Why I no longer believe in elections

I once stood in a local election. I lay that on the table as my confession. I stood for TUSC. The Trades Union and Socialist Coalition and got a modest 59 votes in a big Tory area. I gained nothing out of this no one approached me since and I wonder why I did it now. I think it was more the pressure from one of the main constituent parties that being the Socialist Party who I was a member of at the time who pushed elections in a big way. I cannot understand why looking back now. I am still a big socialist and still believe in a common society run for the many not just the few. But elections and Bourgeois elections are not the way to go in the path to gaining this. I have fallen out with electoral politics. I pay it attention as many workers still look to it for change but for me I know the reality now there can be no change as the famous saying goes if elections changed anything they’d have banned it. Too right! I personally cannot see any benefit to standing in elections you line yourself up and alongside some very shady characters who are hungry for power. I once stood as I said and got very little out of it and wonder what the point of standing is. Many Marxists tell me it gives you a platform well where as that platform got you so far?? A small way towards anything I’d suggest. You’re fighting on the terms of the bourgeoisie and they set the rules you have to play for to get anywhere. I think that is a recipe for disaster the moment you start to conform to the bourgeois rules and boundaries you set yourself up for defeat in the long run. I think our energies can be better used elsewhere in community campaigns and building resistance on the ground. If the likes of TUSc and the Socialist party put as much effort in to building a genuine rank-and-file union movement as they do as pushing their own self serving candidates in TUSC and beyond we may just maybe be in a healthier position. I have been there I have seen it all TUSC and the SP think they can gain out of the upcoming elections not by votes but by recruits yes building the party not the class and the movement. That folks is what it is all about for parties like the Socialist party. So good luck if you’re standing it’s not for me and many others do not look surprised when you register poor results and left wondering why. Allow us to continue the fight for a better world free of hunger and greed.

French far right on the rise in local elections

France's anti-immigrant National Front (FN) has surged to power in a former Socialist town-hall bastion and sees more victories in local elections where voters punished President Francois Hollande for failing to tackle unemployment. In what leader Marine Le Pen called a breakthrough for her protectionist anti-EU party, the FN won power in the northern former coal-mining town Henin-Beaumont in a first-round vote on Sunday, and leads in at least six other towns before run-offs scheduled for next week. With turnout levels at a record low of 65 percent after a series of political scandals that have hit mainstream French politicians of both left and right, Hollande's Socialists and their allies won just 38 percent of the national vote, behind 47 percent for opposition conservatives, initial tallies showed. The FN won about five percent of the national vote - a proportionately high amount, given that it only fielded candidates in about 600 of the some 36,000 constituencies across France. Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault urged voters across the spectrum to back whatever candidate was best placed to beat FN rivals in Sunday's second round. A triumphant Le Pen said she was not interested in voter pacts with the mainstream right even if that could win her a greater presence on town hall councils. "The National Front is taking root just as it wanted to do - and the crop is pretty exceptional," she told TF1 television. Results released during the night put the National Front ahead in the eastern town of Forbach, in France's former industrial heartland. In the south, the anti-EU party was in the lead in Avignon, Perpignan, Beziers and Frejus, and in second place in Marseille behind the conservative incumbent. 'Exceptional vintage' The party's leader, Marine Le Pen, said the polls marked the "end of the bipolarisation of the political scene" and were "an exceptional vintage" for her party. "The National Front has arrived as a major independent force - a political force both at the national and local level," Le Pen, who won 18 percent of votes in the 2012 presidential election, told TF1 television. The party's Steeve Briois was declared outright winner to run the former northern coal-mining town of Henin-Beaumont, which has long been in Socialist hands. Exit polls also put the National Front ahead in the eastern town of Forbach, in France's former industrial heartland. In the south, it was in the lead in Avignon, Perpignan, Beziers and Frejus and vying for second place in Marseille behind the conservative incumbent. There was some solace for the Socialists as a TNS Sofres exit poll showed their candidate for Paris mayor, Anne Hidalgo, was ahead of her conservative rival Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet. The strong showing by the National Front will alarm Europe's liberal progressives, with the party long associated with racism and anti-Semitic statements. Le Pen's father, Jean-Marie, was prosecuted several times while party leader for Holocaust denial, once referring to the deaths of millions of Jews as a "detail in the history of World War Two". He has also been prosecuted for incitement to discriminate against Muslims. Since becoming leader in 2011, Marine Le Pen has sanctioned or ejected party members found to have made racist comments in an attempt to make the party more palatable to French voters. Her policies focus on reduced immigration and take a stance against EU enlargement. Does this sound all very familiar to you ? well it should as UKIP are looking to follow the FN's example and route to power. Reason for concern ? very much so i'd suggest. Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/french-far-right-party-soars-elections-201432321344496407.html

Why not stand for TUSC next year?

The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition is appealing to anti cuts campaigners, trade unionists and all who are opposed to the savage cuts being pushed through on us all the 99%. TUSC looks to bring together all who want to fight back and think all the political parties including the labour party no longer represent them anymore. “TUSC is an electoral platform for all who want to challenge austerity. TUSC is open to those who want to stand as candidates in the local council elections in May 2014 as part of a strategy of mass fightback, challenging Labour and their do-nothing strategy in as many seats as possible. “TUSC appeals to all those who are suffering due to austerity, angry about losing their job, have had their hours or pay reduced, or benefits squeezed, to play a part and help. “We also welcome those who are just angry about cuts and want to do something practical to stop the future deteriorating into endless poverty.” I’ve stood for TUSC in Ware this year in Hertfordshire and did better than I expected. The mood is slowly changing against this government and many realise there is no opposition coming from labour to austerity only a slightly lesser more fluffy version of the Tories which is frankly not good enough. We need a new mass workers party based on the working class moving into action TUSC can be an expression of this in an early stage. Whilst not receiving huge votes or any major breakthrough as yet TUSC has made some good moves with the addition of the RMT backing and other leading militant trade unionists it is well placed to progress in the next few years. I’d urge you if you have no political party but are angry about the cuts, privatisation of your local public services downgrading of your local hospital or seeing your wages not going so far at all then do get involved in TUSC and contact us to find out more and how you can stand next year in your area. Putting the word out now early gives us the best chance of having and a strong challenge next year where we continue to build on our work of this year. Next year will be a lot of urban council seats up for election including many labour controlled types of council this will provide TUSC with a unique chance to make inroads as labour councils continue to put up the white flag on the cuts passed on by them. TUSC candidates if elected are pledged to vote against all cuts and any rise in council tax. We argue the money is there and the government should be forced to make up the short fall. We would support a local campaign linking up with other councils prepared to not make the cuts linking up with anti cuts groups and the trade unions in a needs budget setting what the council needs to fund its services for that year and then campaigning hard at the government for the money they are rightfully owned back. Even if one council did this it would be a beacon to workers and anti cuts activists. Imagine if all councils did this the government would have to back down. Cuts can be beaten TUSC is providing an alternative. Get in touch for more information Visit TUSC online at www.tusc.org.uk And follow on twitter @tuscoalition

TUSC’s role in the coming elections

Firstly I’d like to say I don’t expect us to win big that may be a given to say that but I really don’t. For us in the socialist party at least our role as we see it is to get the message out there to as many people as we can that there is an alternative to vote for and that the 3 main parties do not offer you a solution to cuts.

We will maybe gain a few decent votes here and there and many I am sure will ridicule this especially others on the left. But to me this does not worry me at all. For now TUSC is a new project of trade unionists and socialists with the backing of the RMT for the first time. Even if we consolidate our base and our name out there and our message which is the most important bit I’ll be happy with our lot. Of course I’d love to win seats all over the country but realistically we are not going to I don’t think. That sea change that spark we talk about has not happened yet and we as Marxists cannot predict what will spark people into that shift in consciousnesses that tells them that the 3 main political parties cannot offer them a alternative and perhaps a grouping like TUSC can. The only way we can appear credible is sticking to your programme and putting it to a wider audience. If we do get comrades elected here and there we can point to the work they do. It is difficult telling people what we would do as it all seems hypothetical to them at present there is no struggle we can point to that highlights the role we can play. We will simply have to be there on every protest, every strike, every election we can manage to publicise our name and program and convince many more to join with us.

For socialist party branch’s participating in TUSC across the country apart from Coventry which has a good base now we are all looking to build our party and our branch’s off the back of election work. We don’t see winning as the be all and end all at the present time. As Marxists we see the situation out there as constantly changing and ebbing and flowing and we can not predict the next spike in consciousness and where the next sharp rise in consciousness will come. We know it will and can prepare ourselves for that shift but we can’t actively predict its arrival.

