Prisons, who are they really for ?

This has been something which i've toyed with in my head for a while now. Are prisons a thing for good in society in locking up violent and often horrific criminals and this will make society a safer place. or do they do more harm than good. An excellent blog over at http://propertyistheft.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/abolish-the-prison-system/ Details alot of my current thoughts on the matter i quote below. "As with borders, the prison system is an element of state structure deemed to be beyond question. Debate rages on whether it is “too soft” or “too tough,” on whether it needs reform, and on how it can be made to work better. However, the idea of its abolition remains unspeakable, indeed unthinkable. There simply must be a prison system, the argument goes, or society would rapidly descend into chaos. Criminals would run rampant on the streets, anti-social behaviour would spiral out of control, and society would be gripped by a culture of fear and lawlessness." This is the popular thinking to why we need prisons and why we must lock away the bad people in society who those we percieve to be a danger to the stability of everyday life. "In response, I argue that prisons do not serve justice but the dominance of established power. That all the claimed consequences of lacking prisons exist already precisely because of their existence. And that their abolition would pave the way for a system of popular justice that would allow communities to safeguard themselves against crime, violence, and coercion without the institutionalised servility to power that serves only to make victims out of the poor, minorities, and the marginalised." Of course this is not something that can just happen over night or next year its a mentality thing more than anything. We seem to think the best place for those who've sinned is to be locked away out of harms way and out of sight out of mind. Any sort of rehibilitation program is something which we hear very little of and even then is it garunteed to help people reconnect back into society or would the time spent behind bars leave long term mental and sometimes physical scars of their time inside. "Incarceration as a form of punishment and retribution is, in fact, a relatively new and revolutionary idea. Before Jeremy Bentham first developed the idea of the modern penal system in the 19th Century, prisons were usually used to detain criminals until trial or the administration of punishment. However, the idea that – in their modern format – they serve to reform criminals, deter crime, or offer reconciliation to the victims of crime can and must be challenged. The idea that prisons serve to reform criminals is a nonsense. In Anarchism: its Philosophy and Ideal, Peter Kropotkin made the argument that the result was in fact the opposite; And in our every-day relations with our fellow-citizens, do you think that it is really judges, gaolers, and police that hinder anti-social acts from multiplying? The judge, ever ferocious, because he is a maniac of law, the accuser, the informer, the police spy, all those interlopers that live from hand to mouth around the Law Courts, do they not scatter demoralization far and wide into society? Read the trials, glance behind the scenes, push your analysis further than the exterior facade of law courts, and you will come out sickened. Have not prisons-which kill all will and force of character in man, which enclose within their walls more vices than are met with on any other spot of the globe-always been universities of crime? Is not the court of a tribunal a school of ferocity? And so on. When we ask for the abolition of the State and its organs we are always told that we dream of a society composed of men better than they are in reality. But no; a thousand times, no. All we ask is that men should not be made worse than they are, by such institutions! This critique was, of course, written in 1896, when society as a whole was arguably far more brutal than it is today. However, modern statistics do seem to confirm Kropotkin’s analysis from over a century ago. According to the Howard League for Penal Reform, “in the ten years to 2003, the [UK] prison population increased by 66%, in the case of women, 191%” whilst “Home Office data reveals that about 78% of people sentenced to immediate custody in 2003 had committed non-violent offences.” Moreover, in a penal system overwhelmingly populated by perpetrators of non-violent or marginal offences, the brutalisation evident is overwhelming. “During 2004, 95 people killed themselves in prison service care. This included 50 people on remand and 13 women. In addition, a 14 year old boy took his own life in a Secure Training Centre in 2004.” And “data shows that in 2003, 30% of women, 65% of females under 21 and 6% of men in prison harmed themselves.” So, a century after Kropotkin wrote of prisons “which kill all will and force of character in man,” we still see an overwhelming brutalisation of human beings within their walls. And the result? “61% of all prisoners released in 2001 were reconvicted within two years” and “73% of young male offenders released 2001 were reconvicted within 2 years.” The brutal conditions of incarceration offer up one reason why recidivism is so high in Britain, which serves as a typical example of Western justice systems (with the United States as an extreme which magnifies the problems a thousand-fold). The treatment of children is a particularly poignant example of this. Reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Children’s Commissioner for England found that “the protection of children in custody remains a fundamental concern. There are high incidences of mental health problems, self-harm and bullying with a significant proportion of children feeling unsafe. There are high levels of intimidation, violence and abuse, not only from other prisoners but also from staff.” The Howard League, once again, draws the statistics on children together to paint a shocking picture; Facts and figures on children in prison Since January 2002, 6 children have died in penal custody. This includes 4 children in prison and 2 children in secure training centres. The youngest child to die was 14 years old. One child died following restraint by staff Children in prison are 18 times more likely to commit suicide that their counterparts in the community (The Lancet, 15 Sept 2005) Restraint is widely used in prisons and secure training centres. Between 2004 and 2006, 27% of boys and 19% of girls in prison had been physically restrained by staff (Young People in Custody 2004-2006, HMIP and YJB 2006) The Howard League recently slammed a government decision to allow private security companies running child jails to continue using pain on children. Between January 2005 and October 2006, restraint was used on 676 occassions on boys at Huntercombe prison. On 134 occassions it resulted in injuries to the child (HC deb, Col 416W, 27 Nov 2006) A survey by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of Prisons and the Youth Justice Board found that 31% of the boys in prison had been insulted or assaulted by other young people. 