Why I’m scared for our future

You may say what future and you may have a point… Today we saw another government take office this time a fully Tory Tory one and lets be honest not many expected them to gain a outright majority how they managed it is open for debate but they have done and we must face facts. The labour party shouldn’t go without comment in their disgraceful backing of tory austerity they have been a hammered in the polls and rightly rejected yet we are left with the proper tories at least we know what this lot stand for and that is outright destruction of the working class if they get their way. As a disabled person I have been worrying all day what will happen to us come the next 5 years. Chills of dread have flooded me and the horrors of the last 5 years tell me with Tories on their own they can get away with so much more not that the Lib Dems stopped them with any of their brutal cuts but this time it feels we are facing the abyss in terms of our welfare state, our NHS and our public sector services. A total of 12 billion pounds is to be slashed from the welfare bill and this will I tell you now directly will hit the poorest the most vunrable in our society I fear for many of us I really do. A leak last week suggested the following cuts have already been drawn up by the Tories The proposed cuts included: • Limiting support to 2 children in child benefit and child tax credit, so cutting up to £3,500 from a family with three children. • Removing the higher rate child benefit from the first child, an average cut of over £360 for every family with children. • Means testing child benefit – cutting £1,750 for a two child middle income family • Removing child benefit from 16 to 19 year olds – a cut of over £1,000 for parents of a single child. The Conservatives have been under sustained pressure to detail how they will cut £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-2018, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank confirmed this week the Tories have so far disclosed only 10% of these cut in the form of a two-year freeze in working age benefits. With further cuts to benefits surely on its way the DWP have wasted no time in outlining plans to slash the access to work scheme a benefit which is close to my heart and helps me every time I go to work. The attacks on this particular benefit already destroy the lie that the Tories are there to help the disabled in to work and in work they just do not care and are taking the axe to this next benefit. How it will affect me long term we will have to see but be sure I will not let any attacks on me working go unheard. In a piece in the independent tonight it is said. http://fw.to/EMNy4cK The DWP has moved further to examine cutting a scheme that helps disabled people into work – just hours after the Conservatives won the election. The fund helps people and employers cover costs of disabilities that might be a barrier to work. The biggest single users of the fund are people who have difficulty seeing and people who have difficulty hearing. A policy document originally quietly announced in March suggests capping the £108m Access to Work fund. An impact assessment of the policy was released on the day the general election results. “[Spending] has risen significantly over the past five years … One of the significant strategic questions we face is how to establish the right balance between the need to support as many disabled people as possible and what it is reasonable to offer individual users,” the assessment says. The first option outlined by civil servants in the document is “to set a cap on the maximum value of support per user”. The party's manifesto boats that "last year alone, 140,000 disabled people found work" but says that "the jobless rate for this group remains too high. "As part of our objective to achieve full employment, we will aim to halve the disability employment gap: we will transform policy, practice and public attitudes, so that hundreds of thousands more disabled people who can and want to be in work find employment," it pledges. The overall spend on Access to Work in 2013/14 was £108m, covering 35,540 people. • An earlier version of this story indicated that the policy had been announced in the hours after the general election result. In fact the impact assessment for the policy was issued in the hours after the general election result, while the policy itself was issued in the run up to the general election in March This is just a glimpse of the tories aims in this next 5 years. Be under no illusion they are coming for you and they will not give a stuff about who you voted for or anything. Its time to organise ourselvesin our communities find common allies and fightback in whichever way we can using any means at our desposable. We may never see the welfare state ever a gain if we do not fightback now. The last 5 years was justa warm up for what is coming next …..

