroness Anne Jenkin, which she expressed during the launch of the report. Calling to mind the infamous words of Marie Antoinette who, when informed of the desperate plight of the poor in Paris prior to the French Revolution, said, “Let them eat cake,” Baroness Jenkin postulated that one of the reasons was to claim that the poor do not know how to cook and should eat porrige . Tories breathtaking hate of the poor knows no boundaries. A recent excellent post by Johnny Void over at the void the report to food banks and their use has been published last week not surprisingly the real causes for food bank use's being on the increase were not spelt out. I'll allow Johnny to do this for us "The growth in foodbanks dates back to before the current Government weren’t elected as Labour’s decimation of the social security started to take its toll. The rise in benefit sanctions also began in the dying years of Labour’s administration as did the introduction of the despised Atos run Work Capability Assessment, designed to strip sickness and disability benefits from one million people. Alongside this Labour’s normalisation of workfare led to unprecedented numbers of people forced to work without pay. And then, as if things weren’t bad enough, along came Iain Duncan Smith. With him came the bedroom tax, council tax benefit cuts, the benefit cap, housing benefit cuts, freezes of almost all in and out of work benefits, more Atos tests for disability benefits, the scrapping of Crisis Loans and countless other measures all precision targeted at cutting the incomes of the poorest. Yet to read today’s report into foodbanks, you would think that none of this had ever happened. Instead it insists that the growth in people going hungry has been caused by market forces and modern economic conditions – beyond the control of us mere mortals and simply something that is here to stay no matter what we do. It is true that alongside the slow dismantling of the welfare state, the minimum wage stagnated whilst the cost of living for the very poorest soared. The erosion of social housing meant the greedy private rental sector became out of control as competition for low cost housing became ever more intense. As supermarket dominance grew, small local shops closed and with them out of the way food prices began to rise. A privatised energy market did exactly what you would expect from profit hungry vultures and fleeced their most voiceless customers, often elderly or disabled people who have no choice but to try and keep the heating on. Payday lenders and pawn shops started to appear on every high street. In some areas wherever you look you will see companies owned by the rich dressed up in pauper’s clothing as they attempt to wring every last penny of profit they can from the poor. All of these things are a direct result of government policies supported by all the major parties to allow the parasites of capital – landlords, supermarkets, energy companies and legal loan sharks – to run rampant in the name of the free market. But you won’t read that in today’s report either. Instead it proposes tinkering with the rules on prepay gas and electricity metres, vague and unspecific policies to slightly edge up the minimum wage and yet more patronising fucking garbage about cooking lessons and budgeting skills. Meanwhile calls for benefit payments to be made quicker are redundant when the government is planning a waiting period of up to six weeks for Universal Credit. This is not even mentioned in the report. They are not just willfully ignoring the cuts to social security that have already happened, but also the ones that are still set to come. The huge rise in the number of people who face benefits being stopped or sanctioned has mirrored almost exactly the growth of foodbanks. An ever more complex and draconian system now forces unemployed, sick and disabled claimants into pointless and irksome ‘work related activity’ for days, weeks and even months on end. Any breach of the rules means benefits are stopped. The report endorses this increased “responsibility to look for work”, calling it a “welcome move”. Instead it merely makes the same calls for improvements in communications with claimants and access to hardship payments that we have heard before. These bastards really think it is okay to leave someone in desperate poverty for missing a meeting with the Jobcentre as long as you write them a nice letter explaining why. This comes with a proposal for a condescending ‘yellow card’ warning system, which was first suggested by the Tory think tank the Policy Exchange. You can see their thinking on this one. Poor people like football after all, so it will be easy for our little minds to understand. Even this comes with conditions attached. Whilst they recommend claimants be given a warning with the chance to explain “their offence” before a sanction is applied, it suggests that this could come with an “additional requirement” to be met. This might as well be to go outside and hop on one leg for half an hour whilst quacking like a duck for all the good most Jobcentre requirements do to help people find work. Punishing people for their poverty is behind this idea, not helping them find jobs. Those behind the report are adamant that nothing can be done to halt the rise in the use of foodbanks. But abolishing benefit sanctions completely would slash the number of people going hungry in the UK overnight. As would scrapping the bedroom tax, council tax reform and halting George Osborne’s benefit freeze. In time honoured tradition however, politicians are clubbing together to say a functioning welfare state is over, time to move on and bring food parcels into the social security system. this. The growth of hunger in the UK did not happen by accident, it has been socially engineered. And the people who did that are the same vermin politicians who write reports telling us how terrible and inevitable it is." You can read the report at: http://foodpovertyinquiry.org/ with thanks to johnny void and his excellent blog over at http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/savage-cuts-to-benefits-go-ignored-in-flagship-foodbanks-report-they-really-think-we-are-fucking-idiots/

