The world cup in Brazil and the protest movement

So we are now into the 3rd week of the world cup 2014 in Brazil and so far its been a very entertaining exciting tournament going rather well from the football point of view unless you are a England fan of course but we wont go there . Lots was made of Brazil hosting this world cup and would it be ready or not in time. The stadium were all completed just in time and no big troubles in terms of the organisation appears to have arisen . But the protest movement which caught everyone by surprise last year in the confederations cup has not gone away. Maybe the big numbers are not there but certainly the anger and feeling about this not being a world cup for Brazil more for FIFA the world governing body of international football. Writing for the BBC Tim Vickery who is the BBC's fantastic South American football expert detailed how much tension there was over the hosting of this world cup in Brazil and notably the cost involved which the public would take the majority of the burden. Tim wrote "In 2008 a poll by the Datafolha Agency in the widely respected Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper showed 79% support for the World Cup in Brazil. By April of this year another poll by the same agency showed this had fallen to 48%. Many people are more reluctant to associate themselves with a competition that has become a public relations disaster. The anti-World Cup protests will not go away because there is plenty to protest about. There is the poor organisation - starting with the absurd delay in naming the host cities and the insistence on 12 when Fifa would have been happy with eight, while for years there was no government representation on the local organising committee - a bizarre flaw in a tournament that has implications for public spending. And many people believe that officials have taken the support of the people for granted and made empty promises. Hosting the competition has cost the country more than it should, and in return is giving back less than it should. The cost of the stadiums is now in the region of £2.4bn, three times more than the figure quoted in 2007. Four of the stadiums - in Manaus, Cuiaiba, Brasilia and Natal - would seem to have little prospect of long-term viability, meaning that there was no chance of private funding being attracted to build them. There were widespread protests in Brazil during the Confederations Cup Support of the population was cynically taken for granted, with empty promises that all of the money spent on stadiums would be from private sources. Luis Fernandes, the Ministry of Sports representative who was very belatedly brought on to the local organising committee, has been big enough to recognise that "this speech never corresponded to reality". The lack of debate in Brazilian society about the competition and its objectives has returned to bite the authorities where it hurts. Certainly, the authorities got a massive shock last year during the Confederations Cup when Brazilians took to the streets in huge numbers to show their displeasure at the amount of public spending on a football tournament. No-one saw it coming, but the protest movement is a reality that now has to be dealt with - especially as this is election year in Brazil, and some will be looking to turn dissatisfaction with the World Cup into votes. The great hope of the authorities is that the power of the event will work its magic. This is not just a forlorn desire. The atmosphere in the country through June and July is sure to be very special; over half a million visitors from all over the planet will be traipsing across the country, giving Brazil an unusual cosmopolitan air, and with over 60% of the tickets being snapped up by Brazilians, there is clearly considerable local enthusiasm for the event also, however well hidden. " So far we have seen some protests and i can see them picking up if Brazil happen to go out of the world cup early on or if there is heavy policing of the protests which have largely been peaceful up till now. Whatever happens in the rest of the tournament the feeling of injustice of a world cup and its cost being forced on the Brazilian people is not going away anytime soon. with thanks to Tim Vickery south american football expert of the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27476602

How do you solve a problem like "Maria" Miller?

Over the weekend the expenses scandal has re emerged thanks to conservative MP for Basingstoke that big Tory area? Five days after that 32-second apology in the House of Commons, Maria Miller continues to generate awkward headlines. Speculation about the culture secretary's future won't go down well either in Downing Street or in the Wales Office. With David Cameron standing by his minister, the more mischievous speculation among MPs and journalists at Westminster suggests that rather than sacking Mrs. Miller, the prime minister could move her to a lower-profile role - such as secretary of state for Wales - in the reshuffle expected at the end of next month. Mrs. Miller may be MP for Basingstoke but she grew up in Bridgend, where her parents lived until they moved to London to share what became one of the best-known MPs' second homes. So why not give her the chance to return to her roots? The beleaguered minister would be taken out of the firing line and David Cameron would avoid losing a woman from around his cabinet table. Problem solved! Or perhaps not. Replacing David Jones with Mrs. Miller would not go down well with either Mr. Jones or with Welsh Tories despite public disagreements with the party's group in the National Assembly for Wales. One MP told me it would be a "disaster". The idea that someone seen as unsuitable for a cabinet role because she miss-used the expenses system could be reshuffled to Wales would not be universally applauded west of Offa's Dyke. It would be a gift to the Tories' opponents, with shadow Welsh Secretary Owen Smith tweeting: "Rumours that Maria Miller is set to become Welsh secretary in a forthcoming reshuffle. What have we done to deserve that?" Did she owe £5,800 or £45,000? The Standards Commissioner thought it should be the higher amount. Why? Because Kathryn Hudson concluded that Maria Miller could only claim the interest on the purchase price of her "second home" in 1996. The MPs on the Committee on Standards (which reviews the ruling above) disagree. They say Mrs Miller was entitled to claim interest on the value of the mortgage as it was in 2005 - when Mrs Miller was elected to Parliament as an MP. The Chair of that Committee, Kevin Barron (a Labour MP) firmly stands by that conclusion. Did she 'flip' her second home to avoid paying Capital Gains Tax? More complex. From 1996-2005 the house in question (in Wimbledon, in south-west London) was owned by Mrs Miller in her private capacity (as a non-MP). From her election in 2005 and until 2009, it was designated her second home - and thus she was entitled to claim for the mortgage interest on it - as the rules were then on MPs expenses. In April 2009, she stopped claiming for the London house. But neither did she claim for her constituency home in Basingstoke. So she made no second home claims from that date. Her office says she stopped making those claims before she received a letter informing all MPs that they would now be liable for Capital Gains Tax (currently 28%) should they sell a house on which they have claimed as a second home. The letter arrived at the end of May 2009, her office claims. This means from 2009 to 2014 - Maria Miller made no claims for either her London home or her Basingstoke home. She currently rents a property in London (as the new expenses regime recommends). In February 2014 - the London home is sold - at a profit. Any Capital Gains Tax due (and it's not clear if there is) would fall in the tax year 2013/14 and so would not need to be paid until January 2015. Was her apology too short? Watch: Maria Miller's apology to MPs on expenses It was short - of that there can be no doubt. The 32-second long statement was described by Labour MP Sheila Gilmore today as "inadequate to the point of being contemptuous". It reinforces the perception that she didn't care and further damages her after the Committee and Commissioner claimed Mrs Miller has breached the code of conduct by her "attitude" to the investigation. That may in the end do the most damage. The public like to see their public servants acting in a contrite way when they have made a mistake. It would be safe to say Mrs Miller's apology did not satisfy the public demands on a level of length, contrition or detail. Her office says MPs apologies have historically been short. Although I am not sure comparing her apology to the one made by Nadine Dorries (23 seconds) is a particularly wise move Clearly she has to go fiddling your expenses to cover your second or third home is a disgrace and by her hanging around just makes the Tories look out of tough, which of course they are which is why she hasn’t offered her resignation. One last point remember back after the riots of 2011 a guy who stole a bottle of water was given 2 years in jail well Maria may wish to consider her stealing from the public purse and getting away with it and its inconsistencies. Is it any wonder people think all politicians are in it for themselves??

