Let them wear jumpers

So will let them wear jumpers be the new let them eat cake I wonder ? With energy prices in the UK shooting up with British Gas being the latest after SSE to put up their prices this week it is the hot topic of discussion at the moment it would seem. This week at Westminster has been dominated by one topic: energy prices. It is a case study of the biggest theme in politics at the moment, the cost of living. With British Gas joining energy provider SSE in hiking its prices, what are people feeling the squeeze and fearing the cold supposed to do? Enter, stage left, the humble jumper. And welcome to a brief snapshot of how headlines sometimes appear despite what might have emerged out of the lips of politicians and their advisers. Energy Secretary Ed Davey spent much of Thursday touring TV and radio studios criticising British Gas and suggesting people should shop around for the best energy deal. In an interview on the BBC's Newsnight, he was asked about what happened in the Davey household. Did Mr Davey, presenter Jeremy Paxman asked, wear a jumper? "I am sure people do wear jumpers, I wear jumpers at home, but you are missing the point here Jeremy, we do need to help people with their bills, I am extremely worried about them, we can use competition the way we have, we can make our homes warmer and use less electricity and gas by going more energy efficient," said Mr Davey. Cue headlines suggesting the energy secretary said wear a jumper. Great story. Energy Secretary Ed Davey was quizzed about his knitwear preferences Except he didn't say this. Mr Davey was asked about jumpers. Mr Davey mentioned jumpers. But Mr Davey didn't say you or I should wear a jumper. Fast forward 12 hours to Friday's briefing for Westminster journalists, which is conducted by one of the prime minister's official spokesmen. The Daily Mirror - which is no fan of the coalition government - chased this theme with some vigour. The clear aim of the questions was to attempt to get an answer along the lines of "the prime minister tells you to wear jumper". Another great story If he'd said that, I'd have been jumping at the chance to get on the television, radio and online to tell it. But he didn't. Here is the exchange, as I scribbled it in my notebook: Reporter: "Does the prime minister wear a jumper at home?" Official Spokesman: "The prime minister doesn't tend to give fashion tips." Several further questions along the same lines came along, which didn't get very far. The spokesman was then asked about what the PM thought of charities giving advice that perhaps people should consider wrapping up warm. Here was the response: "Clearly, he is not going to prescribe necessarily the actions individuals should take about that. But if people are giving that advice, that is something that people may wish to consider." Next came the headlines claiming the prime minister was suggesting people should wear a jumper. Great story. Except the spokesman did not say this. Labour leapt at the chance to have their say, claiming Downing Street was in chaos and offering Ed Miliband for interview. Downing Street then issued a statement: "To be clear, it is entirely false to suggest the Prime Minister would advise people they should wear jumpers to stay warm. Any suggestion to the contrary is mischief-making." And so concludes the story of a story which isn't really a story at all. All a bit of tittle tattle you may say but there is a real worry for many ordinary people out there this winter heat or eat. Its as simple as that for many.

The bond of political economy

Politics and economics in my opinion as was Karl Marx cannot be separated and the two go hand in hand politics effect economics and economics effect politics. To some people certainly in the bourgeois media politics and the economy seem detached but they are really not. Karl Marx recognised this many years ago when he set about his work on political economy including his most famous works in Das Capital. Marx's critique of political economy was not a proposal for a new, 'socialist economics'-for Marx, socialism implied the withering away of economics. Nor was it a 'critique of capitalism'. I think that 'criticising' a social order is a bit like criticising the weather. (As Mark Twain complained, everybody grumbles, but nobody seems to do anything about it.) In any case, Marx never used the word 'capitalism'. As he explained, his critique is directed primarily against the categories of political economy, that is, against economics as such. (When Marx spoke of 'the system of bourgeois economy', he always meant the science of political economy.) For Marx, classical political economy, utopian socialism and the Hegelian system represented the attempts of the greatest bourgeois thinkers to grasp the nature of modern society. Their categories and methods of thought gave the highest theoretical expression to the contradictions of bourgeois social relations. Essentially, all of these contradictions, including the struggle between capital and the proletariat, express a more fundamental one: that between humanity-self-creation, selfconsciousness, sociality-and inhumanity-whatever blocks and perverts these. What economics took for granted as 'natural' and 'rational', Marx saw as the inhuman and irrational shell inside which human life was imprisoned. Marx's critique is inseparable from its struggle to smash this shell. Marx characterised the 'classical political economists' as those who, 'since the time of W Petty have examined the real internal framework [innern Zusammenhang = inner coherence] of bourgeois relations of production' (Marx, 1976 Vol.I/l: 174-5). As he wrote in a well-known letter: Once insight into the connectedness has been gained, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before the practical collapse. (Marx to Kugelmann 11/7/1868, in Marx and Engels, 1983:149). There clearly is a dialectical relation between politics and economics which for Marx made perfect sense. In examining the work of the classical political economists, Marx was investigating a social illness. It was like his attitude to religion: it could not be cured by correcting some logical errors, but only by overthrowing the social order whose contradictions they expressed. His critique opened the way for 'revolutionary practice', in which 'human activity or self-change' could be seen to coincide with 'the changing of circumstances' (ibid. The greatest philosophers and political thinkers tried to systematise this ordinary consciousness. That was how political economy, when it was still a science, studied the heart of the capital relation, its 'inner coherence', and that was why Marx spent forty years on its critique. Political economy took the upside-down forms within which the inhumanity of bourgeois relations seemed 'natural' to ordinary consciousness, and tried to make them into a coherent system. But because these forms were essentially a denial of humanity, this attempt could not succeed. Just as the exchange relation itself was crazy [verruckt],4 so were the categories of the very best political economy. ('Vulgar economists' were absolutely no use for Marx's purposes.) Through the essential inconsistencies in this science, Marx sought to reveal the contradictions of those social forms. The critique of this bourgeois science thus showed that the 'integument' could be broken through by the socialist revolution, to open the way for a life 'worthy of our human nature' (Marx, 1978 Vol 3. So when we think about politics we must link it always in to economics and vice versa. Marx was right on this point and we should not forget this fact.