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/

Why we don’t need another party of the left

So allot of talk at the moment is about we need a new party of the left, a new workers party we need to reclaim labour etc etc. Well do we really? I am not so sure. I was once signed up as a socialist party member and was keen to see a new workers party formed. The longer it went on the less likely I saw this happening and was even desirable. If the same leadership of the SP ever got power in a bigger party I’d fear for it. But to be honest we don’t need another party or sect to fill up the various parties we already have. The left is already scattered and fragmented as it is. Here are some good starting points for anyone wishing to go down the route of a popularist left wing party posted up on Novara Wire yesterday by Jeremy Gilbert http://wire.novaramedia.com/2014/12/9-necessities-for-a-popular-left/ But why do we not need another party of the left calling for the latest version of unity and to all get together in one big party. TUSC the Socialist party's electoral front of the moment has been around since 2010 and has plenty of hype about it from within the SP but is it really what we need another electoral project by the so called revolutionaries in our movement. "There’s nothing wrong with ambition, but to achieve something you have to appraise where you are and how you might meet your destination. An honest reflection on TUSC’s results would set it in the context of labour movement weakness, the – unfortunately – wide indifference to austerity, the ongoing restructuring of the British labour market, the crisis of mainstream politics, and the continued acceptance of neoliberal common sense. It also means having a sense of history – where does TUSC sit in relation to and how does it compare with the preceding regroupment projects of the previous 20 years? Has it developed any since it was founded in early 2010? It has to ask discomfiting questions such as why does it continue to poll less than spectacularly, why did the comrades who formed Left Unity give TUSC a wide berth, and why do Labour-affiliated unions remain stubbornly Labour loyal?" All questions which TUSC fail or avoid answering. TUSC makes allot of its so called trade union backing and those who stand are proud trade unionists. "What about the social weight of TUSC, the dozens of trade unionists and community campaigners that decided to stand for TUS this may? After all, didn’t Lenin once note that elections were the lowest form of class struggle? For those turned on politically by such things, the beauty pageant of candidates with union membership by their names sounds impressive. However, the one significant set of initials missing from the bulk of prospective councillors was (SP). All party members are expected to be members of their unions and certainly, the SP pulled out all the stops, urging as many members as it could to stand. This is your real reason for the preponderance of trade unionists on the list – it is factually accurate, but does not represent large numbers breaking with Labour which, of course, is the intended impression it wants to convey." One of the Sp and TUSC's goals is to get labour affiliated unions to back TUSC they would see this as a break and a new start of a new workers party But many in the SP and TUSC miss the point that many of the unions who are affiliated to labour actually go along and often vote with the labour NEC for some of the worst parts of labour policy pulling them into a new party would not turn union leaders into revolutionaries or make them more militant and less bureaucratic. Take for example the review by Lord Collins about the changes to the relation of unions to labour were accepted without critical comment by the trade unions affiliated to labour. At this year’s policy forum. As the SP has given up reclaiming labour it puts allot of its energy into forming a new labour party but more democratic and not prone to sell outs apparently. The labour left is weak but hasn’t it always been weak in a sense. However much you want to reclaim labour to form a new party of labour the facts still can’t be ignored. However, the attempts of the Labour right to finally de-labourise Labour by weakening and eventually severing its links to the unions serves as an adequate political pretext for the imagined replacement. But the idea that Labour has not always been a “loyal opposition” since its formation is frankly bizarre. Was it not being a loyal opposition by encouraging workers to sign up to the ‘British war effort’ in 1914-18? Or when it betrayed the 1926 General Strike? Or when Ramsay MacDonald headed the National Government alongside the Conservatives in 1931? Leaving aside the fact that the trade unions themselves block-voted for Labour to ‘distance itself’ from them, when has the party ever ‘reflected trade union values’, let alone acted in the class interests of workers? It was precisely because the Labour Party sought to become a respectable party of government, to demonstrate that it was “fit to govern”, that it has repeatedly “betrayed” the working class. Because it sought to manage capitalism (allegedly in the interests of the working class), it had no option but to behave in that way. So the idea that a Labour Party mark two would behave differently is absurd - not that LU or TUSC has any hope of becoming one. Left-of-Labour electoral projects come and go, but have never offered a real alternative; they merely promise the same thing - a ‘fairer’ capitalism, thanks to sensible Keynesian management. But how that will happen without Labour’s established voter base and trade union backing is anyone’s guess. The Labour Party can be neither ‘reclaimed’ - it was never ours - nor sidestepped. Yes, it is possible for the union leaders to demand policies in the interests of their members, but that assumes that those leaders are accountable to their members in the first place. By winning control of our own organisations - first and foremost the unions - we could hope to transform Labour into a different sort of party. But the Labour question must be confronted head on; we cannot wish it away. Getting back to left unity and what the left thinks it is. Virtually everyone will be familiar with. Whilst harnessing the energy of movements in a sanitised form doesn't actually require direct recruitment, the leftist front organisation nearly always has that as its explicit goal. First, join the united front (or popular front, in the SWP's case). Then, why not buy our party's paper? Finally, well if you join the party you can get more involved in the struggle – sign here. The most obvious problem with this type of unity is that it's not actually unified at all. In every popular campaign that crops up, each party has its own separate front. For every National Shop Stewards Network there's a Unite the Resistance and a Right to Work Campaign and a Coalition of Resistance and so on. And if more than one left sect is involved in one front, you can guarantee a split and the emergence of a new front sooner or later. Alongside the now tedious Monty Python joke, however, there's also the draining effect the united front (of whichever hue) has on the movement it seeks Having said all this, it goes without saying that unity – disentangled from all of the above – is something that the workers' movement needs. But it is not left unity, on the spurious basis that we all stand on roughly the same side of the political spectrum, that we need. In practical terms, whether we organise in the workplace or in the community as tenants, claimants or whatever else, what unites us is the material conditions we share. In a word, our class. Our common enemy is not “the right” or “the Tories,” but all of those on the other side of the class divide – those who we have to sell our labour to, those who we have to pay rent to in order to keep a roof over our heads and those who run the state which serves this system where we're all subject to the process of money making more money. By making class the basis of our unity, we necessarily exclude elements of “the left.” That radical activist who busts unions and uses workfare, that union bureaucrat who cuts a deal on pay cuts to “save jobs,” that union for screws, that party leader who accepts austerity but says it's “too deep, too fast.” Moreover, this kind of unity doesn't demand that we all belong to the same organisation or front. For example, Solidarity Federation and Boycott Workfare following their own paths over unpaid labour hasn't stopped them both making significant dents in the scheme together or coordinating and supporting each others' days of action. With extracts and thanks to the weekly worker http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1000/labour-unions-vote-to-be-distanced/ And Phil Dickens at https://libcom.org/blog/%E2%80%9C-real-enemy%E2%80%9D-why-we-should-reject-left-unity-concept-17022013 And to Phil BC over at A very public sociologist http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-far-lefts-prospects-in-2014.html