The curious case of British fascism

In Britain Fascism has always been a bit of an odd mixture and today is no different. To say there is a fascist movement at all is tricky but there has certainly been spikes in support for the far right and other such extremists in this country. Like its continental counterparts, inter-war British Fascism had deep roots in earlier movements of the 'Radical Right', particularly after 1880. These groups came from the political right. They drew much of their strength from sections of the British establishment. They were helped in this by the decline of liberalism, previously the dominant political ideology amongst the ruling classes of Britain and Europe. As Karl Marx famously said the ruling ideology of the ruling class is then seen as the overall ideology of society in perception anyway. As someone who identifies himself as a socialist and on the left of politics I am naturally a opponent of the far right and fascism in whichever form it takes and indeed in Britain it can take some very odd forms from euro sceptism to more extreme versions of white supremacy . But to imagine a far right government in Britain which is not beyond the realms of imagination however slim the chances are today is still something to be concerned about. The first year in power of a far-right government would most probably see a withdrawal from NATO, an exit from the European Union and an end to all overseas aid spending. Foreign massacres would be dismissed as "savagery". Actual military spending, however, would be doubled. There always seems to be a military element to the far right focusing heavily on a national defence and protecting what is "ours". One of the problems a government of this sort would have is that although the British people seemingly like pomp and ceremony, they don't much go in for compulsory pomp and ceremony. People of the Left recoil at widespread enthusiasm for the Royal Family, while forgetting that a good deal of it is based on little more than a detestation of the political class. The Royals are quite obviously establishment figures - they are the establishment - but when set against politicians there is a widespread belief that they are somehow less a part of the ruling class than Parliament is. Such a dynamic only works, however, so long as the monarchy is not viewed as an extension of the government. With regard to the military, huge hostility would be whipped-up, with the aid of the media, towards any figure who publicly criticised military spending or the increasing deployment of troops to quell internal unrest and break strikes. Such people would be branded "unpatriotic" and denounced as Communists. Several military figures would probably enter the Cabinet within the first year of government. All this sounding scary enough? While we can’t imagine this happening now and some even think the Tories are fascist the term has to be carefully used and in some ways it is over used and this helps the term become normalised. As this excellent website with lecture notes from a discussion on fascism and anti fascism brilliantly entails "British Fascism's first impetus lay in an ultra-conservative response to the social consequences of the First World War and the rise of Bolshevism. Mandle estimated 60% of the Fascist elite had been members of the armed forces, while over 40% had seen active service in the First World War [W.F. Mandle, 1966, pp 362-80; D.L. Baker, 1982, pp 39-72] The Bolshevik Revolution traumatised those who already held anti-Semitic and anti-Capitalist conspiracy theories, fears further aroused by the appearance throughout Europe of the (forged) Protocols of the Elders of Zion in 1921. [N. Cohen, 1967, p169-70; C. Holmes, 1979, pp 49-85; idem 1977, pp 13-20; G. Lebzelter, 1979, pp 49-85; H. Blume, 1971, pp 248-50).] Initial post-war industrial unrest further heightened their paranoia and gave rise to a number of middle class and Imperial defence 'Unions'. The, post-war era also witnessed the rise of a new group of 'Diehards', an unofficial parliamentary group who admired their pre-war aristocratic forebears and campaigned for 'true conservatism' against 'Bolshevist Labour Socialism'. Thurlow accurately sums them up as 'an unarmed paramilitary group......a cross between an adult boy scout movement and a slightly more sinister defence force and strike breaking organisation' [Thurlow, 1987 p24]" For many we come across fascism in Britain with the battle of cable st in London and this famous victory for the anti fascist movement at the time. Many see Sir Oswald Mosley as the first real fascist party leader in Britain and indeed his party named the British Union of fascists BUF was seen as historically a breakthrough for the far right. The BUF was formed in October 1932 by Sir Oswald Mosley. Mosley's manifesto The Greater Britain was issued in 1932. BUF claimed to draw its inspiration from Mussolini's Italy. Mosley had founded the New Party in 1931. He had accused the 'Old Gangs' of Conservative, Labour, and Liberal politicians of abject failure to solve the problems afflicting liberal democracy and capitalism in crisis. Thurlow considers the BUF to have been 'intellectually, the most coherent and rational of all Fascist parties in Europe in its early years.' (Fascism in Britain, 1986, p93). He had finally left orthodox democratic political life when he resigned from the Labour party when his proposals to cure unemployment (the Mosley Memorandum- approved by Keynes) were rejected in May 1930 by a cabinet subcommittee chaired by the ultra-orthodox chancellor Philip Snowden. Mosley was expelled from the LP in March 1931 first issuing a Manifesto entitled A National Policy, which contained all the elements necessary for the founding of an alternative political party. Beatrice Webb dismissed the New Party, suggesting that it 'will never get born alive, it will be a political abortion'. (Benewick p73) In 1932, having lost most of the establishment figures in the New Party Mosley founded the BUF, claiming that only authoritarian leadership could respond to the immanent crisis of the British state. The youth movement which was founded drove away many of Mosley's more orthodox supporters - particularly John Strachey a former Labour Party ally. Mosley acquired a personal bodyguard - the so-called 'Biff Boys' after an attack on him in Glasgow in September 1931. By the end of 1934 the BUF's violence had drawn the attention of the authorities and Mosley was forced to exert more central discipline on the movement. Mosley's most important 'advantage' was that he was able to attract a number of formerly unattached intellectuals and anti-Semites into his BUF. These included A.K. Chesterton (journalist), Alexander Raven Thompson (intellectual) and William Joyce (orator). This by the end of 1934 Mosley's BUF was exhibiting many of the classic characteristics of an authentic Fascist Party. A leadership cult centered on an a charismatic orator who promised that he and his Fascists were the precursors of the 'new man'; a blackshirted uniformed paramilitary 'defence' force; an ideology and programme which proclaimed the 'corporate state' as its core economic policy; and the use of extreme anti-Semitic propaganda. Why did authentic Fascism have to wait until 1932 to emerge in Britain? The reason lies partly in the crisis engendered by the continuing rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union and Fascism and Nazism Italy and Germany, coupled with the failure of vision amongst orthodox British politicians of both right and left when faced with the great depression of the early 1930s. Things looked grim for British democracy between 1931 and 1933. During this period the politicians remained under attack from both the left and right for their manifest 'failure of imagination'. Disillusion with Parliament from all parts of the political spectrum was becoming common by 1931. Aldus Huxley wrote 'Wouldn't it be possible to bring a bill of Impeachment against a few of the old politicians who have landed us in this mess by their criminal negligence....(Skidelsky, Mosley, p227) Even Churchill, in his Oxford Romanes Lecture of 19th June 1930 spoke of how Parliament was better at handling 'political questions' which had dominated the 19th century, but was much less capable of handling 'economic issues' which had afflicted the twentieth century. He further argued that such issues should be handled by an economic sub-parliament: 'free altogether from party exigencies and composed of persons possessing special qualifications in economic matters.' (Skidelsky, pp 227-228). This anti politics feeling does appear a little similar to today in 2014 where turnouts in elections is falling year on year and anti political feelings are high with anger at all politicians of the Westminster variety in particular seeing their poll share fall. What was Mosley's role in the rise and decline of the BUF? • Mosley was well known as a politician and this drew initially favorable publicity • Mosley also spent over £200,000 of his own wealth on the movement. • He appealed to sections of the 'war generation' of 1914-18 and youth. • Robert Skidelsky has pointed to Mosley's significance as a public speaker and propagandist. • He provided the main arguments of the BUF and published them in 3 books and around 100 articles. • Mosley contributed to the failure of the BUF by allowing violence and anti-Semitism to take over - • He allowed the bureaucratic 'yes men' to organise the movement and isolate him from reality Mosley's initial success as Fascist leader was astonishing. While his impressive mass-meetings proved his charismatic appeal to the people, he also appeared to be capable of evoking sympathetic response from the political establishment. Right-Wing aristocrats such as Rothermere, Nuffield and Lady Houston were associated with his movement. The January Club, founded in January 1934, provided a platform for Fascist speakers, and Mosley addressed various meetings of industrialists and businessmen who favoured his political campaign. After Rothermere's withdrawal, however, these connections seemed to have cooled off. [cf. G. Lebzelter, Political Anti-Semitism in England 1918-1939, and p104] The BUF began life at least in part as a homage to Mussolini's brand of Fascism. In a parliamentary debate of 6 June 1946 the Home Secretary stated that correspondence between the former Italian ambassador in London, Count Grandi, and Mussolini had revealed that between 1933 and 1935 the BUF had received about £60,000 per annum from the Italian government. No similar assistance was claimed to have come from Berlin, and no factual documentation was then produced to prove that the BUF had indeed received financial support from abroad. But the BUF was also almost unique among Fascist movement in that its origin was marked by the publication of a coherent political programme and doctrine, in Oswald Mosley's The Greater Britain in October 1932. This outlined the rationale behind Mosley's revolt and the policies needed in his view to reverse Britain's decline. Although ideology came to play a less important role in the movement after 1935, Mosley nevertheless concentrated his energies in this sphere and in communicating his message to the British public, delegating administrative and financial organisation to others. [R. Thurlow, Fascism in Britain, p145.] Today we have organisations like the EDL, BNP, Britain First and loosely UKIP with fascist’s elements or outright fascists as members. Allot of these groups long for a bygone day of Great Britain being a world leader and being that proud strong nation once again whether that to leave the bureaucratic EU or to send all immigrants home which is a common idea of the far right today in Britain. The idea of blaming certain religions or races for economic problems is a strong theme in far right policies much like in the 1930's Jews and “foreigners " were blamed by the far right for Britain’s economic woes much like today mass immigration from the continent is seen as a barrier to British jobs. Gordon Browns speech during the time of the last labour government of British jobs for British workers fed the likes of the BNP and other far right sympathisers nicely and provided them with much needed ammunition to blame immigrants for Britains housing and jobs crisis. The link to the nation and race is cleverly intertwined in far right ideas taking some of the popular sounding left wing ideas through out the past like nationalisation of big parts of the economy has lead many working class people to be drawn towards such movements in the past. The neoliberal dominated institutions of politics, media and even economics have made strident efforts to rebrand the Financial Crisis – a clear crisis of the private sector and neoliberalism itself – into a public sector crisis. This scapegoating has affected a number of groups, but in recent months, the narrative on immigration has been ratcheted up out of all proportion to the size of the issue. I have written in detail on the reality of immigration, so will not rehearse here. In summary, the UK has a lower immigrant population than almost any ‘developed’ nation, these immigrants are mostly assessed via a Points Based System, only 7% are asylum seekers, and only 33% of asylum claims are accepted. There is no open door. Finally, the immigrant population does not have access to a vast majority of the benefits available to UK citizens, the benefits they do receive are nowhere near the same value as those received by UK citizens and they are a third less likely to claim benefits than UK citizens. Nevertheless, constant media and political attention is expended on the immigration issue – with almost no time asking the question – why are people coming here? Many migrants are economic migrants, and those who are not are political migrants – both are systemic, not personal issues. To argue in favour of ‘closing the door’ on people fleeing the system our country is so pivotal in exporting around the globe, often by force – what kind of morality if this? This is the national equivalent of first class guiding their lifeboats away from the steerage passengers after the sinking of the Titanic. The problem is the sinking ship, not the poor bastards swimming for their lives. These days British fascism seems unpopular and relatively unsupported but we must always be on our guard. I wrote this piece with just a few thoughts in my head of how we seem to be following a similar pattern to the 1930's of economic crisis followed by deep anti political feelings of mass apathy in many areas around the globe. In conclusion I’d say British fascism has a certain character which we must be aware that it can take various forms at different times With quotes and extracts taken from http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/anl/trent1.htm