I myself do feel we can do more at times and we are perhaps not bold enough but are reminded that you can do all the work and canvassing and campaigning as you can possibly do and it still may not affect your election result at the end of the day.

In Stevenage last year where the situation was perhaps different before the cuts had really hit and people wanted to give the lib dems a good kicking. We experimented by canvassing and leafleting one ward like mad and another hardly at all the actual vote turnout was minimal to be honest and our one comrade who stood in Ware got 12 % of the vote and was a paper candidate so you can say do all the work in the world but it ultimately does not matter it’s the objective situation and whether people are prepared to trust you in what you say at that given time.

A whole host of various reasons can be to blame why things are the way they are but until the mass of the working class turn towards electoral politics we will still be making the arguments for no cuts and no to privatisation but there is not that mass of people moving towards us at present.

This does not make our ideas wrong or irrelevant but simply haven’t had the airing yet to a bigger mass of people.

The lack of a mass workers party in this country and across the globe plays its part in a fragmented left in many ways with some clinging to labour for warmth and others doing their best to provide a clear alternative to labour and the other pro capitalist parties.

Things will change and it can happen quickly but I think again this May’s elections will be a good test for us to see how the ground lies but I don’t expect despite my optimism for TUSC and our fantastic campaign for us to make any major breakthroughs just yet. I do hope Dave Nellist is re-elected but I can’t see mass’s of us getting elected right now. Besides this isn’t our major goal at the moment that may come though so we will have to be ready. But just to challenge the consensus that some cuts are necessary gets our message and arguments to a wider audience than we perhaps would be able to at other times of the year.
To be pointing out that labour councils are not opposing the cuts and are not using all their powers including using their reserves and prudential borrowing will be key arguments making the case for elected workers representatives on workers wages as all TUSC elected officials would only take. Our stance of no to all cuts will at some point really hit home I feel as the cuts really begin to flood people and hit home hard I am sure there will be a mass shift to finding the only credible party standing against all cuts and means it.

It is clear to me we are entering a very turbulent time in the class struggle anything ca happen now as George Galloway’s fantastic Bradford west victory showed but we can make that more a regular occurrence in time but this may not come as quickly as we think. We have got to be optimistic but realistic too given the situation.

TUSC conference trade unionists and socialists organise the fightback

Today I attended with other comrades the TUSC – Trade union and Socialist Coalition conference in London at ULU.

A very well attended conference given what else was going on in London today various protests and march’s so to get 50 or 60 top trade unionists and socialists out in late January from all over the country was very positive.

The morning session was on the legal side of what can councillors do to fight the cuts. At present we do not have control of a council yet but this can change. Dave Nellist of the socialist party , Charlie Kimble of the SWP and Nick Wrack from TUSC helped answer some of the legal questions from the floor on needs budgets and what powers councillors still have today.

The question that there could never be another Liverpool struggle again in the country is a myth and the powers are still there today to create a mass campaign against the cuts demanding the money back off the government.

Local councils have millions in their reserves which none have even tried to look into using to plug a gap to protect vital essential services and jobs.

The morning session was full of excellent contributions and questions with us all feeling we can be quietly optimistic whilst remaining realistic of TUSC’s opportunities for the coming period.

Much of the meeting was taken up of comrades condemning Ed Balls and Ed milibands Labour party for the other week accepting all of the tories cuts now not just some as was the case before. They have said they agree with a public sector pay freeze and will not be reversing any of the tories cuts.

With the brilliant strike of 2 and a half million workers on November the 30th last year many will be asking who do we have to vote for us now and who will support our struggles
It is clear now labour do not and have openly attacked striking workers in Southampton and nationally on the day of N30.

Working people need a political voice I have argued continuasly for some time now and TUSC and its slate of left trade unionists in the GLA London elections can make crucial breakthroughs this year if a big campaign is fought.
The afternoon session was taken up with comrades discussing how to fight a election campaign discussing election strategy canvassing, leafleting and getting the TUSC name out there.

Some great suggestions and comments from all. It is clear our priorities will be to get Dave Nellist re elected in Coventry as he is a key player in the movement but we should be looking to be bold and go on the offensive if we can looking to get new councillors willing to vote against all the cuts and privatisation.

There is mutterings inside the labour party of splits and disillusionment in the party you may say this is nothing new but I think we are in different times. During the biggest attack on ordinary people since the 30’s and all 3 main parties agreeing pretty much who do people have to speak to them. TUSC can be that beacon it wouldn’t be a wasted vote as eventually we will gain enough credibility if we continue to stand against the cuts. We will not be going away anytime soon and we are serious about winning. Winning can also come in the form of getting our ideas over to a layer of workers out there looking for an alternative. There is clearly a layer of people who are against all the cuts, anti capitalist and actively looking for a change and an alternative to austerity.

TUSC can be that banner with a clear modest programme of no to all cuts, using any powers councillors have available to them to protect jobs and services, against raising council tax to bridge gap, set needs budgets and mount campaign delaying tactics to protect and sustain services and jobs.

Not a job or service needs to be cut. There is 120 billion + worth of tax that is evaded every year by the very rich if collected properly either through nationaisation of the banks or stricter tax laws of offshore bank accounts. With a rolling out of a mass affordable council house programme to meet the needs of people and an investment in public services this can lead to jobs and a way to a fairer future for all. This would not be it but would be a start to a transition to a socialist society where peoples needs are put before a minority of peoples profits.

TUSC has big potential we must be realistic about our chances but attempt to stand as broadly as possible in towns and cities. Its never too late to decide to stand and you may be surprised at how you do. Instead of waiting for a new workers party you can actively get involved today in helping the starts of such a project.

History doesn’t travel in a straight line if you have a correct programme which speaks to people you can grow very quickly indeed and this can be the case with TUSC.

I look forward to the next period I think we have everything to gain, It will not be easy don’t get me wrong but if we do not fight on all available plains open for us you can sure bet the far right will do and fill that gap.

So its time to get talking about alternative in our communities, schools, workplaces and pubs and popularise the idea of TUSC and being brave and standing ourselves. The future can be bright, we can win !


to read more about TUSC including our recent press release on the left slate we have for the GLA london elections check out
www.tusc.org.uk

On the question of political leadership

As Lenin wrote in his excellent thesis what is to be done,

Many comrades in the early days of the russian revolution and in Lenin's party and others never regarded themselves as leaders, and no one ever elected or appointed them as such, although in actuality, they were leaders, because, in the propaganda period, as well as in the period of the struggle against the government, they took the brunt of the work upon themselves, they went into the most dangerous places, and their activities were the most fruitful. They became leaders, not because they wished it, but because the comrades surrounding them had confidence in their wisdom, in their energy, in their loyalty.

Today we are badly lacking any political leaders, But the idea that they can just come about in a increased class contiousness is not always the case. As lenin rightly explained often political leaders do not wish to become one or have any desire to they almost fall into the position. Due to their role within the party and the movement and comrades confidence in their actions and decisions.

It is important to stress that in this day and age of a heightened suspicion of any leaders or any organisation at the present time many are not looking for your old style leader do as we say which i can understand fully and do not support. But revolutionary working class leaders with the ideas to inspire and shine a light in the direction we need to be heading is greatly lacking today.

The fact that a lot of the labour movement has more aor less moved to the right coupled with the move to the right of social democratic parties like the Labour party there is very little in the way of working class voices any longer for workers to look towards.

Even in the trade unions i can only think of a handful of real leadership material. But i think as contiousness shifts and events unfold there will be a new layer of workers drawn into the struggle who are drawn to marxist ideas and conclusions that leadership is needed more than ever now. To lead us out of this capitalist money driven mad house to a farier stable society based on peoples needs.

The labour party on N30 and beyond

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is TUSC ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lost in Euroland

This latest article posted on www.socialistworld.net is anotehr in the line of top in depth analysis of what is going on inside the Eurozone and the organisation of a deepening economic crisis by the week.

Robert Bechert, CWI

As the eurozone crisis develops, its political and institutional leaders are becoming increasingly desperate as they look for a way out. The latest postponement, amid increasing friction between the French and German governments, of a decision on the eurozone’s next steps is an indication of the crisis’s seriousness. Here, in an analysis written for Socialism Today (November 2011 issue), monthly magazine of the Socialist Party (CWI England and Wales), Robert Bechert examines both the crisis and the test it poses for the left.