New political formations and managing capitalism

Westminster is designed to keep new parties out so it is no surprise that smaller fringe type parties find it hard to make many inroads into building a base. This is the case with parties who may even have been around a while such as the Greens or UKIP who are not new formations as such but new to the Westminster bubble as such. Even if UKIP's two mp's now are ex Tories these are still new mp's for the party and will boost UKIP voters confidence of a good showing next year in the general election which for me still looks wide open for anyone to win. I personally can’t see any one party forming a majority government next year with both major parties labour and the Tories can barely muster 60% between them. So what about the greens and UKIP. Their support has grown with some polls putting the greens ahead of the Lib Dems in national polls. The greens will be a threat to labour going forward but also UKIP will eat into labours heartlands too as recent by elections have shown us. So quite clearly the Westminster elite is structured to keep out fringe and protest parties The way politics and elections work in England in particular as Scotland is different having STV Single transferable vote. The electoral system of first past the post is an old archaic system which is designed for the major traditional parties to remain in power and make it hard for smaller new parties to gain a foothold in parliament. It is as we might say a club for the elite and exclusive. So while we may see the Greens and UKIP wishing to manage capitalism one day forming their own government It is unlikely given our electoral system of FPTP. Likewise any future new workers party which may or may not come into existence this century will also find it hard to make much progress not just because of a general anti politics feeling out there at the moment but simply due to the way we do electoralism with mainstream politics in this country. So while I do feel it’s a waste of the lefts time building new parties and focusing on elections getting this or that party into power to manage capitalism better than the Tories or labor I can also understand why this is a dead end strategy. The greens who pose as anti capitalist are not at all anti capitalist they are to be honest socially democratic to the style of the old labour left perhaps a sort of mixture of climate change and new layers of anti austerity disaffected ex labour voters/members and allot more in between. Nowhere in the greens thinking is putting the idea of capitalism firmly in their opposition they simply wish to tax the rich more and campaign for a green economy a sort of green capitalism if you like. This for me is just as utopian as Ed Milibands responsible capitalism as while I can see a green version of capitalism it still would not deal with work and how we could begin to find ways of reducing work and the need for wage labour. I do like a lot of what the greens say however and dabbled with joining them. I think they are well meaning and say allot of good things while not going far enough on many issues. But for UKIP they see a return to isolated great British capitalism and return to an era of the white British ruling the waves again they see the EU as evil and corrupt to its core. While they may have some points on Europe on its lack of democracy I may agree with I sense that their idea of wishing to leave the EU to return to a better off distant past is going to be mistaken due to its pitfalls and how as a world now we are global and allot of countries wanting to form closer ties instead of pulling away from each other. This is also the case for the awful left nationalist no to EU which is equally stating that British austerity would be preferable to EU austerity and that the EU is just a boss's club we need to get out of. Tailing UKIP on any issue is never a good plan comrades. So whether your party is in long term decline like the Tories or labour facing challenges from the left and right or the newcomers on the block who are taking advantage of a plague on all your houses with the main 3 political parties. But I always maintain whether you’re on the left or the right you can never manage capitalism as in the end it ends up managing you. So getting into parliament on a radical ticket ends up watering you down and deradicalises you rather than the other way. It’s the structures built into the establishment which is the design model not because people entering parliament are born sell outs although many might be of course. The rise of anti political parties is not just limited to this country either in Scotland the SNP have benefited from a surge in support for Scottish independence while across Europe there are new left and right popularist parties popping up very quickly from Spain to Greece and into Eastern Europe so this is by no means a British thing but the way our elections work dictates that this process is a much slower process. None the less the centre ground of politics if there ever was such a thing is collapsing. What comes in its place will set the agenda for the next phase of capitalism. The only way we can prevent this ever expanding circle of parties wishing to manage capitalism better than the last is to end capitalism for good. Its time to organize ourselves and not rely on political parties for change. By all means pressure them for anything you can get out of them but we must look past parliament for change long term. It will be down to the working class and the working class alone to change society not a new party or new individual with popular sounding rhetoric from the left or the right.