The long slow death of the great British Pub

I come to you all with sad news. Every eek 10 pubs close in the UK if this trend continues we will not have many pubs left in 10 20 40 years time. This for me is a tragedy. I know some of you may be glad your partners will not be heading out to the pub for much longer but this is a trend and one that is not all together positive. The drinking culture in this country has changed drastically in recent times. The days of a social drink with your friends is dieing off with today’s young people I’m afraid. With many young people growing up going out or staying in just to get drunk not enjoy their drink and socialise and meet people. It’s a speed thing where the faster you get drunk the better for many. For me this is alien. I do like my drink I won’t deny this but for me it’s a social thing. The chance to meet new people talks to regulars and discuss the days news, politics, sport and for me football in particular is a great help for someone who is not naturally a confident person and has lots and lots of friends. I may go out a few times a week to drink and meet people for me its not so much about the drink or the quantity or the alcohol percentage its who I meet and the overall pub experience. I often see it as a place to escape and chill out and I do think this social aspect has been lost in many of today’s drinkers. Much of the decline of the pub trade can be linked to higher taxes, higher rents and cheaper and cheaper drinks that can be brought in supermarkets. For example I can buy a pack of 4 fosters in my local Tesco for £3.50 while in my local pub a brewery owned tenancy I wouldn’t even be able to afford one pint of Fosters. Ok I live in Ware not far from London a fairly affluent area some may say but even around here there is poverty and many surviving on the local food bank and welfare. The disposal income and the amount of cash in their pocket is reducing all the time with the cost of living going up and up and wages standing still and quite often going backwards in many case’s. So what can be done to help pubs and enable the industry to survive and a great British tradition saved?? Well I think there is much that can be done by government in terms of tax breaks. With local councils they can be more helpful in terms of the local rates being looked attend a fairer local rates scheme should be considered. I do think the decline of the British pub coincides with the similar decline of the high street I don’t think this fact can be dismissed. So I will keep loyal to the pubs around my area and the people I know working hard to keep them a place for all. I just find it incredibly sad we are letting the pub trade go to the wall. It’s not too late to save it but a country full of Weatherspoons as cheap as they are is not my ideal scenario. We do still need our local independent pubs big and small they make a town and a city what it is. They should be the vocal point of the community a place for all. Do support your local pub and the local ales which are also on the decline sadly. Let’s reverse this trend and make pubs a cool place to be again where the beer is good and the atmospheres are good and work for all.

Spikes to keep the homeless out, where is society going ?

A worrying report over the weekend in the papers confirmed that many expensive propeties in and around the capital are installing spikes to keep out the homeless. "A new development in London has installed metal spikes in an alcove – such 'defensive architecture' helps us to pretend real poverty doesn't exist For more than a decade "defensive architecture" has increasingly been creeping into urban life. From narrow, slanted bus shelter seats – not even suitable for sitting on, let alone sleeping on – to park benches with peculiar armrests designed to make it impossible to recline; from angular metal studs on central London ledges to surreal forests of pyramid bollards under bridges and flyovers. Hard property jutting out against soft homeless bodies, saying: how dare you be poor in plain sight? Step by selfish step we have arrived at the latest item causing outrage: a bed of metal spikes inside an alcove of a fancy new development on Southwark Bridge Road in London. "I think it's a good idea," one resident said. Speaking of "beggars and homeless people sleeping there", she added: "It completely affects the way the building seems, the appearance, and it's just not very nice." An Englishman's home is his castle, and that castle now includes a moat to keep the peasants out. These "anti-homeless" measures are designed to move the destitute on to somewhere else. This for me stems directly from Margret Thatchers idea of there is no such thing as society and to turn us all into selfish poor hating individuals with only a care for ourselves. At the root of this cruelty, which treats the dispossessed like a pigeon infestation – fed crumbs by the kindly misguided, shooed away by the thoughtlessly indifferent and spiked by the inhumanly practical – are wilful misconceptions about homelessness: that it is a lifestyle choice, which oddly becomes more popular during periods of nationwide economic ruin; that poverty is down to personal failure; that kindness perpetuates it; and, more than any misconception, that good shelter is readily available. And this damaging dissociation of the destitute from the rest of the world, this dehumanising effect, is precisely the aspect that such offensive "defensive architecture" feeds. It makes the city hostile to those who exist in this parallel reality. It breaks their psyche down further, making recovery less likely. It consigns them further out of sight so that the rest may continue to pretend that real poverty doesn't exist. It doesn't just deny someone who has absolutely nothing, a place to rest; it is a sign which reads, "Not even this bit of earth. Not even for the night." This turns my stomach that we are going down this route. The medias demonisatin of the poor one of the few remaining acceptable catagories of people to bash repeatably for simply being poor has lead to this selfish mentality. The lack of affordable housing and decent levels of support is hugely lacking with benifit cuts and tightening of the welfare budget year on year it is no wonder homelessness is shooting up in and outside of London for that matter. To pretend povety doesnt exist in our own country which is stll one of the wealthiest on the planet is woeful and hugely embarrassing toa country who likes to make out it is a civil society to the rest of the world whilst turning a blind eye to its own povety at home. with quotes and extracts from comment is free http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/09/spikes-homeless-london-metal-alcove-defensive-architecture-poverty

Is britain becoming more racist ?