"The Euro should not exist (like this)"
"Under the current structure and with the current membership, the euro does not work. Either the current structure will have to change, or the current membership will have to change." (UBS Investment Research, 6 September, 2011)

This blunt statement, at the start of a widely circulated report by a leading Swiss bank, brutally summed up the fundamental character of the ongoing crisis in the eurozone. Despite a series of emergency meetings and agreement of rescue plans this crisis continued to deepen, threatening not only the European economy but also to dramatically worsen the already deteriorating world economic situation, and help trigger a dreaded “double-dip” recession. That was the reason US Treasury Secretary Geithner attended an EU finance ministers meeting in mid-September. European governments faced a potentially massive crisis with no easy way out, as long as capitalism remains.

Desperate attempts are being made to patch up a “solution”, although how long any deal will last is a different question. Within 24 hours of a plan surfacing at the mid-October G20 finance ministers meeting Angela Merkel’s spokesperson was warning against “dreams currently doing the rounds” that everything will be solved at the following week’s EU summit, and then a decision was formally postponed to October 26 at the earliest. At the G20 meeting one minister warned of a “world of pain” if no solution was found, something which millions are already starting to suffer as the crisis hits them.


Angela Merkel, German Chancellor

The widely perceived helplessness of the governments and EU institutions, the fact that repeatedly they are seen to be lagging behind events and incapable of putting forward a solution has only added to the spreading popular fears of what lies ahead.

This is not an abstract crisis. The eurozone disarray is adding to the misery facing many workers and youth across Europe. Living standards are falling as inflation is rising, alongside increasing unemployment in many countries. Cuts in services and wages are widespread. In Greece, currently the worse hit country, the vast bulk of the population is plunging downward into a deep economic and social crisis and facing a huge drop in living standards. The London Financial Times estimated that “planned tax increases and spending cuts for 2011 are equivalent to about 14 per cent of average Greek take-home income – or 5,600 euro for every household ... (measured on) a per-head basis, the total 2011 austerity package is worth 2,200 euro” (18 October, 2011).

Europe is on the edge, facing the possibility of a sudden crisis, especially a banking and financial meltdown that could paralyse much of the ‘real’ economy.

A wake-up call
As popular fears grew, governments in and outside of the eurozone rapidly became aware of potentially devastating impact that an event, like a sudden Greek default, could have. ‘Contagion’ would spread throughout the international financial system. After looking over the abyss of what a new banking crisis and/or a country leaving the euro would mean, the main eurozone countries drew back and agreed to make another attempt to defuse the situation.

In recent weeks warning signs were flashing. Rumours flew around about the condition of the banks. Many are facing a critical situation which is why the European Central Bank (ECB) has again taken steps to prop some up. While the early October collapse and subsequent nationalisation of the Belgian-French Dexia bank took the headlines for a few days, it was hardly mentioned that simultaneously two smaller banks, Max in Denmark and Proton in Greece, were also nationalised.

At the same time as UBS published its views on the Euro, the chief executive of Bosch, the world’s largest auto parts supplier, warned that the eurozone has entered “an extremely critical situation”. While the German owned Bosch had full order books now “in 2008-09 we experienced how fast these orders can melt away” (Financial Times, London, website 7 September, 2011).

The worsening world economic prospects are deepening the European crisis, not just in the eurozone but also in Britain. As Wolfgang Münchau wrote “The most disturbing aspect of the eurozone right now is that every crisis resolution strategy depends upon a moderately strong economy recovery” (Financial Times, London, 5 September 2011)



Wolfgang Münchau

The CWI had warned before the euro’s launch that it would not lead to unity, but would breakdown as result of clashes between the rival national capitalisms and, in the absence of a workers’ alternative, strengthen nationalism. (See box)

In fact, the euro has created a Frankenstein monster. The Greek crisis has brutally revealed this truth. At one time markets expected a Greek “managed default” and there were voices inside the stronger eurozone countries that Greece should be thrown out. The German transport minister Peter Ramsauer told Die Zeit in mid-September it would “not be the end of the world” if Greece were kicked out of the single currency. But the growing realisation that this meant the prospect of massive collateral damage across the international banking system has forced other governments to act.

For now discussion of forcing weaker countries, like Greece, to leave or the possibility of stronger countries, like Germany, deciding to quit the euro has stopped, although this can reappear in the future. The failure of Belgian-French owned Dexia was a wake-up call. One reason for Dexia’s collapse was its exposure to Greek government debt estimated at 39% of its equity capital. But this was not unique amongst banks, this summer the comparable figure at Germany’s second biggest bank, Commerzbank, was 27% (Wall Street Journal, 31 August, 2011). Dexia’s collapse was a warning that it would be extremely expensive to maintain a financial firewall around Greece should it suddenly default.

A more drastic haircut?
With spreading fears of both the “health” of banks and impact of a Greek collapse, banks once again turned to the ECB as a “safe” place to invest, rather than lend to other banks, and for short-term funding. But it is not just a question of Greece triggering a crisis, unexploded financial bombs litter the European landscape. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has just cut back the forecasts it made in July for 2012 economic growth in central and eastern Europe - in Hungary from 2.8% to 0.5%. Not only does this bode ill for Hungarians but also it threatens Austria’s banks, which are heavily exposed to Hungary.

The new drive to attempt to stem the crisis was behind the pressure in October to force Greece’s creditors to accept more of a “haircut”, a reduction in the amount of their loans they will actually get back. In July’s rescue deal an average 21% was agreed in July. At that time the French government, fearing the impact on its own banks, rejected a 40% cut, however by mid-October figures of 40% to 60% were being discussed such was the seriousness of the situation. This, governments hope, would avoid a formal default and allowed a managed restructuring that would prevent a sudden crisis. But even with this figure it would not be the rich who really paid, the banks would attempt to offload the cost onto taxpayers and customers.

Nevertheless banks resisted any increased losses. German banks, in particular, were bitterly complaining. Andreas Schmitz, head of BdB (German banking federation) warned that politicians should not declare “war” against banks (Bild.de website, October 15, 2011). The next day Schmitz accurately summed up the current reality of the crisis when he said that the October 15 anti-bank protests were “a diversion from the fundamental problem: that we can no longer finance our welfare states”. (Financial Times, London, website, October 16, 2011). Of course when Schmitz spoke of “we” he meant the capitalist system and its ruling classes.



Andreas Schmitz

Really, a poker game is going on as the different countries and financial institutions struggle over the size of the “haircut”, the roles of the ECB and EFSF (European financial stability facility), how the EFSF will be funded, the role of funding from outside the EU and other issues. Relations between the French and German governments have become strained. While there is enormous pressure to reach an agreement, even if there are doubts as to how long it will last, the risk of “accident” causing a disaster is ever present.

Dangerous to leave
Fearing the consequences of a break-up of the current eurozone or an abrupt Greek default the stronger EU powers are debating possible new structures to tighten controls over economically weaker countries as a price to provide financial support.

While “Eurobonds” would appear to be a logical capitalist solution for the ruling classes to attempt, they would run up against the growing popular opposition in all countries to the idea of underwriting other countries’ banking debts. This is not simply as a result of nationalist campaigns against, for example, Greece. Falling living standards in most countries and the bitter understanding since 2007/8 that much of the bailouts will actually end up in the hands of the banks and finance markets also fuel the opposition.

In answer to this opposition to financing other countries’ debts there are proposals to set up new structures to impose controls on eurozone countries. How effect they would be is another question. In 2003 the euro’s original Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) was ignored because the two largest powers, France and Germany, broke its conditions. In an attempt to escape political pressures for flexibility, the Dutch Finance Minister Jager, while supporting the German economics minister Rösler’s idea of a European Stability Council that could impose sanctions, said that its decisions should be made by “academics and experts – but no politicians” (Spiegel Online, 22 August 2011).



Jan Kees de Jager, Dutch Finance Minister

However such measures will only back fire, already in Germany there is resentment at what is referred to as the EU moving towards a “transfer union”, meaning a permanent movement of funds from the richer to the poor EU countries, although in reality much of these payments end up back in the banks of the richer countries.

The tensions inherent within the eurozone will increase, especially in this period when there is no immediate prospect of sustained economic growth.

Events this year have posed the question about the eurozone’s future, whether all the present members will remain? As the UBS report (see box) shows there would be substantial economic and political costs and dangers involved in leaving the zone. This is the Frankenstein factor, the eurozone countries have created a system which is imposing huge costs on some economies and strangling others, but which is very dangerous to leave.