The state within a state

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

The Socialist Way: independent and staying that way now and forevermo...

The Socialist Way: independent and staying that way now and forevermo...: You would have thought that after three long years of Cameron... his grand and of course, hopefully it will be only a one off coalitio...

The Madeleine McCann case

Back in 2005 a young girl on holiday with her parents and two other children went missing in Praia de Luz on the Algarve in Portugal named Madeleine McCann. Ever since there has been search's for her and appeals made by her parents. In new revelations a day before Madeline’s parents Kate and Gerry are due to go live on TV to make an appeal; the Metropolitan Police said it has identified 41 persons of interest including 15 Britons. British police have taken over from the Portuguese investigation, and are combing an extensive backlog of phone records and interviewing people who were present in the town at the time of the three-year-old’s disappearance in Praia de Luz in 2007. The police will outline the progress of their case during an hour-long programme on BBC’s Crimewatch, in which there will be a 25-minute reconstruction of the fateful night Madeleine went missing. Detective chief inspector Andy Redwood said: ‘The timeline we have now established has given new significance to sightings and movements of people in and around Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance. ‘Our work to date has significantly changed the timeline and the accepted version of events that has been in the public domain to date. ‘It has allowed us to work with Crimewatch to build the most detailed reconstruction as yet, and highlight very specific appeal points.’ Detectives say they have now interviewed 442 people as part of their new research and have issued 31 international letters of request (ILOR) to largely European countries in order to obtain more information on a particular person of interest. Pictures of men seen in and around the area are also expected to be released by police during the programme, while Kate and Gerry will speak to presenter Kirsty Young live in the studio. The show will air on Monday night at 9pm. This will be very interesting to see how it is put across. I have thought there are so many things that don’t sit right with me with this case for a long while now. Clearly the girl’s life has been sidetracked with funds appeals and libel cases and all sorts by the parents. Why has this case gained far more media coverage than others for example About 700,000 British children have been reported missing since Madeleine McCann disappeared. Why is her coverage so disproportionate? A team of British crime specialists who have scrutinised the Madeleine McCann case claim there are inconsistencies in her parents' version of events. The retired experts believe there is a question mark over Kate's response when she discovered the four-year-old was missing. Forensic scientist Professor David Barclay, part of the four-man team who reviewed the case for Channel Four's Dispatches show, said: "We examined all of the available evidence and the conclusion we came to was that there appeared to be some significant inconsistencies. "One thing we looked for was any sign of 'staging', the term we use for the actions of someone who has committed a crime and wants to 'stage it' to appear someone else has done it. "The first words apparently spoken by Kate McCann when she discovered Madeleine had vanished were significant. She is supposed to have said 'They've taken her, they've taken her' - which seems a strange choice of phrase. "I don't think that would have been my first reaction if my child had gone missing." Prof Barclay also questioned the McCanns' claims that an abductor got into their Praia da Luz holiday flat through the back shutters. He said: "We checked the scene of the crime and it struck us immediately how unlikely it would be for anyone to try and access the apartment through the back windows. The shutters there were firmly shut and couldn't be opened and the car park behind the flat was overlooked. "We're not saying it was impossible to have gained entry that way, but with all of our collected years of experience to us it seemed highly unlikely and a very implausible scenario. "It could be that claim is consistent with staging, but without full knowledge of all of the facts in the case it would be impossible to say for sure." Prof Barclay visited the crime scene along with ex-Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Stevenson, the man who caught Soham killer Ian Huntley and psychological profiler David Canter. Prof Barclay, 62, added: "There has been a tendency to criticise the Portuguese police but on the whole they did a pretty good job. "However, they made two big mistakes. Firstly, they did not seal of the crime scene anywhere nearly quick enough. Secondly, in my opinion they were not aggressive enough with the McCanns in the first stage of the investigation. "It is actually for the parents' benefit in cases like this that the police tackle them robustly and demand a comprehensive account of their movements during the relevant In my opinion there is far more to this than we have been told why the parents haven’t been done for neglect at the very least. A lot of people on twitter this morning are questioning why they are so blameless despite the fact they left their young children alone for a number of hours. Isn’t this irresponsible for any parent to do let alone two highly qualified doctors? Tonight’s crime watch should be interesting to see what angle it comes at it from. One of the longest unsolved missing person hunts needs answers will we ever get any about this poor young girl who has so tragically been forgotten in all this.