I certainly think so and new evidence out today would back this up. I myself have noticed a sharp spike in the racist comments i'm hearing about the place with casual comments on other nationalities and races especially eastern europeans at the moment is getting worse and worse. The proportion of Britons who admit to being racially prejudiced has risen since the start of the millennium, raising concerns that growing hostility to immigrants and widespread Islamophobia are setting community relations back 20 years. New data from NatCen’s authoritative British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey, obtained by the Guardian, shows that after years of increasing tolerance, the percentage of people who describe themselves as prejudiced against those of other races has risen overall since 2001. The findings come as political leaders struggle to deal with the rise of the UK Independence party, which campaigned on an anti-immigrant, anti-EU platform and has sent shockwaves through the political establishment and put pressure on mainstream parties All we have seen so far is the major political parties reacting with further lurch's to the right with even the labour party conceeding it was wrong on imigration and we let too many in. This does nothing to curtail the UKIP rise and in fact boosts their arguement that we are over crowded and there is not enough jobs or houses to go around which is partially true. In an echo of the voting patterns of Ukip supporters in last week’s European elections, the figures paint a pattern of a nation geographically divided – with London reporting the lowest levels of racial prejudice. Older men in economically deprived areas are most likely to admit to racial prejudice. The data is in stark contrast to other indicators of social change such as attitudes to same-sex relationships and sex before marriage. By those measures, the UK has become a more accepting, liberal country. The shadow justice minister, Sadiq Khan, said the findings should come as a wake-up call. “This is clear evidence that we cannot be complacent about racial prejudice. Where it manifests itself, it blights our society. Those in positions of authority must take their responsibilities seriously. It also falls to us to address the underlying causes.” causes ?? sounds all a bit sinister. The data was taken from the BSA survey carried out by NatCen Social Research and includes exclusive figures from the 2013 survey due to be published next month. It shows a broad decline in the proportion of people who said they were either “very or a little prejudiced” against people of other races – from a high of 38% in 1987 to an all-time low of 25% in 2001. However, in 2002, following the 9/11 attacks in New York and the invasion of Afghanistan, there was a sharp rise in self-reported racial prejudice. Over the next 12 years that upward trend continued to a high of 38% in 2011. The following year it fell to 26% – which experts say could be due to the positive impact of the London Olympics. a little simplistic perhaps but certainly worrying that even official evidence is backing up the idea that we are becoming a more racist, divided country and in fact going backwards in many ways. Omar Khan, acting director of the Runnymede Trust – Britain’s leading independent race equality thinktank – said the data should be noted by all the main parties. “This nails the lie that the problem of racism has been overcome in Britain or that somehow when Jeremy Clarkson said the things he did it is some sort of anomaly that does not tap into a wider problem. “Politicians became too relaxed and thought that all they had to do was let things continue unhindered and that generational change would take over. But this should act as a warning shot to politicians and the public about how we see ourselves.” The BSA survey data shows different levels of prejudice stemming from age, class and gender, with older men in manual jobs most ready to admit to racial prejudice. Dr Grace Lordan, from the London School of Economics, said her own research based on BSA data going back to 1983 showed a clear correlation between recession and the numbers who self-described as prejudiced. Her research found that the group that recorded the biggest rise was white, professional men between the ages of 35 and 64, highly educated and earning a lot of money. Their attitudes may directly affect others as many will have managerial responsibilities. All age groups experienced a spike in their racial prejudice after 2002, but those born since 1980 – generation Y – and the baby boomers born between 1940 and 1959 have seen prejudice levels fall since then. By contrast, people born between 1960 and 79 – generation X – and those born before 1939 increasingly identify as prejudiced. A fascinating picture also emerges in the self-evaluation of men and women. As with almost all indicators of prejudice, this data finds that men are more likely to describe themselves as racially prejudiced than women. However, that gap has closed significantly over the past decade with the number of men admitting prejudice falling from 37% in 2002 to 32% in 2013. Over the same period, the figure for women has risen from 25% to 29%. "We do know that the factors that predict the likelihood of a man or a woman admitting prejudice differ so we should not expect trends over time to be similar,” said Lordan. “For men, the usual socio-economic variables matter more – income, education and being full-time employed. For females the factors that can predict their attitudes are less obvious. We know that females who are in part-time employment are more likely to admit to being prejudiced – perhaps because part-time jobs in the UK have pretty poor conditions.” Party allegiance also appears to have a bearing on racial prejudice. Conservative supporters have consistently been the most likely to describe themselves as prejudiced against people of other races. However, since 2002, when 42% of Tory supporters said they were very or a little prejudiced (compared with 27% for Labour and 24% for Lib Dems), they have been overtaken by the category classified as “other”. This appears to coincide with the rise of the far-right British National party and then Ukip. So what has driven the apparent growth in prejudice? Prof Tariq Modood, from Bristol University, said the findings suggested many people were conflating anti-Muslim sentiment and racial animus. “I don’t think there is any doubt that hostility to Muslims and suspicion of Muslims has increased since 9/11, and that is having a knock-on effect on race and levels of racial prejudice.” Prof Bhikhu Parekh, the Labour peer who in 1998 chaired the groundbreaking Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, said the data revealed a country increasingly ill at ease with itself. “The last few years have been marked by fear of loss of identity,” he said. “There have been new people coming in and new mores. People feel uncomfortable. They lose their bearings. What should they say or do to not be classed as racist? “People have a feeling that we are losing control of our own society in terms of the EU and the liberal establishment and that they are not in charge of their destiny. They feel they can’t do anything about it.” But he also argues that the language around race has changed. “The term racism has undergone a change of meaning. It has lost its moral force. We use it today too freely. After the war if you said someone was racist, you had images of Hitler. A racist was someone who hated people. Now it is applied to someone who might say: ‘I love my people and want to keep others at a distance.'” The BSA survey data shows wide variance in levels of prejudice throughout the UK. In combined figures for 2012-13, 16% of people questioned in inner London admitted to racial prejudice. Outer London and Scotland emerged as the next most tolerant areas, at 26% and 25% respectively. Other regions – including Wales – hovered around the 30% mark. The West Midlands emerged as the place with the highest level of self-reported prejudice at 35% – a difference deemed statistically significant. It echoes the geographical split demonstrated in last week’s elections, when fewer voters in London supported Ukip. In London, one obvious explanation would be the churning population. Those with shallow roots are least likely to mourn change. Tony Travers of the London School of Economics said: “There is a self-defining image of London as a place that celebrates difference. It wasn’t created by Ken Livingstone but he did build upon it – in the same way as New York self-defined itself – and that approach has been carried on by his successor, Boris Johnson.” Travers identifies two migratory tribes in the capital – those who come from abroad and those from other parts of the country. Both choose to live in London and thus buy into the narrative. Strong roots are unnecessary. “The word Londoner is an entirely inclusive concept.” http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/-sp-racism-on-rise-in-britain

Is the UK a Christian country?