However, while these costs can delay such a break, tensions could mount that will force a brutal shakeup. This is why, despite the massive overheads, there are discussions both about the possibility and methods of break-up of the current eurozone, both “weaker” countries leaving or of Germany pulling out. In Germany there is a kind of undercover debate within the ruling class because, while leaving the euro would remove the need for it paying towards the weaker eurozone countries, this would, at a stroke, cut its “home” market from 332 million to just under 82 million. At the same time German exports would be undermined by a new currency that would probably initially soar in value.

A living struggle
Alongside the mounting euro crisis and national difficulties, there is rising anger amongst workers, youth and the middle class as the effects of the crisis bite deeper. This is the reason for the unpopularity of most European governments, the mass demonstrations and strikes in a series of countries.

A new stormy period has begun and sharper struggles will develop. While determined struggle, the threat of resistance or a very serious economic or social situation crisis can force governments to make temporary concessions, generally the ruling classes will be forced by the crisis of their system to, at best, hold down living standards. That is the meaning of Andreas Schmitz’s statement and the reason why ruling classes will be forced to attempt to push attacks through.

Faced with serious opposition, governments will tend to move to use more authoritarian methods. These will vary according to the situation in each country, but in the worse case scenario the ruling classes will even look to dictatorial measures.



Today, Greece is facing a social and economic disaster and its ruling class is not confident of what will happen. This is the background to the report last May in the German mass-circulation newspaper Bild, that the CIA were speaking of a possible coup in Greece in the event of severe unrest developing. This is unlikely in the near future, but in a situation of continuing turmoil such an attempt cannot be ruled out. The Greek military have done this before, the last time they staged a coup was in 1967 and they ruled for 7 years. But a new coup, in a time of deep crisis, would not automatically be a repeat of the last colonels’ regime.

Such a development is not inevitable, but depends on the character and policy of the opposition movements, particularly what the workers’ movement does.

In some sense it is a race between the left and the right as to who will lead the opposition to the eurozone’s polices. Already in a number of countries, it has been right populists who have, in the absence or weakness of the left parties, made electoral gains by combining taking up some social issues with nationalist based anti-EU and anti-migrant slogans. In Greece overwhelming opposition to the cuts and the country’s downward spiral has created a potentially revolutionary situation but, so far, there is no mass based genuinely socialist force that can give concrete direction to the movement.

Unfortunately the response of the official leadership workers’ movement has been limited, with most of the pro-capitalist trade union leaders only organising any action when they have been pushed from below. Even when actions are organised the trade union leaders try to restrict them to symbolic actions and strive to avoid them becoming a step in a serious struggle.

European left
There is a reluctance within the trade unions and in many left parties to challenging the EU or euro itself, something sometimes justified by pointing to the EU’s right wing nationalist opponents. Rather than explaining that the EU is not a step towards socialist internationalism but a club of capitalist nations run in the interests of big business and the big powers, the largest grouping of European left parties, the European Left Party (ELP), talks of a “refoundation” of the EU without mentioning any break with capitalism and, by implication, supports the continuation of the euro.

The UBS report warns of the wider possible consequences of a massive crisis and eurozone breakup. There would not only be huge disruption but the growth of national tensions and conflicts. UBS is not alone in warning of the “some form of authoritarian or military government, or civil war”. In mid-September the Polish Finance Minister warned the European Parliament, in a “personal” comment, of the dangers of new wars in Europe. Later he was asked to explain this and he said that while war is not likely “within a four-year legislative time frame ... Not in the months ahead, but maybe over a 10-year time frame, this could place us in a context that is almost unimaginable at the moment.”

While not immediately posed, future conflicts between states cannot be ruled out if the working class is not able to impose its own socialist solution to the crisis. But the EU, a complete capitalist institution that is effectively run by the major powers, is not a vehicle for either socialist change or democratic socialist planning.

The ELP, whose strongest parties are DIE LINKE (Left party) in Germany, the Parti Communiste (PCF) in France, Left Bloc in Portugal and Izquierda Unida (United Left) in Spain, puts forward a number of individual policies that socialists support, although often these are vague, loose formulations. However it does not link these together into an overall anti-capitalist, socialist programme.

This approach was seen in DIE LINKE’s three demands on what the German government to argue at the October 15/16 G20 finance ministers’ meeting. They were worldwide strict regulation of “Finance Casinos”, a tax on financial transactions and a coordinated conjunctural programme. However, these proposals cannot be fully implemented under capitalism and, while DIE LINKE also mentioned its call for public ownership of the banks, its approach was one of simply demanding measures that could be taken within capitalism.

Naturally Socialists argue for individual demands that can immediately improve the conditions of working people and the poor. But such campaigns have to be accompanied by an explanation that such demands can only provide temporary improvement and that, especially in this time of crisis, a socialist transformation of society is required. Without this explanation they are attempts to run this system in a ‘better’, ‘fairer’ way, efforts that will ultimately fail.

The speculators’ grip
A key factor in the development of this crisis has been the massive pressure from the financial markets. Since the break-up of the post Second World War Bretton Woods currency system and the deregulation of finance there has been a huge explosion of the finance markets, alongside a similar growth of all forms of speculation in commodities, property and spread betting on anything that moved, or didn’t. The figures are simply mind-blowing and are hard to grasp. In the EU finance transactions were, in 2010, 115 times the EU’s 12,300bn euro GDP (Austrian Institute of Economic Research, Financial Times, London, 18 August, 2011). All the political leaders bow to these markets, often their official statements are directed simply to the markets.



Naturally the question of how to break the grip of this speculative market’s grip over nearly all aspects of life is a burning issue. It cannot be ruled out that different capitalist nations, or groups of nations, may attempt to isolate themselves or place some controls on these markets, in effect states clipping the speculators’ wings in the wider interests of the capitalism as a whole. But this would be no long term solution. For example an attempt to go back to a system of fixed exchange rates would not, in the medium or longer term, prevent currency crises or forced devaluations.

There is now growing support for a tax on financial transactions (a ‘Robin Hood’ or ‘Tobin’ tax). This is now the official policy of the EU’s Commission, seen by them as a useful political gesture and a way of raising funds. But while socialists would not oppose such a tax it would leave untouched the basic power of the huge financial and trading institutions that runs these markets.

Similarly simply leaving the euro would not solve the problems of Greece or other countries. Socialists opposed the introduction of the euro and today support breaking its grip and that of “Troika” of the EU, ECB and IMF that are effectively dictating what the Greek government should do. The key question in Greece is breaking with the capitalist system, without this living standards will fall for some time whether or not it stays with the euro.

A socialist task
Socialists would not oppose leaving the euro but would firm link it to a socialist, not state capitalist, policy of bank nationalisation. In a single country breaking from capitalism a state monopoly of foreign trade and exchange controls would be necessary as a defence from the international markets until similar movements spread to other countries. These steps, as part of a policy to bring the commanding heights of the economy into democratically run public control and ownership, would allow a start to be made in planning the use of economic resources for the benefit of all. Without such a socialist policy the results of leaving the euro would be along the lines spelled out in the UBS report, namely a cut in living standards.

Much of the population opposition to the EU is based upon the way it is run, the privileges of its bureaucratic elite and the way it is run it the interests of the big countries and companies. Socialists however, while fighting nationalist oppression and EU diktats, do not oppose the EU or the euro from a narrow, nationalist standpoint. The unification of the whole of Europe would be an enormous step forward. But this cannot be achieved on a capitalist basis. The existing EU institutions, like the EC, the ECB and so on, are clearly agencies of the capitalist ruling class, incapable of surmounting capitalist limitations.

The task facing socialists is to argue for a socialist internationalist alternative, a voluntary socialist confederation of European states, to the pro-business EU. Without this there is the danger that opposition will take a nationalist direction.

This divisive turning point in EU has opened up new period of sharper struggles, will provide an opportunity to rebuild the workers’ and socialist movement, but not as an end in itself but in order to build the forces that can fundamentally change society, end the chaos and instability of capitalism and really make poverty, fear a thing of the past.

Europe in turmoil – A socialist analysis
June 18, 2005
The current crisis is a vindication of the analysis of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) that the European capitalist classes are unable to unify Europe to construct a capitalist ‘United States of Europe’, as even some Marxists outside the ranks of the CWI believed.