Why as an English socialist I’m supporting Scottish independence

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

The character of the labour party and its contradictions

Whilst I was a member of the socialist party I was taught to hate the labour party and that I still do till this day. I was a member of the labour party for at time yet fell out of love with them very quickly indeed in my naive days of not knowing much on politics they seemed the best place to defeat the Tories and indeed they still may be if you solely rely on electoral politics and simply beating the other side. But I have now left the labour party and spent some time in the socialist party formally the militant tendency who were hammered by the Labour party leadership again and again until the main editorial board of the militant paper were expelled. I joined the socialist party hoping for a good analysis of the party I’d just left and on the whole I agreed with a lot of it at first holding a dismissive attitude towards the Labour party . But was the socialist party’s analysis of the labour party correct?? The one they still stand by today which leads them to set up such sectarian projects like the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition due to the fact they have written off the labour party and now consider it a fully capitalist party. But to my mind the Labour party has never been a fully socialist party even the late Tony Benn could recognise this. For militant the predecessor of the socialist party the labour party was always described as a capitalist workers party and indeed I do still think this is the case despite everything. It is very evident to me looking back at Militants history and how it became militant labour and now the socialist party it seems to me from someone now on the outside that Militant and its leadership almost overnight decided the labour party was no longer a mass body of the working class as soon as its main figures were expelled. Almost like a bad ex lover it set upon hating its ex party and throwing all sorts of accusations its way despite following in its old tradition itself. Indeed every time the labour party do not come out and support strikes you will see no end of socialist party and TUSC representatives mostly with the twitter follower ship of Dave Enlist condemning the labour party for not backing strikes. Yet history will show us that the labour party or should I say the leadership of the party are not known for backing strikes and indeed in the biggest strike in British history the famous general strike of 1926 which the likes of the Socialist party heap such inspiration on did not back this strike eithr. Indeed you can look all through history did the labour party which still at the time contained the likes of the Militant back the miners strikes in the 1980’s ?? No they did not and there was not the scorn poured on labour at the time like today. The fact is despite labours awfulness and don’t get me wrong I am not fan of the labour party what so ever and would not think of rejoining at all the analysis of this party is crucial for understanding where we are and where we need to go as a class. The labour party has always had a capitalist leadership and a working class base all be it today it has been hollowed out and its democratic structures eroded. Don’t get me wrong I get all that and is no longer place for mass workers struggle but thinking back to a time when the labour party was ever worth struggle is a fantasy dreamt up by various trotskyists who like to cover being in the labour party by looking to recruit. The union link is key for many if that link ever goes that will be the end but until it is closed off for good which I highly doubt as it keeps up the idea that labour can still be for workers even if it wont ever be now still is a distraction for workers looking to reclaim labour. I don’t believe the labour party to be able to be reclaimed as simply due to the fact it was never ours to reclaim. It’s always been a huge contradiction and to win we must look past the labour party itself for change in my opinion. Lets not beat around the bush Trotsky always said for his followers to join mass organisations of the working class to spread their ideas and gain influence and this was all the militant wherein the labour party for. Any pretence to say they supported the labour party are nonsense they clearly only were a part of it for their own ends as was most Trotskyites who ever join such mass organisations they are in it for themselves over the working class itself and their own eventual goals. They may sell you bullshit but the truth is always out there to find. The labour party will be a feature in the coming period as like it or not it is still about and needs to be dealt with as a organisation whether you see it as a vehicle for change or not it cant be wished away.

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

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

Royal Fail, Royal Mail theft

Something many of us knew before hand anyway the but it is confirmed the Royal Mail was sold off on the cheap by the Tories. The privatisation of Royal Mail did not achieve the best value for taxpayers because of the government's "deep caution", the spending watchdog says. The National Audit Office said too much emphasis was put on completing the sale within this Parliament, at the expense of achieving better value for money. Royal Mail shares are now more than 70% higher than the original sale price of 330p in October 2013. The privatisation of Royal Mail took place amid huge public interest and the shares rose by 38% to 455p on their first day of trading, representing an increase in value of £750m for the new shareholders. The NAO report concluded that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was too cautious when setting the sale price of 330p per share. "The department was very keen to achieve its objective of selling Royal Mail, and was successful in getting the company listed on the FTSE 100," said Amyas Morse, head of the NAO. L Achieving the highest price possible at any cost and whatever the risk was never the aim of the sale” End Quote Vince Cable Business Secretary "Its approach, however, was marked by deep caution, the price of which was borne by the taxpayer." A planned postal workers' strike, which was eventually cancelled after the privatisation, also affected the government's sale price. Demand for Royal Mail shares was 24 times the maximum number available to investors, the NAO said, but the banks overseeing the sale advised there was not sufficient demand to justify a significantly higher figure. George Godber, a fund manager at Milton Group, told Radio 4 that he was "astounded" by the low price. "I thought it was significantly underpriced. In stock market terms, this was the London 2012 Olympic ticket moment, lots of people applied but very few got to go to the opening ceremony." Managers from two of these advising banks - Goldman Sachs and UBS - said market uncertainty and the complexity of the deal led them to a conservative price when they were questioned by MPs in November last year. As we seen last week the Royal Mail is already cost cutting looking to slash its workforce by 1600 predictably the CWU union makes a lot of noise but will anything be done about this? I doubt it much like the proposed strike back over privatisation which was more hot air from the likes of Billy Hayes and Dave Ward who would rather wait for a labour government. Labour have predictably come out saying the tax payer has been sold a short one and that Royal Mail was under sold but this miss's the glaring point that it shouldn’t have been sold off in the first place. Instead of ranting about how cheaply it was sold off how about making the case for renationalization and returning the organisation to public hands and running it for people’s needs not a few peoples profits.