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

No justice no peace, Solidarity with the family of Mark Duggan

The disgusting scenes yesterday of the jury in the Mark Duggan inquest ruling that he was lawfully killed whilst being unarmed sparked fury inside and outside of the Royal Courts of justice in London. Understandably the family of Mark are outraged and this will do little to help race relations in the area and relations with the police which are at an all time low I should expect today. If you believe any of the news reports he was a thug and “one of the most dangerous criminals in Europe” and there was no choice but to take him out. Except... The gun he was accused of holding, there was no evidence of his DNA on it. The jury were specifically told this. Mark’s DNA was on the box that was allegedly carrying this gun but not on the weapon itself. The jury concluded that he was unarmed when he was murdered but it was still lawful to kill him. They believed he threw the gun from a taxi before the police standoff. An eye witness was able to confirm Mark was not in possession of the gun but was holding a mobile phone in his hand. He testified that it appeared Mark was about to surrender when he was cruelly executed by the Met. The taxi driver that had driven Mark to the scene, his testimony was disregarded also. As @justinthelibsoc put it “The #Duggan taxi driver wasn't believed. The anon witness who claimed it was an execution wasn't believed. I wonder what they had in common.” An all-white jury sat in for this case (led by a South African – let’s think in the language of our oppressors for a moment) and chose to believe witness statements by the police over the damning eye witness statements by PoC. We are not surprised, we are livid. The disgusting news coverage by the BBC parroting police lies and trying to make out Mark was this violent criminal where in fact Stephen Fry has a worse criminal record than Mark dangerous and violent I think not… This incident describes perfectly the way ethnic people are treated in society. It is the most brutal and extreme examples but it is perfectly allegorical. A person of colour is identified as a problem. They are monitored and treated suspiciously, feared even cos of course many people do believe we are still in the savage stage. The white oppressors make a plan to take said coloured person out, in this instance it was an execution but for many of us it’s being sacked, it is being denied opportunities, it is being ministered and silenced and they create the narrative around you and your character, people will believe them when they say you are a liar or aggressive because of course non-white people just aren’t civilised. Evidence to the contrary doesn’t even hold water in court! Institutional racism is endemic at every level of British society. The courts, the police, we must not trust them. The journalists, the BBC, we must not trust them. Bosses, doctors, nurses, some of our friends; we cannot trust them. It doesn’t matter what we do, they will use our words to hang us if we dare to challenge this racism in the state. I do feel Brittan is still very racist reading a lot of the twitter comments last night it was a lot of white privileged people assuming he must be guilty as apparently he had a gun and he was black so he must have been up to no good. Such deep set in stone prejudices are hard to smash and break down. I believe the truth will out in the end as it has done with Hillsborough but for now we stand shoulder to shoulder with the family of Mark Duggan and all others who have been murdered by the police and the state. No justice no peace.

The working poor

“There are more working families living in poverty in the UK than non-working families for the first time since the birth of the welfare state, according to a new study. A recent report by a development charity attributes the figures to a sustained and “unprecedented” fall in living standards that has hit UK households, in which average incomes have fallen by 8% since a peak in 2008. As a result, around 2 million people have an income that would have been considered below the poverty line in 2008. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) found that according to the current definition, the figure is increasing as 500,000 more working families live below the poverty line than last year. 6.7 million families with adults in employment meet the worrying criteria compared with a combined 6.3 million of retired and unemployed families. There is also a smaller but growing number of people living on incomes below the value of out-of-work benefits in very deep poverty. The JRF said 400,000 families have suffered from a combination of benefit cuts from the bedroom tax, and council tax benefit. Two thirds of these families were already classified as living in poverty. The JRF also found positive changes, including an improvement in the labour market with falling unemployment and underemployment and, improvements in health and education outcomes forecast for the future. There have also been major shifts in which groups are experiencing poverty, with the number of pensioners in poverty at a 30-year low. Julia Unwin, chief executive of the charity, said efforts to reduce poverty must be “strengthen[ed]” and that for the poorest families “improving pay and prospects remain a mirage”. She added:"Recent economic improvements do not outweigh the damage inflicted during the downturn to the incomes of the poorest people across the country. "Our report demonstrates there has been progress in some areas and the tide has turned on employment, but this not been matched by improvements in wages. The largest group in poverty are working age adults without dependent children - 4.7 million people are in this situation, the highest on record. Half of working families in poverty have an adult paid below the living wage. It also found that job insecurity is increasingly common, with one in six members of the workforce claiming Jobseekers' Allowance at some point in the last two years. Median incomes in the UK recorded in the 2011 tax year are now, in real terms, just below what they were in 2001 - £367 a week compared with £368 - the Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion report showed. Plummeting incomes over the last two years has wiped out all the gains of the previous decade, the JRF said. Families living in poverty are defined as those with income below 60% of median income for that year. Peter Kenway, director at NPI and an author of the report, said: "Poorer members of society are under more pressure than at any time since the birth of the welfare state. "The value of the safety net for working age adults is now sinking steadily. The support on offer to people who fall on hard times is increasingly threadbare, with benefit levels on a downward spiral. "A strong safety net to catch those who fall is vital for social mobility - millions are saved by it every year even now - yet no leading politician will defend it."” This all comes in the same week MP’s are due to vote on plans to increase their salaries by 11%. All in this together are we ??? With extracts from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/millions-of-families-living-in-poverty-despite-being-in-employment-says-new-study-8991403.html

Outsourced Britain

As austerity continues to bites one of the big features before and now very much more so after the great recession is the idea of outsourcing and it is really happening on a huge scale lets be frank. Outsourcing is a good way for capitalist to drive down labour costs during times of austerity. Take N Power this week. "Npower is to cut 1,400 UK jobs. PA Npower is to close offices and outsource work to India in a move that will see 1,400 UK staff lose their jobs at the energy supplier. The announcement is expected to intensify public anger around the activities of the Big Six power companies and raise the political heat in Westminster where energy has risen to the top of the political agenda. Trade unions accused npower of serving up a "Christmas nightmare" by planning to offshore 1,400 jobs to India and transfer a further 570 to another British firm, probably Capita. It is understood that frontline call-centre operations will be outsourced to a third party in the UK, with back-office work moved to India. Union leaders warned the moves would backfire and further tarnish the reputation of npower which came bottom for customer service in a recent survey and which told a parliamentary committee earlier this year that it had paid almost no corporation tax for three years. Npower, the energy supplier of Germany's RWE, hit gas and electricity customers with a 10.4% rise in fuel bills earlier this month and its central London offices were the target of fuel poverty demonstrations earlier this week. The company declined to comment on the planned office and staff cuts but well-informed sources told the Guardian that npower staff would be informed of the changes at 9am on Thursday. Npower said in a statement: "As we announced a couple of months ago, npower has been undertaking a major review of sites, operations and people across the UK. "We've been doing this to improve our customer service and keep our costs down, at a time of external pressures on customers' bills. As we've always said, we'll tell our people first and then inform the media," it added. Npower and the other big six firms such as SSE and Centrica insist that they have to raise domestic bills and trim their costs in a bid to counter the impact of rising wholesale prices and green levies for home insulation. Npower's parent RWE said earlier this month that 6,750 jobs would need to be cut across Europe as it tries to reduce a debt mountain of over £28bn, partly caused by the Berlin government's decision to phase out nuclear power stations." The key bit that jumps out at me in that piece in the Guardian was the cutting costs line. This is clearly not to cut costs for the customers and those who use Npower but to keep costs down for the business and to maintain profits and raise profit levels if possible. With Britain being the second biggest nation for outsourcing we will see in time if its allowed to happen a huge wave of outsourcing to other cheaper nations and to areas where the labour costs are cheaper. In an excellent piece on Open democracy Stuart Weir writes "The government has put a huge FOR SALE sign over the country’s public assets and services. According to the sharedserviceslink.com website, the bulletin board for “leaders in finance shared services”, the United Kingdom is the world’s largest out-sourcing market after the United States. The number of contracts in the UK has increased sharply by 47 per cent to 148 contracts a year since 2010. The annual contract value for this country jumped 16 per cent in 2012 to $3.75 billion! All this before the major sale drive about to take place in the NHS. The International Services Group (ISG) states that the UK accounted for 80 per cent of all contracting out across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, making our government alone among the major European economies in using out-sourcing as a key element in its response to austerity. Richard Vize, of Outsourcer Eye, says that the application of cuts is dominated by “short-term thinking”. The effects of all this activity on quality or cost is unclear and there is no reliable information on the impact of cuts or out-sourcing – though these effects are visible, for example, in local government, the NHS and government agencies such as the Inland Revenue. The government’s “short-term” thinking is of course, as Polly Toynbee warned recently, part of a determined and reckless long-term drive to reduce the public sector to a mere rump. Social security is gradually being outsourced to charities and food banks, while services and assets are increasingly handed out to private firms to operate at often extortionate prices (like the trains), described by George Monbiot as the 'toll booth economy'. The effects on ordinary citizens will be far-reaching and devastating, the more so for the vulnerable people whom the state has long acknowledged a responsibility to protect. The state is being fundamentally transformed before our eyes. This is a phase or a form of capitalism which is turning public service’s into money making enterprises and this will stop at nothing. From our energy sector to our schools and hospitals nothing is sacred when it comes to capital's drive for greater and grater profits. With thanks to open democracy link to article at http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/stuart-weir/uk-becomes-worlds-second-largest-outsourcing-market