The EU ‘project’ for greater economic and political integration was rooted in the pressure on the European capitalists from competition from US imperialism and, more recently, from China. This drove them towards increased collaboration and led to illusions that this would result in a politically unified Europe. This trend, along with the process of globalisation of the economy and growth of multi-national and trans-national corporations, illustrated how the productive forces have outgrown the limitations of the national state and to a certain extent have even outgrown continents. The big companies increasingly look towards the world market rather than simply their national or regional base.


Yet, at the same time, this process has its limits and comes up against the insurmountable barriers of the separate nation states and the national interests of the capitalists. In the aftermath of the referendum these factors have reasserted themselves, exposing clearly a clash of interests. Some thought that the process of EU integration and EMU represented the point of “take off” for a unified capitalist Europe.


The CWI consistently argued that this was not the case. Our analysis explained that although the process of integration of the EU went a long way, further than even we originally anticipated, at a certain stage a recoil would take place. This would result in renewed national antagonisms and conflicts between the various national states. This process of unravelling would worsen in the event of a serious economic crisis, recession or slump.


The end of the euro?


The introduction of EMU and the euro was a political and economic gamble by the capitalists, pushed through in the teeth of some opposition from their own side, during the triumphalist wave which followed collapse of the Berlin Wall. Initially the Bundesbank opposed the introduction of the euro but was compelled to accept it in the light of the political pressure of the capitalist politicians who supported its introduction. The stability pact was introduced as a ‘safety net’, which was intended to prevent governments resorting to “profligate spending”.


Yet, the whole idea of the euro was tailored to a situation of continued growth of the European economies, with no real account taken of what would happen in the event of a slowdown, stagnation or recession. The mood expressed in the referendums and recent workers’ struggles also reflects dissatisfaction that the economic growth, jobs or higher living standards promised with the introduction of the euro have materialised.


The ruling classes attempted to impose an economic union in the absence of an existing political union. As we explained at the time, this has never succeeded in the past. Without a political union, moving towards the establishment of a unified nation state, an economic union or currency could not survive indefinitely.


When the “project” was on track the capitalists ignored the lessons of history. Now faced with today’s crisis, newspapers like the London Financial Times belatedly can warn that such contradictions cannot be reconciled indefinitely.


In an article which seriously questions the sustainability of the euro, Wolfgang Münchau pointed out: “All large-country monetary unions that did not turn into political unions eventually collapsed. The Latin Monetary Union of 1861-1920 collapsed partly because of a lack of fiscal discipline among its members – Italy, France, Belgium, Switzerland and Greece. A monetary union set up in 1873 between Sweden – which included Norway at the time – and Denmark failed as political circumstances changed. By contrast, Germany’s Zollverein, the 19th century customs union that developed into a monetary union, succeeded precisely because of the country’s political unification in 1871.” (Financial Times, London, 8 June 2005).


There is a vast difference between a federal state, such as the US, which can distribute funds to local state governments in a relatively easy fashion on the basis of an agreement and the EU. The distribution of resources or funds cannot be done in the same way, in a Europe composed of different nation states, as the current struggle over the EU budget shows.


The current EU crisis has revealed that the monetary union, rather than leading to a political union, has resulted in a political fracture between the national states. Partly, this is what lies behind the current spat over the EU budget, which was triggered by Chirac’s challenge to Britain’s rebate. This is a dangerous ploy, from the point of view of the French ruling class, because it has allowed Blair to raise the whole issue of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in retaliation. France currently receives over 20% of farm subsidies from the CAP, which is a purely political decision to maintain support for the French bourgeoisie and Chirac amongst French farmers.


Chirac is attempting to use these issues to turn the underlying class vote of the referendum into a nationalistic conflict over the EU budget. Blair, dressed in the political gown of Thatcher, is also attempting to present himself as the nationalistic defender of Britain over the EU rebate. The German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, is aligning with Chirac, while his opponent in the forthcoming elections, Angela Merkel, from Christian Democratic Union (CDU), tends to support Blair. While some compromise on the budget is eventually likely this conflict illustrates the new increased national tensions and contradictions which are set to emerge in the coming months and years.


While an immediate collapse of the euro or the EU is not the most likely short term perspective, the sharp increase in political and economic tensions between the representatives of the various ruling classes will intensify. The conflict of interests is now driving the capitalists of Europe towards the establishment of a looser federation of national states which is contrary to the dominant tendency of the recent period.


However, the onset of a deep economic recession or slump or world financial crisis will sharpen these conflicts further and could provoke a relatively rapid collapse of the euro. The withdrawal of Britain from the ERM in 1992, on ‘Black Wednesday’ shows how diverging national economic conditions can drive the capitalist class of a country to break from a currency or monetary agreement. Although there are differences, and it will not be repeated in exactly the same way, the euro can break up, with one or more country withdrawing or even being expelled from it.


Even before the French and Dutch referendums, the question of the sustainability of the euro in the face of diverse growth and inflation rates was beginning to be discussed amongst capitalist’s strategists. At one private meeting, on May 25, involving the German Finance Minister, Hans Eichel, and Axel Weber, President of the Bundesbank, a representative from Morgan Stanley (an investment bank) Joachim Fels, expressed concern about the sustainability of the euro. According to the Financial Times even the extreme pro-EU lobby group, ‘Centre for European Policy Studies’ published a report in early June that raised the prospect of a collapse in the euro. (8 June, 2005).

(Extract from a 2005 CWI statement written at the time of an earlier crisis after a draft EU constitution was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands)

Extracts from UBS study “Euro break-up – the consequences”:
The economic cost for a “weak” country leaving the euro
The cost of a weak country leaving the Euro is significant. Consequences include sovereign default, corporate default, collapse of the banking system and collapse of international trade. There is little prospect of devaluation offering much assistance. We estimate that a weak euro country leaving the Euro would incur a cost of around 9,500 to 11,500 euros per person in the exiting country during the first year. That cost would then probably amount to 3,000 to 4,000 euros per person per year over subsequent years. That equates to a range of 40% to 50% of GDP in the first year.

The economic cost for a “stronger” country leaving the euro
Were a stronger country such as Germany to leave the Euro, the consequences would include corporate default, recapitalisation of the banking system and collapse of international trade. If Germany were to leave, we believe the cost to be around R6,000 to 8,000 euros for every German adult and child in the first year, and a range of 3,500 to 4,500 euros per person per year thereafter. That is the equivalent of 20% to 25% of GDP in the first year. In comparison, the cost of bailing out Greece, Ireland and Portugal entirely in the wake of the default of those countries would be a little over 1,000 euros per person, in a single hit.

The political cost
The economic cost is, in many ways, the least of the concerns investors should have about a break-up. Fragmentation of the euro would incur political costs. Europe’s “soft power” influence internationally would cease (as the concept of “Europe” as an integrated polity becomes meaningless). It is also worth observing that almost no modern fiat currency monetary unions have broken up without some form of authoritarian or military government, or civil war.

The brilliant work and thoughts of Ken Loach

Ken Loach is a well known left wing film director and has produced many great well made films on some very tough subjects. Ken dares to go where no one else does. Ken highlights working class struggles in his films and really gets his audience thinking. There is a recent article in the Guardian with a interview from him. I thought i'd share parts of it here. Ken talks on the recent riots in the UK and the political situation in this country too. He speaks so much sense and raises some excellent points that we can all take on board i feel.

The leftwing film director talks about the riots, his early work on television and the documentary he made for Save the Children 40 years that is about to be screened for the first time


About halfway through our interview, I call Ken Loach a sadist. The mild-mannered, faintly mole-like film director blinks hard, chuckles, and carries on. We are discussing a key aspect of his film-making: the element of surprise. Loach has spent his career depicting ordinary people, telling working-class stories as truthfully as possible, and he works distinctively – filming each scene in order, often using non-professional actors, encouraging improvisation.

Save The Children Fund Film
Production year: 1969Country: UKRuntime: 50 minsDirectors: Ken Loach.

Actors don't tend to see a full script in advance, and move through his films as confused as the audience about what lurks around the next corner. I ask Loach which surprise was most memorable, and he laughs incongruously through a few examples. He talks about an incident when an actor walked through a door, on-set, to discover his co-star in a bath, her wrists apparently slashed. "Surprise is the hardest thing to act," says Loach, "and his response was just very true." On another occasion an actor only found out during the filming of a battle scene that her character was to be shot and killed. She was not especially pleased.

Most surprisingly of all, Crissy Rock, the lead in Ladybird, Ladybird (1994) – a brilliant, devastating gut-wrencher of a film – was convinced she was starring in a happy, upbeat, redemptive story. "She thought it would turn out to be about a couple successfully raising children together," says Loach, smiling. It is actually about a woman's kids being taken, one by one, by the social services. In the scene where they come for the final child, Rock "couldn't believe it," says Loach. "She was just wrecked."