Socialist party candidate recieves 12 % in recent by-election

As socialists we are fielding some of our own candidates in this coming council elections and well even though we dont expect to win many seats that is not the real objective i might add the article below i have found in our paper - the socialist represents a real anger and fightback from ordinary working class people that they will look to other alternatives after finding the main 3 parties with the same policies and results.

If you would like to read more where this article came from please visit www.socialistparty.org.uk

"Socialist Party member and former councillor Ian Page received 12% of the vote in last weeks byelection in the Bellingham ward in Lewisham, south London. This support for Ian is a warning to Labour councils that are making cuts. Working people are growing tired of their excuses! "

Martin Powell-Davies, Lewisham Socialist Party

Lewisham Council is making £88 million of cuts over the next four years, slashing jobs and services. Labour councillors want to put all the blame on the Con-Dems.

In Bellingham, for now at least the anger against this government of millionaires has given Labour a victory - but for how much longer?

Lewisham Socialist Party, standing on a joint ticket with Lewisham People Before Profit, understood that many voters would want to punish the Tories and Lib Dems. But our message was clear - that you can't trust Labour to resist their attacks.

Voting for Ian Page, our anti-cuts candidate, was the best way to send a message to all the main parties that a working-class area like Bellingham needs councillors who will fight for their community and against all cuts.

In a few weeks, we secured a real base of support in a ward where we had not previously campaigned. We could point to Ian's campaigning record as a socialist councillor in Telegraph Hill ward, but Bellingham is at the other end of the borough.

After this result, the other parties will have to recognise that we are a force to be reckoned with right across Lewisham. On the doorsteps and the street stalls there was growing support from local people for our anti-cuts message.

Hatred for the government was mixed with anger at Labour councillors who are carrying out the Tories' dirty work - slashing jobs, closing libraries and privatising children's centres.

The low byelection turnout (22%) reflected a mood amongst many that they couldn't trust anyone to defend them. But our 12% vote - close behind both Tories and Lib Dems - shows that we persuaded many others not to stay angrily indoors on election day but to vote for a real alternative.

While both the Lib Dems and Labour tried to present Ian as an 'outsider', it was the Labour canvassers in suits that looked most out of place in Bellingham.

One Labour councillor was so lost that she had to come up to our stall for directions. 'I'm meant to be meeting the Labour team outside the Housing Office' she explained. 'Yes, but you closed it', came our reply - pointing to the boarded up office behind us!

When Ian finally finished knocking on people's doors, he realised he had dropped the keys to his scooter. A group of lads came out of one of the houses to say they had found them and taken them safely indoors. When they realised it was Ian, they said that their family had voted for him. That's working-class solidarity!

At the town hall election count, Labour looked relieved but we were smiling. Lewisham's Labour councillors know that trade unionists and the community are already organising against their cuts.

Now they will have to start looking over their left shoulders for a socialist challenge at the ballot box as well.

Labour 1100 51%
Tory 340 16%
Lib Dem 334 16%
Ian Page SP/LPBP 264 12%
Greens 100 5%
Turnout 22%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





i personally feel these results although labour won this seat here shows that people are not totally satisfied with them and will come out and vote for a rael left alternative who is fighting for a socialist alternative. I think this shows the anger not just at the tories but also labour too on a local level who are continuing to cut public servicesa nd ringing their hands and saying they have no choice. Of course they have a choice they can say no and build a mass campaign with local support which will surely follow. Much like what the Labour party did in Lambeth and Liverpool in the 80's