Equal marriage and its political implications

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

Feeding the delusion

This post is not an attack on TUSC and the socialist party I’ll stress now but a latest article from Stoke Socialist party needs to be addressed. There are major delusions going on within the SP in regards to TUSC and its potential and where it is heading. Yes it is only a working progress but personally I see little evidence of progress and any evidence of willing to adapt and listen to others who have different ideas and strategies. The article in question which I think paints a very rosy picture and creates a false sense of optimism that we are on the verge of a new workers party is quoted below. "Stoke-on-Trent’s City Independents won their second consecutive seat from Labour in by elections as their share of the vote slumped by a massive 13%. This represents another clear message from voters that they want no more of the Labour council’s orgy of job losses, cuts, closures and privatisation. Other cuts parties also suffered as the Lib Dem’s share of the vote was down by 4% and the Tory vote down by 11%. However, in a further humiliation for Labour, the Tory candidate pushed them into third place! As expected UKIP’s vote increased by 8%. The result was also a condemnation of Labour’s decision to continue plans, despite massive opposition, to borrow a minimum of £59 million to build a new City Council HQ. Their recent decision to keep the current Civic Centre in Stoke for ‘some’ council workers but still build the new HQ in Hanley as well has only increased that anger. The by election was triggered because the ex Labour incumbent, Andy Lilley, has been jailed for 16 months for fraud despite Labour trying to sweep it under the carpet – at least while he was still a member of the Labour Party. Of course this didn’t help Labour much either! If local elections took place now across the city Labour would face a wipe out. This after three years of the Con-Dem’s savage austerity measures. If they had at least tried to fight against the government’s cuts instead of carrying them out then they would have won this and previous by elections. But anyone still waiting for Ed Miliband or any other Labour leader to come charging over the hill on a white horse to push Labour back into a party that represents ordinary working class people might as well ‘urinate’ in the wind. This applies as much in Stoke-on-Trent as it does nationwide. The City Independents are now the second biggest party with 10 seats on the city council and pose a serious threat to Labour’s domination at the next full local elections in 2015. Although, if those elections coincide with a general election on the same day it will provide Labour with a better chance of hanging on to power. The City Independents have achieved this position by providing an ‘opposition’ in words to some cuts. But as yet that opposition has not included a clear commitment to oppose all cuts or a serious alternative which could protect jobs and services. Importance of this by election As local elections across Stoke-on-Trent won’t take place again until 2015 this by-election was a rare opportunity for various parties and others to stand as candidates. This led to a large field of 10 in the largest ward in the city which made it more difficult for the Trade Unionist & Socialist Coalition (TUSC) and other smaller parties to make a significant impact at this stage in terms of the votes received. There was only a 19% turnout but that takes nothing away from its importance. Under Labour’s control the city council has already carried out £77 million worth of cuts over recent years. This has resulted in thousands of council workers jobs going and the closure of swimming pools, care homes, children’s centre’s libraries etc. Now they are planning a further eye watering £100 million worth of cuts over the next fours years which would all but decimate what services remain. All the other candidates in this by election seem oblivious that this is the key question facing the 250,000 people who live in the city. Most of their leaflets did not even mention cuts whilst a few did so only in passing with no mention of actually fighting against them or any idea how they could be stopped. This inevitably means that the newly elected City Independent councillor will join the others carrying out these hated austerity measures. TUSC strengthened by this by election Only TUSC candidate Liat Norris stood on the basis of a fight against cuts. We had a great response from people we spoke to. Two fellas in their forties who had never voted before voted for TUSC. A firefighter who we first met three days ago voted for TUSC. Three women who are active in community based groups voted for TUSC. At a public meeting we organised in the ward two local activists said they would stand as TUSC candidates in 2015. This by election represents an important step forward for TUSC in Stoke-on-Trent. It represents an important step forward in the building of a new party that we so desperately need to fight for ordinary working class people and it represents one more step towards our aim to stand working class fighters in every ward in the city in 2015. Liat Norris says, “I would like to thank all those who voted for TUSC’s fight against cuts. One of the most important parts of this election is that TUSC have now stood in 8 wards in the city on a clear platform of fighting against all cuts; we are and we will continue to build our profile as the only alternative to the pro-cuts parties. For a new developing party fighting against the mainstream consensus that there is no alternative but to carry out these brutal cuts, this important groundwork of building a base of support across the city is key, as is giving people the option to vote against these cuts that would have been otherwise lacking. This is not the last people in Milton, Norton or Baddeley Green will see of us, or indeed the last anyone else in the city will see of us. We will continue to fight against the council’s plan to carry out another £100 million of cuts, and will be looking to stand in every single ward in the city in 2015.” Full Result : City Independent – Mundy -861 – 32% Tory – Richardson -504 – 18% Labour – Chetwynd – 444 – 16.5% UKIP – Harold -333 – 12.4% Independent – Gary Elsby -313 – 11.7% BNP – White -79 – 2.9% Green Party Colclough -50 – 1.8% Lib – Dem Grocock -32 – 1.1% Independent – Davis -27 – 1% TUSC Norris -25 – 0.9% • Total votes: 2674 = 19.18% turnout " How the socialist party can dress this up as a step forward is beyond me. If this is a step forward coming 10th out of 10th and with 25 votes all be it with only a 19% turnout i'd dread to think what they'd consider a step back. I do not think the current tactic of standing everywhere and anywhere as the SP seem to favour helps them at all. Campaigns rock up quickly during the election period and disappear afterwards more often than not. There is no base built and more often than not in my experience with TUSC it was a chance for the Socialist party to recruit to its party sell some papers and build their own party TUSC was and still is a means to a end for them in my opinion. Article quoted from http://www.stokesocialistparty.org.uk/2013/11/15/baddeley-milton-norton-by-election-another-shattering-blow-to-labour-another-step-forward-for-tusc/