It's at this point I laugh and call Loach a sadist. But it's probably more accurate to call him uncompromising, with both his actors and his leftwing politics. Loach turned 75 in June, and next month the BFI is showing a retrospective that will take viewers from his early television work – including the harsh, effective, 1966 exposé of homelessness Cathy Come Home – to his most recent film, Route Irish, about the experiences of private security contractors in Iraq. I ask which of his films he's most proud of, and he can't choose. "There's quite a few I cocked up, but that's another matter."

His documentary The Save the Children Film, part-funded by the charity, is being shown for the first time; made in 1969 for TV, it was never broadcast. The film was commissioned for the charity's 50th anniversary, and it's easy to imagine what they might have been expecting: a gauzy portrait, light on analysis, strong on praise.

Loach took a different tack. The documentary looks at the potential problems of aid, the ways those in a position to be charitable are often patronising and paternalistic. He took his cameras to a school run by Save the Children in Kenya, for homeless boys from Nairobi, for instance, that was set up along the lines of a British public school; the children are shown blowing bugles, marching, reading books including The Inimitable Jeeves and Tom Brown's Schooldays. A group of young Kenyan activists appear in the film, one of whom notes he can't think of another school in the world where the mother tongue isn't allowed.

The documentary moves beyond the charity's work to show British expatriates in Kenya; one stompingly posh woman remarks they have "a wildly gay time" there, and she feels that "even in their poverty, [the Kenyan people] are basically happy". Raising their living standards might just upset things, she adds. The film is full of issues that remain pressing: the limits of philanthropy, the patronage relationships fostered by aid, the subtle and not-so-subtle problems of colonialism. It ends with the comment that we "must change the property relationships of society, and then we change man. That's the only real solution, and all the rest is propaganda."

The documentary was made for LWT and only one-third funded by the charity, so Loach thought he and his crew could "take an independent view, and the TV company would support us. But they didn't." There are moments when he seems to have the naivety that derives from an inflexible moral backbone. "When the people that ran the Save the Children Fund said they would sue us, the television company wrote off their investment, and didn't back us at all."

It isn't the only one of his documentaries to have been pulled; Questions of Leadership, a TV series critiquing the response of the trade union top brass to Thatcherism, made in the early 1980s, was never shown – apparently for political reasons. I ask whether it upsets him when his films are censored or withdrawn, and he says: "It makes you angry, not on your own behalf, but on behalf of the people whose voices weren't allowed to be heard. When you had trade unions, ordinary people, rank and file, never been on television, never been interviewed, and they're not allowed to be heard, that's scandalous. And you see it over and over again. I mean, we heard very little from the kids in the riots. You hear some people being inarticulate in a hood, but very few people were actually allowed to speak."

Loach's films are often either a call to arms (a reminder of the rotten, vicious circumstances many people face) or portraits of specific political movements. The Wind That Shakes the Barley was about the Irish war of independence, Bread and Roses was about a group of office cleaners in Los Angeles campaigning for just wages, Land and Freedom was about a young, unemployed Liverpudlian man, a member of the Communist party, who heads to Spain to fight in a militia against Franco.

Land and Freedom has all the obvious elements of a great film: a passionate protagonist, beautiful heroine, a romantic relationship, battle scenes. And yet its most gripping moments involve an extensive conversation between a communist militia and the people of a Spanish town about the merits of collectivism. Should the town's land be carved up and shared among the people? Should some remain private? All of it? When I ask whether Loach would describe his politics as socialist, he says it's a difficult word, because it's much devalued, and you can't "make sense of it without Marx – but if you say you're a Marxist, then the rightwing press just uses it as a brick to hang around your neck." He is the rare film-maker who brings questions of political structure flamingly alive.

Loach is a quiet, gentle man – that streak of sadism aside – who seems entirely without vanity; he comes across like the most caring teacher in school. We talk more about the riots, and the subsequent heavy-handedness of the courts. "They'll shoot people for stealing sheep next, won't they?" he says. "But, in a way, whenever something dramatic happens, you know that everybody retreats to their comfort zone – so the Tories retreat to cutting benefits, pulling people out of their houses, savage prison sentences. They want that anyway. So whatever happens is an excuse for them to do what they want to do."

I mention the two young men put away for four years each, after trying to provoke rioting through their Facebook pages. Loach notes, with a shrug, that their cases will probably go to appeal, then adds: "It's the ruling class cracking the whip, isn't it? It's disgusting. We've got to organise. In the words of the old American trade unionist Joe Hill: don't mourn, organise."

He continues, apologising occasionally for "lecturing" me. "I think the underlying factors regarding the riots are plain for anyone with eyes to see … It seems to me any economic structure that could give young people a future has been destroyed. Traditionally young people would be drawn into the world of work, and into groups of adults who would send the boys for a lefthanded screwdriver, or a pot of elbow grease, and so they'd be sent up in that way, but they would also learn about responsibilities, and learn a trade, and be defined by their skills. Well, they destroyed that. Thatcher destroyed that. She consciously destroyed the workforces in places like the railways, for example, and the mines, and the steelworks … so that transition from adolescence to adulthood was destroyed, consciously, and knowingly.

"I don't recall the nihilism among kids now, 40 or 50 years ago," he says. "Now there is no place for kids, period. So I think despite the material advances, we're worse off." We also don't seem to have a political class that understands, on any level, what it's like to face unemployment. "No, the Bullingdon boys have never had to confront that," says Loach. "The Bullingdon boys will wreck restaurants and …" he pauses. "Just throw some money at it?" I say. "Yes, or their parents will throw money at it."

I ask whether he aims to provoke political change with his films, and he says he hopes they make people "see things in a different way. That they see there were possibilities for change in Spain, for instance, and one of the things that destroyed it was sectarianism on the left. That you can organise trade unions, we do have strength, things can be different, and here are stories from the past that show it."

It's difficult to imagine young people risking their lives for leftwing ideals now as they once did in Spain though, isn't it? Loach disagrees. "You get the international volunteers who go and put themselves in Gaza … Those are the sort of people who would have gone to Spain. People will resist, and they will fight back, and they do feel solidarity."

Does he think there's a chance of a revolutionary moment in the UK, after the financial crisis, the MPs' expenses scandal, the phone hacking revelations, and the exposure of the cosiness between the police and the Murdoch empire? "It just needs leadership," he says. "It's like a head of steam. The steam won't drive anything unless there's an engine, and somebody to stoke it, and to drive the wheels around." The moment in recent history, he thinks, when a proper movement could have been launched, was at the march against the Iraq war in 2003.

"At the end there should have been a hundred tables, here's a pen, give us your name, we're anti-privatisation, anti-war you know – it's Lenin's bread, land and peace. If you sign up to that, you'll be organised and it'll be democratic and there will be no vain personalities trying to take it over, and we can articulate a programme and a movement that might become a party on that basis. There was a huge feeling across the country. None of the politicians spoke for us. That was the moment, but it was missed."


As a child growing up in the industrial town of Nuneaton, his paternal grandfather a miner, his father a foreman in a machine tool factory, Loach had little interest in politics. His father read the Daily Express, and was a working-class Tory, and Loach, an only child ("not because they didn't want more children, but because it wasn't possible for some reason"), fell in love with the theatre. They lived 30 miles from Stratford-upon-Avon, "so once I got the bug, aged about 12 or 13, I used to go there and see plays". He fainted once, standing at the back watching Titus Andronicus, starring Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh. "She has her tongue cut out, and she came on with streams of red, and I'd had this long cycle ride, so I fell over."

Loach went to the local grammar school, which took in "60 boys each year, out of a town population of about 70,000. It was very lucky to go, because it was good, but it was at the expense of hundreds of boys the same age who, from the age of 11, would have no way into higher education." If you didn't get into the grammar school, your academic career would almost certainly fade fast. Loach wanted to be a lawyer; I ask if this was out of a striving for justice, and he laughs. "By no means. I just fancied the frocks really. I was really stage-struck, but I thought that going into the theatre would be unrealistic."

After a couple of years of national service with the RAF, he studied law at Oxford, and spent all his time performing. "I didn't go to a lecture for over a year. It was an absolute disgrace. I got an actor's degree – I swotted for six weeks at the end." He and a friend came close to starting a theatre afterwards, but when their funding fell through, he ended up understudying a comedian who was playing opposite Kenneth Williams. "I was totally incompetent, so thank God I never had to go on." Williams "was quite friendly", says Loach, "but if he was not in a good frame of mind, he could destroy you, and I was a young innocent abroad."