The storm of 2013

So tonight we are expecting one of the biggest storms to hit the UK or the southern part of it anyway more so in a long long time. We are being told to not make journeys unless it’s essential. I have no doubt the weather agencies especially the BBc are covering their ass’s this time round as last time in 1987 Michael Fish famously got it completely wrong and told people not to worry no hurricane is coming and the next day there was mass destruction and 19 killed not his finest moment I would say. So this time around the authorities are taking no chances. My solidarity goes out to the emergency services on call all evening tonight and those who are without a shelter for the night. I am hoping the storm comes too little and people are safe and warm but I know this is just not going to happen. Capitalism is about consumer society where owning a home is seen as making it in society and those without simply go without. So with all the threats and scare stories of how bad this storm may be tonight do spare a thought for those who are out in the cold and the wind and rain tonight. With energy prices soar this winter and wages keeping low to non existent we can expect a long tough winter for many in the UK. Let’s have a bit of compassion and look to help out those who are struggling this winter. We can all help out whilst we organise ourselves to remove this rotten system of greed and exploitation for good. Stay safe all.

The state within a state

The surveillance state is well under way. It is said that if we were to turn into a police state that not much would have to change. Us all New laws that will mean ID checks for all, state supervision of the media, gagging of campaigns in the run-up to an election and a threat against publishers of devastating accounts of secret surveillance. Russia? China? Nope, dear old Britain. The ConDems’ new anti-immigrants Bill will mean checks on status before people can access housing or health. This will hit everyone, as the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (Ilpa) has pointed out. "What this means in practice is a system of identity checks for all, since it is necessary for British citizens or people with permanent residence to prove that they are lawfully present in the UK if and when checked," says their response to the Home Office consultation. Moving swiftly past the decision by the mainstream parties to introduce a legal oversight of the media through the unelected, secretive, feudal institution known as the Privy Council, let’s deal with state surveillance which we’re not supposed to know about. US whistleblower Edward Snowden has just been given the Sam Adams Award by former CIA officers, who gave it to him in Russia, for “exhibiting integrity in intelligence”. The Guardian’s decision to publish Snowden’s revelations has run into a wall of hostility and intimidation. Britain’s secret services – backed by Labour, Tory and LibDem politicians – have all but accused the Guardian of treason for printing chapter and verse of how the state can access every digital transmission you make – at will and without you knowing. MI5 chief Andrew Parker’s accusation that Snowden was “handing the advantage to terrorists” ratcheted up the offensive on behalf of the secret state. He was predictably backed by No 10 and the ultra-reactionary Daily Mail, which accused the Guardian of “lethal irresponsibility”. As we stand the state has so much information on us and increasingly so. They are making their way into our lives all the more every day. With advancements in technology come with dangers of keeping tabs on us and our thinking. The government claims not much of the information collected on us is useful to them but they collect it all the same. This is a very disturbing fact in my opinion. The ruling class and various government bodies go to such lengths to track our moves and information on us they run some very highly sophisticated programmes to do this and keep track of us all. Tempora is the clandestine security electronic surveillance program established by GCHQ in 2011. It was exposed by Snowden, along with Prism, which is the US’s own mass data mining programme. The two programmes have a cable and network tapping capability called Upstream which allows spooks to extract information in “real time”. We are entering an entirely new kind of human society, one involving an unprecedented penetration by the state into areas which have always been regarded as private. Do we agree to that? If we don't, this is the last chance to stop it happening. Our rulers will say what all rulers everywhere have always said: that their intentions are good, and we can trust them. They want that to be a sufficient guarantee. The chilling fact is that the law governing surveillance is “so broadly drafted and interpreted, it’s almost impossible to break”, We don’t live in a democracy, or at least one that is anything more than a sham. The totalitarian nature of state surveillance makes a mockery of the rule of law, which is often the only thing that stands between us and outright dictatorship. The major parties are cosying up to the secret state, not to mention on education and other policies. Although the law cannot protect us from everything and we must not rely on it we must look to organise ourselves independently of the state a and any organisation linked to the state.