Why the IWW

I am fed up with Unite and how it is besotted with the labour party and gives millions of our own subs to this party who kicks us all the time. I have been doing a bit of looking about and have stumbled across a union called the IWW who has caught my interest. In their about section on their website they state: "We are a grassroots and democratic union helping to organise all workers in all workplaces. The IWW differs from traditional trade unions. We believe that workers have greater voice if we are organised within our own industries. For example, teachers, cleaners and secretaries who work in a school should be classed as education workers and all is in the same union. Furthermore, unions in one industry are far stronger if they are in the same organisation as all other industrial unions. Our aim is to see society re-organised to meet the interests of all people, and not just shareholders and corporations. We are NOT: • Full of stifling bureaucracy or linked to any political party or group. • Led by fat cat salary earners who carry out deals with bosses behind your back. • Going to sell you services, life insurance or credit cards. We are: • Led by membership. We make all decisions and we all have the final say. • For uniting all workers across trades, industries and countries. • Able to offer practical support for members in their workplace. • Flexible so you are still a member even when you change job or contract. Who is the IWW for? We are for ALL workers who do not have the power to hire or fire. This also includes workers who are retired, students, unemployed, part-time, temporary or those working at home. Workers who are members of other unions are also welcome. Britain and Ireland Regional Administration of the IWW " This to me sounds all very appealing. A union with no bureaucracy it does sound good. I will do some more reading of course but this sounds worlds apart from unite and its labour love in obsession. "Founded in 1905, the IWW is open to all workers. Don’t let the “industrial” part fool you. Our members include teachers, cleaners, social workers, retail workers, construction workers, bartenders, and computer programmers. Only bosses are not allowed to join. If you are currently unemployed, you can still join. You have a legal right to join a union and your membership is confidential. We are a volunteer-driven union, and this means we, not union bosses or bureaucrats, run the union. The IWW is not controlled by or affiliated with any political party or political movement. No money goes to politicians. Membership dues are used to maintain the union and assist organising campaigns. As a result, monthly dues are low. Why join the IWW? It does not take long to figure out those workers and their employers do not have the same interests. Workers want shorter hours, higher pay, and better benefits. We want our work to be less boring, less dangerous, and less destructive to the environment. We want control over how we produce goods and provide services. We want meaningful work that contributes to our communities and world. Our employers, in contrast, want us to work longer, harder, faster, and cheaper. They want fewer safety and environmental regulations and they demand absolute control over all decisions, work schedules, speech, and actions in the workplace. Practical benefits of a union The easiest way to stand up for each other in our workplaces and communities and the easiest way to improve our working conditions is to join a union. That is why employers fight so hard, and spend so much money, to keep unions out of their workplaces. Workers with unions generally have higher pay and job security, better benefits, and fewer scheduling problems. More pay equals fewer hours at work and more hours for enjoying the good things in life. Union workplaces are safer and have less harassment, discrimination, and favoritism. This is because a union gives workers the power to make workplace decisions. The less we let our employers make all of the decisions, the better our lives, our family’s lives, and our communities will be. Unions also provide mutual aid. This means assistance with problems at work, but it could also mean help with things outside of work too. Why every worker should be in the One Big Union Whether your job sucks or is “pretty good” (at least today), we in the IWW believe you should join us. We need to start sticking up for ourselves and our coworkers in our workplaces and industries. Ask around on your next shift. How many coworkers have two or three jobs? How many are one payday away from eviction? We have a duty to our co-workers and those who will follow in our footsteps to make things better, not only in terms of immediate gains but also as part of a bigger plan to build a radically new worker-run economy for the benefit of all. The only way to do this is to organise together. When we band together around our common experiences and interests, we can improve our jobs and industries. Our labour, not our bosses', is what makes our workplaces tick; our knowledge and experience is what keeps their business afloat; and we can use that power to improve our working lives. Britain and Ireland Regional Administration of the IWW " What is not to like about that? You can visit their website and find out more at http://t.co/W9Y7z1S3

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

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

Is the party over?