He emphasises that he was a poor actor ("I wouldn't have employed me") and so became an assistant director at Northampton Rep for a year, then in 1963 landed a job as a trainee director at the BBC. "It was a huge stroke of luck to be there, because the BBC was in quite a liberal mood, with Hugh Carleton Greene as the director general." Loach was soon influenced by the political passion of those around him, and began reading widely about leftwing ideas.

He started off directing Z Cars, and was then asked to join the Wednesday Play; in his first year he directed about six films, "original scripts, going out at peak viewing, straight after the news, when there were only two and a half channels. So everybody watched it. It was an incredible opportunity." He worked with strong writers, including Nell Dunn, Jeremy Sandford and David Mercer; Jimmy O'Connor wrote a film about capital punishment, Three Clear Sundays. "He himself had been arrested and convicted of murder and sentenced to hang, and was reprieved with days to go. He was a very good writer."

Over four or five years, he made such classics as Up the Junction, Cathy Come Home, and his first feature film, Poor Cow, all stories of working-class life. He and his peers gravitated to these stories for a number of reasons. "One is that the drama is most intense among people who have got little to lose," he says. "They live life very vividly, and the stakes are very high if you don't have a lot of money to cushion your life. Also, because they're the front line of what we came to call the class war. Either through being workers without work, or through being exploited where they were working. And I guess for a political reason, because we felt, and I still think, that if there is to be change, it will come from below. It won't come from people who have a lot to lose, it will come from people who will have everything to gain." He pauses, and smiles. "They also have the best jokes."

Loach says that period at the BBC was "hugely intoxicating" not just because of the enormous audiences, but because the directors had to defend their work, and politics. "Not only did you get reviews, but if you had a play on, you'd go on a programme called Late Night Line-Up, and there would be a critic, and a discussion, and you'd be torn to shreds, so you had to know your stuff. We always felt we were in politics, even though we were doing drama. A lot of directors now, I notice, when people take issue with them, they say: 'Oh no, it's not political, we didn't mean that, and they back off.' Well, we never backed off, you know, and why would you?"

The BFI's Ken Loach retrospective launches at BFI Southbank on 1 September with the premiere of The Save the Children film and continues until 12 October. Ken Loach at the BBC is available on DVD from 5 September.

police, riots and povety and anger, A working class fightback is needed

Last night saw some of the worse violence seen in Tottenham since the 1981 Broadwater Farm riots in the 80's. Much has change in the north london area but the same depreivation and low income and gang culture still e xists.

iot in Tottenham
More than 40 people have been arrested after rioting saw police attacked, buildings looted and vehicles set alight in Tottenham, north London.

Twenty-six officers and three others were hurt in the violence which erupted after a protest over the fatal shooting by police of Mark Duggan on Thursday.

Residents surveyed the damage after homes were looted and shops burnt down.

Tottenham MP David Lammy said: "A community that was already hurting has had its heart ripped out."

The Metropolitan Police said two officers were still in hospital.

The people arrested remain in custody for offences including violent disorder, burglary and theft.

Shops and homes were raided and cash machines ripped out in Tottenham. There were also thefts from shops in nearby Wood Green.

Police had earlier said there were still "pockets of criminality" in the area on Sunday morning.

London Fire Brigade received 264 emergency calls late on Saturday and in the early hours of Sunday and attended 49 fires in the Tottenham area.

The BBC's Andy Moore reports from behind police lines after a BBC satellite truck came under attack from youths throwing missiles
Some smoking buildings were still being dampened on Sunday, while police enforced a cordon around the scene of the violence as residents surveyed the damage to their community.


During the riot, which erupted about 20:20 BST, people threw petrol bombs, reducing many buildings and vehicles to charred wrecks.

Among the damage was a double-decker bus, two police cars, and a large building housing a carpet shop.

Crowds of looters smashed shop windows in a retail park near Tottenham Hale tube station.

The front window of Currys electrical store was smashed, and the door of Argos was also shattered, with broken glass covering the floor inside and out after




All this was clearly triggered by a spark caused by a man being shot by police earlier this week. The local community demand answers as to why this happened and the reasons behind this. The fact the local community have not been given any answers the anger has been boiling. But we also cant get away from teh fact that cuts from this tory government are hurting a area like Tottenham and others and this style of riot which became a regular occurance in teh 80's has the potential to spread if cuts are not stopped and a working class fightback is not mounted.

an excellent article from the socialist this year revisiting the Brixton riots of the 80's draws many comparisons to todays events and how a lack of a political voice and a opputunity for young angry people can lead to boiling over of anger into violence.

April 2011 marked the 30th anniversary of the riots in Brixton, south London, against police racism, unemployment and poverty. Today the conditions for new 'Brixtons' are being prepared. The Con-Dem government, like that of Thatcher, has adopted a programme of vicious cuts in jobs and services. Last year saw the first actual fall in living standards in Britain since the recession of three decades ago. Unemployment is rising. There are almost one million young people without jobs in Britain.
Contrary to what some said on the BBC's anniversary programme, conditions in Brixton are not vastly better than 30 years ago. There are similar numbers on the dole - 11,464 registered last year. 50% of unemployed youth in Lambeth are black. Although, following the anti-racist movements of the intervening period, we now see less open racism among the police, it has by no means disappeared.
And the £79 million of cuts, being implemented by a Labour council, in the borough will contribute to widespread misery and possible new eruptions of anger. A week ago, the Guardian referred to Lambeth as the most dangerous borough in Britain. CLARE DOYLE, dubbed 'Red Clare' in the right-wing press at the time for her participation and socialist politics (and red hair!), recounts the events.
On Friday 10 April 1981 a heavy-handed police incident in Railton Road, Brixton, sparked an explosion of pent-up anger that engulfed the area for days. Psyched-up police in full riot gear, many of them openly racist, went into battle with local residents, mostly black. Pelted with bricks, stones and petrol bombs, the police were forced to retreat, some with their riot shields on fire. An angry crowd surged through the central shopping area. Two pubs were burned out, other buildings wrecked, shops had their windows smashed in and their contents were strewn across the pavements.

300 police were injured as well as hundreds of their opponents, many of them too scared to seek medical help in the hospitals. Hundreds were being arrested and summarily charged with 'rioting' and 'looting'. The most intimidating noise and sight was that of the 'Nightsun' helicopter with its searchlight and infra-red camera peering into housing estates and side streets, on the hunt for new victims to put in the police cells.

By the Sunday afternoon, however, an eerie calm had descended on the centre of Brixton. The police had set up blockades around the area with the help of massive reinforcements bussed in from outside - a total of 7,445 policemen had been mobilised for the operation. But a traffic-free and police-free zone now existed, stretching from the west of the Town Hall down to the notorious Brixton police station (whose windows had also been smashed in!).

There was an almost festive atmosphere as the people of Brixton - white as well as black - wandered around to see the damage and discuss the significance of the events. They were joined by a growing number of sightseers and well-wishers.

Tories and police

Not so well-received were the Tory Home Secretary, Willie Whitelaw, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, David McNee, as they attempted a walk-about to assess the situation. Their talk of "outsiders" fomenting the violence did not wash.

Michael Heseltine, then Tory defence secretary, also visited Brixton (and later Toxteth in Liverpool where riots also took place) with a mandate to find solutions.

But he told reporters that not one extra pound of public spending would be provided by Thatcher's government. In contrast in 1984, mass action by workers in Liverpool forced the same Tory government to concede millions of pounds to the defiant Labour council, led by the Militant Tendency, the fore-runner of the Socialist Party.

The anger that had exploded in Brixton had deep roots. It was born of years of police harassment and outright brutality on top of decades of neglect and deprivation in terms of jobs, housing and social facilities. The previous April, there had been 'riots' or mass disturbances in the St Paul's area of Bristol, another run-down and predominantly black community blighted by unemployment and poverty.

The hated 'Sus' laws, which gave police powers to stop and search merely on 'suspicion', were being used against black youth far more than white. Raids on factories and homes with the aim of deporting immigrant workers were a daily occurrence.

Resentment smouldered in the black communities of south London over a number of recent racist incidents. 13 young black party-goers were killed in a fire in Deptford on the night of 18 January 1981. The police had done little or nothing to find anyone responsible for what was obviously a racially motivated attack.