It’s not been a good week for red Len

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

Police and Trade Unions implicated in blacklisting scandal workers still need justice!

So new evidence has come to light in recent weeks on the disgraceful act of blacklisting workers in the construction industry mainly but no doubt it does and has gone on elsewhere too. In a Observer piece this morning “Police officers across the country supplied information on workers to a blacklist operation run by Britain's biggest construction companies, the police watchdog have told lawyers representing victims. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has informed those affected that a Scotland Yard inquiry into police collusion has identified that it is "likely that all special branches were involved in providing information" that kept certain individuals out of work. The IPCC's disclosure confirms suspicions voiced by the information commissioner's office last year that the police had been involved in providing some of the information held on the files, as revealed by this newspaper. The admission has been welcomed by campaigners for the 3,200 workers whose names were on the blacklist that was run for construction companies as "absolute evidence" of a conspiracy between the state and industry that lasted for decades. Dave Smith, an engineer who had a 36-page file under his name and was repeatedly victimised for highlighting safety hazards on sites, including the presence of asbestos, said he was delighted that the IPCC had revealed "the truth". He added: "For the past five years, when we have been saying the police were involved, we were told we were talking nonsense and it was a conspiracy theory. They wanted it to go away. Now we have the absolute evidence and this is no longer about industrial relations but is a major human rights scandal involving a conspiracy between the police and the industry." The blacklist, run by a company called the Consulting Association, funded by 40 major firms in the construction industry including Balfour Beatty and Sir Robert McAlpine, was discovered in 2009 after a raid by the information commissioner's office. Since then, the victims have fought to find out who was providing information against them. The IPCC's correspondence is regarded as a major breakthrough. However, the watchdog's disclosure has been disputed by a subsequent letter to the victims' solicitors. This was sent by a recently appointed senior investigating officer for the inquiry into the activities of undercover police officers, known as Operation Herne. In a letter, seen by the Observer, detective inspector Steve Craddock insists that the IPCC's statement is incorrect and that he has seen "no conclusive evidence" that Scotland Yard shared information with the blacklisters. The IPCC is standing by its correspondence, which it says was informed by discussions with the Metropolitan Police and that "developments since that ... are a matter for the Metropolitan Police". In response, a spokesman for Craddock said Operation Herne's investigating officer was "aware of the apparent contradiction and is looking into how that may have arisen". She added: "Operation Herne will report on the 'blacklisting' matter to the Metropolitan Police commissioner in due course." The developments come as the group fighting for justice for the blacklisted workers has received confirmation of a meeting between undercover police officers and those running the blacklist in November 2008. The information commissioner's officers have confirmed in a freedom of information response that they hold notes from a meeting between the Consulting Association and officers from the police national extremism tactical co-ordination unit, which runs undercover officers. The notes of the 2008 meeting are part of a haul of documents seized by the information commissioner's office when it discovered the existence of the secret blacklist during a raid on an office in Droitwich, Worcestershire. Sir Robert McAlpine, which was allegedly a major player in the establishment and funding of the blacklist, is currently being sued in the high court over an unlawful conspiracy to amass a database of information against thousands of people. Last week, in a dramatic twist, eight major construction companies, including Sir Robert McAlpine, announced that they would compensate some of the 3,213 workers whose names had been on a blacklist. A statement said: "The companies – Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Costain, Kier, Laing O'Rourke, Sir Robert McAlpine, Skanska UK and Vinci – all apologise for their involvement with the Consulting Association and the impact that its database may have had on any individual construction worker." Sean Curran, a solicitor representing 69 victims in the high court, said he cautiously welcomed the announcement but raised concerns over the involvement of the unions, which are also suspected of providing information to the blacklist operation in some cases. He said: "We note that there has been reference to the consultation of Ucatt and Unite in the formulation of the proposed compensation scheme. We express serious concern about the involvement of those organisations. "We have seen evidence that implicates Amicus (which evolved into Unite) and Ucatt officials in the supply of negative commentary about the suitability of their members for employment. That commentary frequently made its way onto the Consulting Association database and was no doubt one of the factors that led to denials of employment. "It is also worthy of note that those unions refused to support their members in bringing a High Court claim so that they could seek redress for the hardship that they suffered. Many of those that we represent are firm that they object to Unite or Ucatt playing any part in negotiations with the relevant companies for these reasons." Claire Windsor, solicitor for the victims in regard to the complaint over police collusion, said her clients had lost any faith in the ability of the police to investigate themselves and that the blacklist support group was now calling for a judge-led independent inquiry into blacklisting. “ Article in Observer is here http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/12/police-blacklist-construction-workers-watchdog?guni=Keyword:news-grid%20main-1%20Main%20trailblock:Editable%20trailblock%20-%20news:Position2