Interesting developments on Britain’s far right

"Tommy Robinson has sensationally quit the English Defence League, saying he can no longer control the extremist elements within the organisation. "I have been considering this move for a long time because I recognise that, though street demonstrations have brought us to this point, they are no longer productive," Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Lennon, said in a short statement to the Quilliam Foundation. "I acknowledge the dangers of far-right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas.” robinson" Stephen Lennon aka Tommy Robinson, leader of the English Defence League Kevin Caroll, Robinson's deputy, has also quit the organisation. Just one week ago, Robinson was accused of "stalkerish and bizarre" behaviour by an anti-English Defence League campaign group, for taking pictures outside what he believed was the group co-ordinator's place of work. EDL News Editor Gary Moon told Huffington Post UK he had "serious concerns," about the EDL leader "going around picking names out of a phone book." Robinson had been looking in the phone book for Moon's address and came across a Garry Moon – a man totally unconnected to the website. On Wednesday this week he then sent the site a tweet, apparently of a photo outside the property of the wrong man. Even this week, Robinson has tweeted about "sharia legalising paedophilia" and accused Muslims of "creating Islamophobia themselves". The anti-extremism organisation Quilliam who i have to confess i know very little about but i understand they are a dubious organisation themselves has claimed credit for the shock departure, saying they hope "to help Tommy invest his energy and commitment in countering extremism of all kinds, supporting the efforts to bring along his former followers and encouraging his critique of Islamism as well as his concern with far-right extremism." "We call all of Tommy’s former colleagues in the EDL to follow in his footsteps and also call on Islamist extremist leaders to follow this example and leave their respective groups. Tommy and Kevin believe the voice they have created can be channelled in a positive direction. Quilliam stands ready to facilitate such moves across the spectrum," the group said in a statement. Quilliam Chairman and Co-Founder Maajid Nawaz said: “As well as being a very positive change for the United Kingdom, this is a very proud moment for Quilliam. This represents not a change but a continuation for us, as challenging extremism of all kinds forms the basis of our work. "We have been able to show that Britain stands together against extremism regardless of political views and hope to continue supporting Tommy and Kevin in their " All this is deeply concerning as to what Tommy and his followers do now. No doubt some on the anti fascist left will be claming this as a victory I already has seen a few tweets from UAF supporters calming this as a victory. This is no such thing only the other day Robinson was a far right racist I can’t see how his views have changed that much since. I’ve always thought that any future fascist movement in Britain will pose itself as anti fascist it makes sense on many levels to gain credibility. I think this latest move should be treated with skepticism and concern. This reconfirms the need for a strong militant anti fascist organization and movement in Britain offering a physical and political resistance to the far right in any shape or form on the streets and beyond. Whatever Tommy and his followers go next we are sure to not like it so let’s not drop our guard or think we’ve won anything here as we have not. With article above with extracts from http://huff.to/17iLG5Y

Prospects for Left Unity going forward

I have paid a little attention to the progress of Left Unity in the recent period. It is something which could be really good for the left but could also turn out to be another stumbling block in the development of socialism in the United Kingdom. Only time will tell have course. I am optimistic on Left Unity but am cautious as always as we are right to be. There is two clear platforms appearing including the Left platform which is considered the more moderate position and then there is the socialist platform which contains a lot of disagreement but one that looks to replace capitalism with socialism eventually. This may sound bold but in today’s world we need to be. If we hide what we stand for or try to ride on the back of the right wing in the labour movement including left reformist ideas we will only head one way and that is to no where I’m afraid. I am not a member of Left Unity or of TUSC at this point but have always made my ideas clear that these two projects should look to work together whenever and wherever they possibly can. TUSC and Left Unity are not that dissimilar in my view. Both wish to oppose the labour party and offer a left wing alternative. TUSC clearly looks to look and lean towards the trade unions and those still linked to the labour party in particular which is having a tiny tiny affect so far. Only the GMB have made rumblings of cutting funding to the labour party so far and even Unite who claim to be a left union in action have made no noises at all on the labour party question. With their so called left leader which makes me laugh with Len Mckluseky who is an absolute fraud in my view as he likes to appear left but sucks up to Ed Miliband and the labour party as much as any bureaucrat would do? But as for Left Unity I am not involved and am watching with interest but would hope anything that comes to fruition would be pushed by the utmost democracy and openness. Of course the most democracy won’t lead to socialism but it certainly won’t hinder things. In my view the more democracy the better and cant do the fight for socialism any harm at all. Left Unity is a name and a position which air agree with I do think there is more that unites the left than divides it but as always there is much sectarian behaviour always on show from all sides of the left. This will have to be tackled and taken on head on for anything to change. The worry for me is that very few if any socialist groups are involved in Left Unity the likes of the SWP and the Socialist party who are arguably the two biggest socialist groups on the left today in Britain can barely agree on anything let alone a project like Left Unity. Just take TUSC it is clearly a thing that more interests the socialist party more than the SWP at this stage will this change in time? Perhaps but for now the left is more divided than ever. This can only be a bad thing until things change.

Stand by for royal baby tidal wave

We are told we are moments away from the birth of the next royal in to Britain. Is this a time we should all celebrate and forget about our woes? No doubt the BBC, sky Channel 4 and the rest will have wall to wall coverage of this so called momentous occasion forgetting this is a regular every day event for many women and families around the world. The birth of another royal who the tax payer will no doubt fund does not cheer me up or do much to ease my growing anger at the rich. As millions in Britain and around the world struggle by with an estimated half a million last year using food banks do forgive me if I don’t jump out of my seat with my Union flag waving it profusely. I struggle to muster up any support for the royal family considering none of them have ever had to toil in their lives swanning about from country to country from royal engagement to another being a so called British ambassador like we are in desperate need of one of them. I will be thinking of the many struggling families with new born babies this week who will be wondering where the next meal is coming from and when they may next get work or if they can’t find a job if their benefits will be stopped. I am not a monarchist if you can’t tell already I’d be for a republic if only because it would be a step towards socialism and a true democracy which we are as far from today as ever it sometimes feels. Having a royal baby born live on your TV screens does nothing for me and I’m sure millions and millions will join me in sighing hugely at the absurdity of it all. Where is the real news you may ask What a good day to bury some bad news for the Tories. Now what was that about Lynton Crosby again?