Political party membership is on the decline and has been for some time but I wanted to look at the possible reasons why this could be. Is it simply people don’t feel engaged by politics anymore or is it simply the political parties on offer simply are too similar and do not represent people. One of the central facts of recent British politics has been the decline of the political party. Fewer people are voting for them, memberships have collapsed, and strength of attachment has fallen away. The only party currently prospering, UKIP, is doing so because it has successfully exploited the prevailing ‘none of the above’ sentiment. Why has this decline happened? Does it matter? And what, if anything, might be done about it? It is easier to see why it has happened than it is to frame a coherent response. The great motors of the modern party system—class and ideology—has ceased to function in the way they once did. For much of the twentieth century, politics in Britain was organised on the basis of a struggle between socialism and anti-socialism (however defined) and this structured the two-party dominance of the post-1945 world. That era has now ended, and with it the leading role of the main protagonists. If politics is conducted on broadly similar terrain then it is inevitable that much of the old motive power that fuelled party adherence is diminished. For some, new passions fill the gap (getting Britain out of the EU, getting Scotland out of Britain), but for most there is a turning away from party politics of the traditional kind. It was once a source of cultural identity and pride for millions of British people. But at just over 1% of the population - low by European standards - party membership is fast becoming a minority pursuit. There are more members of the Caravan Club, or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, than of all Britain's political parties put together. There are many theories as to why this has happened. The public have grown cynical and disillusioned with politicians. We live in a more individualistic age (Why rely on political leaders to speak for you when you can do it yourself on Twitter or Facebook?). Politics itself has become too boring and managerial - the ideological red meat loved by the "party faithful" is in short supply. There have also been profound changes in the way Britons spend their spare time, since the days when the local Labour, Conservative or Liberal club was at the heart of the community. "Most people don't use politics for socialising in the way they might have done in the fifties and sixties, when you had a realistic chance of meeting your future husband or wife at a party dinner or or dance. PARTY MEMBERSHIP • 1951 Conservative 2.9m - Labour 876,000 • 1971 Conservative 1.3m - Labour 700,000 • 1981 Conservative 1.2m - Labour 277,000 • 1991 Conservative 1m to 0.5m - Labour 261,000 - Lib Dem 91,000 • 2001 Conservative 311,000 - Labour 272,000 - Lib Dem 73,000 • 2011 Conservative 177,000 - Labour 190,000 - Lib Dem - 66,000 (Source: Estimates based on party reports and House of Commons L Many people hold an anti politics and an anti party feeling out there including more and more myself. I'm not anti political but increasingly anti party. The main 3 parties Tories, lib dems and labour do largely stand for the same thing and all look to defend and promote capitalism. Most of the voters out there are far to the left of all major political parties which means many would be happy to see public ownership of our railways and energy sector for example which currently no political party would dare to put forward in fear of the reaction of the "market" In years gone by you would grow up with a tribal instinct to supporting a certain political party so for example if your parents had always voted labour you war more likely to carry on the tradition of voting for the labour party. Today there is a real drop off of people voting in their 20's it picks up a bit when people reach their 30's but I don’t think this is any coincidence as those in the bracket of the 20's who are the most hit in terms of austerity being the younger ages which over 1 million young people are out of work and struggling to pay tuition fees and have huge debt around their necks. It is clear that that many in this age group do not feel politics is for them and that also they blame politics for the plight they find themselves in and with good reason too I would suggest. SO why don’t this younger generation join a political party? Well just the thought alone can give you an answer. They don’t feel it is for them quite simply. For many who grew up under a labour government who took us to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan despite huge opposition on the streets people feel disenchanted with the so called democratic process in this country The cost involved in joining a political party is a turn off to I think with recent findings showing • Labour - £41 standard, £20.50 unwaged and pensioners, £1 youth, £20.50 (union or affiliate group member) • Conservatives - £25 standard, £5 (under 23) • Lib Dem - £12 standard, £6 students and unwaged I would conclude by saying that the days of the mass political party may indeed be over but this does not mean politics itself is in decline in fact more people are interested in political ideas than ever before but do not associate themselves with a party. For me it is absolutely fine to be political without being in a party and with many benefits for example like myself I can think and act for myself without having to uphold a party line all the time. I am not tied to supporting a party dogmatically so I don’t have to defend everything it says and does. I am perfectly happy to admit when others out there have good ideas that we shouldn’t ignore just as we are in a different party this is the start of a sectarian agenda of putting your own party above the interests of those you are looking to represent. Only time will tell if political parties have had their day for good but what is sure we will not be going back to 80% turnouts in elections and mass membership parties again anytime soon I’d suggest.

Solidarity with Grangemouth workers

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

It’s not been a good week for red Len

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

TUSC and its future direction

I’ve felt for some time now even when I was still a member of the socialist party which in all honesty runs TUSC politically for the most party along with a few key trade unionists on the left anyway. I have felt TUSC has stagnated and failed to develop as I was told at the start that it would start to. Now I’m not inpatient or unrealistic to think we’d have a fully working mass new workers party in4 years of TUS being around but the general lack of debate, discussion on the project seems concerning for someone who would like to see the left get its act together sooner rather than later. For me when I was standing for TUSC it felt like a banner and not much else there is very little in the way of an organisation as such. The idea that TUSC can be the new workers party is very hard to believe at this stage. I constantly read in the socialist and tweets by various SP members that we need to build TUSC but I don’t see anyone even talking about building TUSC let alone actually trying to do so. For me it seems like a half way house in many ways a whole reformist platform which trade union figures and leaders can feel comfortable with. It is designed with the idea to try and entice trade union leaders like the Len McCklusky’s and Billy Hayes’s of the world over from backing the labour party. They have created a mirror of the early labour party and if various big 3 trade union leaders came over to TUSC one day they would be the ones in control not the workers and any ordinary member if there would be a membership by then. This is all hypothetical of course as TUSC and its steering group as its interestingly called as there is not much steering that goes on I must say has blocked attempts for TUSC to develop into anything bigger blocking off attempts for new groups to get involved such as Socialist resistance. Whilst I am no fan of their politics it seems foolish to not allow them in. Talking of membership it always is a thorny issue with TUSC being hugely opposed to any form of membership system at this stage they say. When the time is right I was always told while never given a time or a situation where membership may become necessary. Presumably no time soon I assumed. TUSC independent or the ISN as they call themselves have all but abandoned TUSC not for good but for now as they do not feel TUSC is growing, developing or even wanting to. They have tried their luck with Left Unity which at least has a membership system all be it a little odd and skewed at this point as its all before the30th November founding conference where we will start to see more about Left Unity develop. It is a crying shame that TUSC seems to be just an election front for the likes of the socialist party and the RMT it could be so much more if it opened up and reached out to groups like UK Uncut, boycott workfare and so on. There are enough people angry with the system today out there to start to form something on the ground. Talking of on the ground TUSC regularly complains about a lack of media coverage I’ve suggested a press officer in the past to contact various local and national media outlets to drum up support for TUSC yet I’m not sure if there is any movement on this proposal at all at this point. I was constantly told TUSC is a working progress and is not the finished article but for me the frustrating part was and still is to be honest the lack of any will to move it forward and try and build it. It felt like we were constantly waiting for the bigger unions like Unite and others to come join in then we could have our new workers party. Labour mark 2 if you like. As that is how it felt we were holding out an olive branch to the union bureaucracy constantly and not looking to go too far in front of them constantly. In reality TUSC consists of just the socialist party, a half-hearted Socialist Workers Party and a handful of others. The union leaders The Socialist party talks about are mainly Socialist party members, and Bob Crow is not exactly confident his union will agree to back it in future election as at a national TUSC meeting last year where it was told this wasn’t a voting conference the RMT representative Alex Gordon at the time said they may not stick with TUSC forever and a day waiting and waiting. This is reflected in TUSC’s basic and rather reformist programme to be honest. It’s vaguely social democratic with a few radical sounding ideas thrown in but it’s very sparse and basic and low on the details. Maybe for good reason I don’t know again to appease various union leaders I imagine to not scare them off but the socialist party claims to be Marxist and for a socialist society yet all it push’s for within TUSC is mild reforms to capitalism and a bit of nationalisation thrown in for good measure. All very uninspiring if we are honest. While it is true TUSC’s results in elections have been poor on the whole and dismal in others there has been a few decent results like Tony Mulhearn in Liverpool mayoral election got 5000 odd votes and Mary Jackson in Doncaster got about 2000 odd but most results are 1% to 9% and the odd one a bit higher clearly having no national profile or any way of getting through to people this is not going to change anytime soon I’m afraid. As for next years prospects I feel ill at the thought that TUSC or certain parts of TUSC are again putting their weight behind the No to EU banner once again playing into UKIP’s hands with a nationalist rhetoric that ill be hard to separate on the doorsteps where next year I would expect UKIP to do very well next year in the European elections if not win them out right actually. But what kind of workers’ party does the Socialist party want? Something pretty similar to what comrade Rob Griffiths of the old Morning Star CPB favours: i.e., a Labour Party marks two. The SWP is all for halfway houses too, but does not think the Socialist party trajectory is realistic. No meaningful layer of trade union bureaucrats is about to abandon Labour in order to set up another version of it this side of the 2015 general election. I would say TUSC has a long way to go and may not be the answer long term but please we do not need another labour party the one we got at the momentous bad enough making a safe space for various union bureaucrats is not my idea of a new workers party and I think workers need a party of their own still which they do not have.