Unemployment amongst black youth had reached over 50% nationally; it was rising four times faster than amongst white youth. There were 27 school-leavers for every job vacancy in Lambeth. 12,000 people were registered as unemployed at the Brixton dole office in April 1981.

A generation of black youth saw themselves already thrown on the scrap heap. Thatcher's policies were obviously going to do nothing to improve their lot; in fact, they were guaranteed to make things worse.

In Liverpool, where the Toxteth 'riots' took place, the Liberals, under David Alton, had built not one house, whereas when Labour, under the leadership of Militant, came into power, 5,000 homes were built!

Thatcher
In Brixton, the Railton Road area had been due for redevelopment since 1928 and with Thatcher's housing policy, there would now be no prospect of new homes replacing the slums. She was the real criminal, not those she blamed for inflaming the situation in the inner-city areas.

On the very Saturday of the escalation of clashes with the police in Brixton (April 11), the LPYS and Militant had organised a mock trial of Thatcher in nearby Stockwell Hall. The charges against the prime minister were: "Obtaining votes under false pretences; bribery and corruption; fraud; GBH (grievous bodily harm); murder"!

As the police were battening down the hatches in the area, two socialists who had been putting up posters had been arrested and then the organisers of the court-room farce were ordered to bring it to an end! Tension in the area was mounting by the minute.

It was no surprise when Brixton went up in flames that weekend. But as one local man commented, the only surprise was that it had not happened earlier!

On a BBC 4 discussion 'commemorating' 30 years since the Brixton events, police spoke openly about the racism that was rampant in the force. One of them recounted how, during the various police operations in the area, police officers, himself included, would attack Rastafarians with dreadlocks and literally pull their hair out from the roots. Back in the police station they would pin up the 'dreads' as trophies.

Once the April flare-up began, the LPYS and Militant supporters moved into action. They did not consider burning and looting as the way to combat the policies of Thatcher, but they understood what was behind the rage that was unleashed.

They talked to people involved in the battles, to people in local community organisations and in the Labour Party about what could be done, firstly to combat the police rampage and stop the mass arrests, and, secondly to channel this anger into a political fight against the class politics of Thatcher and her government.

They worked rapidly to organise a mass meeting at the Town Hall for the earliest possible date. They got out a leaflet giving their explanation of what had happened and why, and also formulating a programme of demands to express the needs of the hour.

Young socialists
Teams of young (and not so young) socialists went onto the streets. They distributed 30,000 of the rapidly printed leaflets in a meticulously organised door-to-door operation, covering every household in the immediate area.

They went to bus garages, fire stations, hospitals, post office and council depots, factories, local government offices, a milk yard and rail depots to explain the case and seek support. Within two days they had 1,000 signatures on a petition. They put up posters and chalked on the pavements to advertise the public meeting.

By the evening of Wednesday 15 April, 600 agitated, angry and excited people were piling into the Town Hall meeting room to hear and be heard. A resolution to send to Thatcher and her government had been drawn up. It declared that: "the responsibility for the riots in Brixton rests with the police... Also responsible are the Tories and the class they represent, whose system - being run purely for the rich - has pushed unemployment up to three million and bred poverty and slum housing".

It included demands for the immediate withdrawal of the massive police presence from the area, release of all those arrested and dropping of all charges, democratic street committees to defend the areas, an end to stop and search, the disbandment of the hated Special Patrol Group (constantly operating mass swoops in the area), an urgent labour movement inquiry and the "release of funds from central government to be put back into the community".

As the meeting began, someone stood up to insist on an amendment to the very first phrase of the resolution. Instead of "This meeting declares", it should read, "We the people of Brixton, declare..."! That was agreed with a roar of approval. The confidence and enthusiasm of the meeting was palpable.

Many young people signed up to come to an LPYS meeting. Within the next two days 100 were visited and phoned. 45 came to the meeting that weekend.

Benefit gig
Little more than a month later, there were 700 youth packed into a benefit gig, also at the Town Hall, with a bar and a popular band called Aswad playing. The group UB40, along with MPs and many local organisations, including the trades council made contributions towards a fund for assisting the hundreds of arrested people being dragged through the courts.

The Labour Committee for the Defence of Brixton (LCDB) was rapidly set up, involving local black residents' representatives, shop stewards, councillors, lawyers and Labour Party members.

Among them were Bob Lee, secretary of the PNP black socialist youth organisation, Tony Saunois, then on Labour's National Executive Committee from the LPYS, Anne Beales, chair of the London region of the LPYS, local solicitor, Mike Fisher, and two members of Militant's editorial board who lived in the area - Lynn Walsh and myself.

The LCDB came out immediately against the government's proposal for a police inquiry into the Brixton events to be led by Lord Scarman. Why? Firstly, it was precisely that - a police inquiry! Secondly, it was set up by the Tories who were the ones to blame for all the problems that caused the 'riots'. Thirdly, no one giving evidence to the inquiry would be sure not to find themselves incriminated and under arrest!

Lord Scarman had the dubious record of heading a 1969 'Tribunal of Inquiry' into the 'disturbances' in Northern Ireland without putting forward any solution.

The LCDB called for a totally independent labour movement inquiry as a launch pad for a socialist campaign to solve the major social problems behind the outbreaks of violence.

Although the 1974-79 Labour governments had moved decisively from reform to counter-reform, with attempts at restraining wages and attacking the hard-won gains of the working class, now that the Tories were in power, the Labour Party was under pressure to shift to the left.

On its NEC, the LPYS representative pushed for a national demonstration against Tory policies and rising unemployment. Instead, they organised demonstrations around the country, which turned out to be massive.

Lambeth
In Lambeth, as well as many other working class strongholds, unlike today, the local Labour Parties were still relatively combative and socialist, at least in name. Labour councillors and MPs responded favourably to the efforts of the Lambeth LPYS and sent money and support to the LCDB. The London Labour Party Executive circulated the LCDB material, as did the district offices of the NUPE, TGWU and AUEW trade unions.

The most important task of socialists at that time was to expose the real causes of the uprising in Brixton. They demanded radical changes in policing practice as well as an end to the Thatcher government. They also campaigned for a Labour government on a socialist programme to take its place - something unthinkable today!

Socialists warned that, unless the cuts and attacks on public spending were reversed and the harassment of black and Asian communities by the police was stopped, there would be more flare-ups - in Brixton and in other inner-city deprived areas.

In early July, while tens of thousands of activists were marching in Cardiff on one of the Labour Party protests against unemployment, the Liverpool area of Toxteth exploded, then Salford, then Bristol again and Birmingham and 20 or so other towns and cities across Britain.

Militant
Militant received a sudden flurry of publicity in the press and on TV when 'Red Clare' appeared in Toxteth at the time of the violent clashes there. We used this opportunity to explain who the real culprits were - Thatcher and the Tories. We did not condone, but understood the actions of the harassed and desperate youth of these deprived areas of Britain.

Towards the end of July, Brixton kicked off again. Police decided to raid eleven households in the Railton Road area on the pretext that they were where Molotov cocktails had been manufactured and stored.

They wrecked people's homes and terrified whole families. A new uprising was in the making.

The Labour Committee for the Defence of Brixton was still busy with the work of taking evidence from victims of the April conflagration and monitoring the level of police activity in the area. It moved into action immediately - condemning the action of the police thugs and demanding compensation for all those affected by the raids.

The events of 1981 - the levels of police violence and racism that were revealed and the 'findings' of the Scarman Inquiry - led to the stepping up of attempts to introduce 'community policing'.

Militant and the LPYS took the idea further, calling for democratic control over the police and policing and the right of the police to organise in unions and to strike.

In the year before the Brixton explosion, a mood was developing for the TUC trade union leadership to call a general strike against the Tories and their austerity programme. This was eventually watered down into a 'day of action'.

Similar demands are developing today and a similar reluctance to take action is displayed on the part of the TUC leaders. If they do not move into action, the scenes of despair and explosions of anger like those of 1981 will be back on our streets. Deprived areas of major cities - if not the central areas, then the 'banlieus' or outskirts as in France - will be the scene of new conflagrations.

Looking at the dramatic events of 30 years ago is a timely reminder of just how vital it is to forge a united workers' struggle to end unemployment and poverty. Trade union action and the building of a mass party of workers with a socialist programme, including mass job creation, are now the only way ahead for avoiding riots and mindless destruction.

Socialism is less heard of today than in 1981 but the struggle for nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy and democratic planning to solve the major problems in society is more urgent than ever.