Busting the myths on immigration

With the question of immigration making its way back on to the agenda sadly it’s a good chance for us to rebuff some of these more popular myths and how wrong the right wing media and politicians are. Isabelle Koksal counters the right wing myths with some facts and figures MYTH: The flood of immigrants is unsustainable the movement of migrants is not just one way. As people arrive, others are leaving. This gives us net migration figures which for most years since 1840 have actually been negative. Geographer Danny Dorling notes that before the economic crash, the number of migrants coming to Britain was roughly balanced with the number leaving. In total, ‘there are 10-14 million people who live here that were not born here – and there are 10-14 million people born here who no longer live here’. So not really a flood at all. It is also worth viewing Britain’s migration figures in a global context. This shows that our experience of international migration is not at all remarkable, growing in line with world migration. Migrants make up 9 per cent of the population, which is the average for Europe. Britain has a smaller proportion of migrants and lower rates of net immigration than the US, Canada, Australia and several large European countries. The number of asylum seekers that Britain receives is again average for Europe, ranking 14th out of 27 when looking at asylum seekers per head of population. The UK receives fewer asylum applications than France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Belgium. As of January 2012, the UN estimated that the number of refugees, pending asylum cases and stateless persons made up just 0.33 per cent of the population. In fact, it is the so-called developing world that receives the majority of refugees, with 80 per cent being hosted there. The past decade has seen higher net numbers of migrants. However, rather than being ‘unsustainable’, this migration is actually vital for the functioning of our society. Danny Dorling argues that the real problem is actually too little immigration. With a rising elderly population and decreasing fertility rates, we will depend even more than we already do on immigration to provide tax revenues and services. MYTH: Britain is a soft touch Successive governments have been making the asylum process increasingly tough for asylum seekers despite their duty under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees to provide protection to those fleeing persecution. The system is particularly hostile to women as UK Border Agency officials often lack an understanding of gender-based persecution. A recent report by Oxfam stated that all aspects of the asylum system are flawed and that the entire process should be urgently reviewed. The fast-track system does not give the time needed for asylum seekers to make their case; this and many other issues with the asylum determination process means that often people are wrongly denied asylum. With devastating cuts to legal aid, this situation will only get worse as asylum seekers cannot access the legal advice and support that they need. When an asylum seeker reaches the UK they are photographed and have their fingerprints taken, they are security checked and issued with an ID card. They are then required to report at regular intervals to immigration reporting centers. They are issued with a letter that informs them that they can be detained at any point during the asylum process. EU citizens have free movement across Europe under European law – although home secretary Theresa May has been drawing up plans to curb intra-EU migration. But the rules governing the entry of non-EU immigrants are incredibly stringent, with a points-based system that requires people to show documents such as their bank statements and exam results. It is during detention where, far from being a ‘soft touch’, the reality for immigrants and asylum seekers is often a hard fist. Medical Justice has documented hundreds of cases of abuse of detainees at the hands of security guards during detention and deportation. Each year, 1,000 children are detained with their parents. MYTH: They come here for our generous welfare system Research commissioned by the Home Office concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that asylum seekers had detailed knowledge about the UK benefits system. When someone is fleeing from persecution, they often do not know where their end destination will be; some may choose the UK because they have friends and family here. Asylum seekers anyway do not have access to the mainstream benefit system. Rather, they have a parallel system of welfare support that provides them with £36.62 a week, 52 per cent of Jobseeker’s Allowance. Surviving on £5.23 a day puts asylum seekers well below the UK poverty line. Those who are refused asylum but are too scared to return home find themselves destitute as they cannot access any benefits. Oxfam estimates that there are hundreds of thousands of destitute asylum seekers in the UK. Asylum seekers do not have access to social or council housing. They are allocated housing on a ‘no choice’ basis in ‘hard to let’ properties. This housing is often of very poor quality. This is likely to get even worse with the privatisation of asylum housing through G4S, Serco and Reliance – all of whom have poor records in managing detention centres and transport and escort services. Indeed, there are already concerns that G4S will repeat its Olympics shambles in asylum seeker housing, leading top officials in the Home Office to monitor the situation closely. Migrants most often come here to work and they do just that. Many have high skill levels but often find themselves in jobs that do not utilise these skills and are poorly paid. National insurance data shows that foreign nationals are less than half as likely to claim unemployment benefits as UK citizens. Access to benefits for migrants is complex, and as with access to welfare for asylum seekers has become increasingly limited since the mid-1990s. Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission dispels the myth that immigrants jump the social housing waiting list. This found that 60 per cent were privately renting, 18 per cent were owner occupiers, and only 11 per cent were allocated social housing. The research found no evidence of abuse neither of the system nor of ‘queue jumping’. MYTH: They take our jobs Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, despite often being highly skilled and keen to use these skills. Once their claim has been decided they may work if they have been given refugee status. However, they face many barriers to entering employment. The government has cut the Refugee Integration and Employment Service, which provided them with support in finding a job. Refugees may also struggle to work in their chosen profession as their qualifications may not be transferable or they may face discrimination by employers. Migrants generally travel to where there are jobs available, often filling vacancies where there are skill shortages. The UK Border Agency’s points-based system for non-EU immigrants means that they are only permitted to take jobs where there are recognised skill shortages and if they can prove before entering that they have the relevant qualifications. Numerous statistical studies have shown that there is no link between EU immigration and unemployment levels. MYTH: They are draining public services it is our duty, not a drain, to protect asylum seekers. As discussed above, the welfare provision that we do provide is woefully inadequate. A number of other European countries provide more generous support than the UK. The minimal provision the state provides for asylum seekers and refugees is now being decimated by government cuts with devastating consequences. There have been massive cuts to support services for asylum seekers and refugees and cuts to the Home Office housing budget for asylum seekers. The cuts to legal aid will affect asylum seekers’ ability to access justice in a system already stacked against them. Asylum seekers and refugees are being used as an easy target by the government. The Home Office has acknowledged this itself, stating: ‘Because the UKBA is not facing uniform cuts, some areas – including asylum – will be required to bear a greater proportion of the cuts.’ Besides, far from ‘draining’ public services, migrants (including refugees) actually contribute significantly to their funding through their tax and national insurance contributions. They make a net contribution to the UK economy of £3 billion. Because they are often young, healthy, and skilled, their use of public services is actually very limited. Migrants also help deliver many of our public services, working in the National Health Service, education and social care. It is a fact that the NHS could not function without migrant workers. The myth of immigrants’ dependence has obscured the reality of our own dependence on them.

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

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

The detachment of the political class in Britain

The political class our current crop of politicians who are a professional class in their own right now you’d say now have been slowly and slowly detaching themselves from society and understanding social process’s. In this day and age of political think tanks and political advisors is directly linked to the way the political parties have lost their supporter s base the 3 major political parties currently do not have much more than a quarter of a million members and not even a million between them . This in my view has lead to a bigger disconnect with understanding the moves and changes in society. In the past the political class could command a fair bit of respect and in a strange way they still do but now a days after the Mp expenses crisis and then the phone hacking where politicians has lead to a breaking down of trust and confidence in our so called politicians. Of course the move of the political class further and further to the right has played its part where now the so called centre ground is now further to the right than we have ever seen. The political class used to be drawn from small business owners and landlords but now much of our MP’s are former lawyers, solicitors bankers even who have a disconnect clearly with everyday life. This may seem an obvious point but it’s important to understand when we are looking for political representation. We still have a vote and a big emphasis is placed on it when elections come around in the UK. Oh you must use your vote you don’t know how lucky you are kind of thing yet all we are voting for more often than not is who will be our government who screw us over next. Is this much of a choice? Of course not so wherever we can it is important for Marxists to stand in bourgeois elections to provide an alternative and to at least try and reach people who have been taken in by the political class who see them still as our masters. People are becoming more and more disgusted with politicians in the pub every weekend I’m told how much our MP’s are thief’s corrupt and in it just for themselves and in many ways they are. But no politician today goes out their way to confront this image they have themselves created. They almost seem to revel in this thought and image and play off the fact they re dis trusted and have become further detached from the person on the street. The fact that MP’s are so distrusted now is an interesting situation when people have little faith in the establishment as they do right now with low levels of confidence in our police and media establishments too this can be fertile ground for new movements and new thinking. As we have seen the springing up of occupy and the tents movement in a so called new form of democracy where something new and different was tried was a direct out pouring of dis trust of politicians to deal with the crisis we find ourselves in today that’s capitalism in decay as a economic system that can benefit the many. Occupy wanted little if anything to do with politicians and tried to be far more democratic focusing on the banks and the financial institutions in London and around the globe if we’re honest to focus their anger. This was a marked change as many times down the years when there is anger or a protest movement it normally involves lobbying or protesting against the government of the day. The fact that people went and set up camps and tent villages outside major financial districts showed for me a marked change in people’s consciousness and ability to identify where this crisis has come from and where we must focus our energy in highlighting. The recent growth of UKIP is a interesting development again too as they try to pose themselves as anti establishment and down with the common man on the street clearly a image they are going with for now to court a popularize right wing vote fairly successfully taking 25% of a popular vote n the recent county council elections clearly shows they are having a impact and a big one at that. Not wishing to over play the UKIP threat at this stage as there are still opportunities for the left to get its act together it is something we should keep in mind too. But lastly a political class with seemingly no direction or any real ideological base any longer is not only a danger to us but to its own existence I think with no clear out and out leader of a political class the idea of a technocratic government a so called national government used in the past during crisis’s cannot be ruled out either to stabilise the ruling class during times of social unrest.