What labours free childcare policy really means

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

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

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

The failure of the left and the working class today

Today I listened today to Novara Fm a weekly student run radio show from London http://www.novaramedia.com It regularly features great discussion and debate on all sorts of topics. The show is hosted by Aaron Peters and James Butler two communists who I think have a great way of articulating their views and are good broadcasters too by the way. Today’s show was featuring Owen Jones of the Labour left and his thoughts on the labour party and the trade unions. In the last week we’ve seen the TUC conference where lots of hot air was produced as always. Getting on to my main theme of this post which may run and run is the left and the working class of today and where we are heading, if anywhere at all. Now I am no longer a member of any political party and for a very good reason. I was a member of the socialist party and still remains a close supporter of the party but could no longer remain member of late due to various issues which I may elaborate in time but probably not now. The left is a frustrating thing hugely fragmented and split it has so far since the economic crisis of 2007/08 failed to provide a real alternative to the current situation be that inside the labour party which I have been in and now outside which I’ve experienced for myself too. Neitehr side of the left has been able to articulate a real alternative that we can focus around for one reason or another. Political party membership of all colours is at a all time low and yet the mass interest in politics is still very high. Somethingis going wrong you may think. But yet I do think we are in a new era entirely. A era where political parties have had their day to a extent in terms of mass organisation of members anyhow. The economic crisis has not benefited the labour party or the organised left outside the labour party one bit at all. Any forms of new parties including the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition which I had high hopes for and Left unity are still yet to make any sort of impact on people. This may change but I do still think todays left have not come to terms with the new situation let alone began to think of how to address this. By this I ean the new forms of the working class and the new layers entering it. For example there are more women in the workplace than possibly ever before now with a lot of trade union membership taken up by women yet the trade unions and their methods have not changed one bit. They still largely act, as do much of the left that we still live in a industrial based largely white male labour workforce. Nothing could be further from the truth any longer I’m afraid. Failure to recognise this and to reach new layers of BME and women workers is something which I’ve been astonished from with the left who like to pride themselves of reaching new layers. So far I’ve seen very little evidence of this. Also in terms of young people and private sector workers little to no attempts have been mde from the left to engage with these layers so far since the out break of the crisis in 2008. Now this post may sound a bit ranty and not really saying anything but I do think these points need to be made and it is also backed up with my own experiences of the left and the trade unions. They are simply not fit for purpose in my opinion. Hense I am going independent for now. I don’t think at this stage any left group or party has the ideas to move things forward. They are largely stuck talking to themselves and talking of by gone days. Well I’m afraid we live in a new era. A era of uncertainty and new situations that the likes of our leaders have not seen before. I do not have all the answers and I don’t think anyone out there does. I think as a collective we can do but at this stage we are a long way from a break through. The left frustrates me but also gives me hope as there is lots of big opportunities out there if any group or party is prepared to break from the habbits of the past which do no longer work and look forward to a new way of thinking. A new way of organising which brings new layers on board. The young, Women and all who have no voice as it stands today. We can certainly learn from the pasta nd we will do but we live in a new era, one we have not seen before all be it with similar features to the past. Much of the left is held back by its old ways of organising and failing to live in the ehere and now and adapt to that. Those who can adapt and find a way of reaching a mass audience will get a boost. As a Marxist I do still feel workingpeople have the ability and the power to change things. So far the left as a politica force has failed them I’m afraid. To move on we need to learn where we have gone wrong and where we can improve. Will this happen ? We can only hope.