22% had been insulted or assaulted by a member of staff (Young People in Custody 2004-2006, HMIP and YJB 2006) The strip searching of children is routinely carried out on all children in prisons on reception and frequently before and after visits. Between January 2005 and October 2006 a total of 6,832 strip searches were carried out on boys at Huntercombe prison (HC deb, Col 416W-417W, 27 Nov 2006) Between January 2005 and October 2006, 100 boys were forcibly strip searched in 5 prisons. (HL deb, WA56, Jan 8 2007 and HL deb, WA 108, Jan 10 2007) Children in prison are being held for days and even weeks at a time in segregation. Between January 2004 and January 2007, 276 children had been held in the segregation unit for more than 7 days and 21 children had been held there for more than 28 days at the privately run Ashfield prison (HC deb, Col 1684W, 23 Jan 2007) And, as the Howard League states, “the treatment of children experienced by children in prisons would in any other setting, be considered abusive and trigger a child protection investigation.” Clearly, such a system is nothing short of barbaric, and still “it is ineffective in terms of reducing offending.” This makes a nonsense of the argument, often found shrouded in overly-emotive language in tabloid newspapers, that the reason crime and anti-social behaviour is so high is because we are “too soft.” An approach that favours violent coercion over rehabilitation isn’t the only reason for high recidivism, however. Another important one is that what is on offer to convicts once they leave prison, even after brutalisation, can often be much worse. An overwhelming amount of prisoners, upon release, face homelessness, illiteracy and lacking education, mental health problems, and addiction." Clearly, then, the prison system does nothing to reduce recidivism in ex-offenders and in fact "exacerbates matters in most cases. Further to which, I would argue, prison as an institution is part of a much wider societal malady which increases and encourages crime overall – the state-corporate structure. As the Anarchist Black Cross, a major anarchist abolition movement, explain; We live in a society where a tiny minority own the wealth, the land, run the big companies and live in luxury on the backs of the working people who produce everything. They try to control our lives and keep us in line by every means possible – schools, the media, the DSS, drugs, Disneyland. If we obey orders, work hard, don’t answer back, we can live a reasonable life – until the next recession. We can help our bosses keep others down, like the police or bailiffs do, and get our rewards: power, wealth, security. But for those of us not willing to work to keep our rulers in luxury, or those who try to take back any of the wealth that we have made, there is the justice system. Strike for a decent wage, steal to stay alive, resist the control and abuse in our lives, or break the bosses’ laws in any way and we face police, courts, prison. Prison is the bottom line in control – their ultimate weapon. Prison means isolation, bloody punishments, divided families. It drives people to despair and suicide. The whole system is to split us up and isolate people who could set an example to the rest of our class. Likewise, if we step outside so-called normal behaviour, such as women who refuse to accept the role of wife and mother, anyone whose sexuality is so-called deviant, we may be stigmatised, tranquillised and ultimately imprisoned. On the outside, fear of prison is built up to stop us from fighting back against the injustice in our lives and myths are created about prisoners to divide us from them. Most people are inside for trying to survive. In Britain, 94% of recorded crimes are against property. About one third are inside for non-payment of fines or taxes. Thousands are on remand. Many others are guilty of nothing more than being working class, irish, black, framed by the police. Full prisons give us the impression that the police are ‘cracking crime’ and reminds us who is in control. Most prisoners are working class people, just like the rest of us. They are not all the mad beasts the papers would have us believe." "The press hype up stories of ‘violent crime’ to give the existence of prison some justification and to divide us from prisoners. But the fact is that only a tiny percentage of crimes are violent or anti-social. It is also true that such crime is not prevented by prisons. The system we live in encourages competition, power relationships and self-interest. This system is also anti-social; while it remains intact there will always be violence. Calling the shoplifter, the person on the picket line and the rapist all criminals as if there were no difference between them, uses most people’s horror of anti-social violence against the vast majority whose offences are to do with property and resistance." "We live in a system of entrenched privilege and injustice fostered by the marriage of state and private power and the insitutions of private property. Immense wealth and immense poverty often exist side by side, further illustrating the divide that exists in our society. Within such a system, crime is almost inevitable as a result, as Emma Goldman noted in Anarchism: What it really stands for; The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation. Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime. What does society, as it exists today, know of the process of despair, the poverty, the horrors, the fearful struggle the human soul must pass on its way to crime and degradation. Who that knows this terrible process can fail to see the truth in these words of Peter Kropotkin: “Those who will hold the balance between the benefits thus attributed to law and punishment and the degrading effect of the latter on humanity; those who will estimate the torrent of depravity poured abroad in human society by the informer, favored by the Judge even, and paid for in clinking cash by governments, under the pretext of aiding to unmask crime; those who will go within prison walls and there see what human beings become when deprived of liberty, when subjected to the care of brutal keepers, to coarse, cruel words, to a thousand stinging, piercing humiliations, will agree with us that the entire apparatus of prison and punishment is an abomination which ought to be brought to an end.” "The link between poverty and crime should be no mystery to anyone who has witnessed the increase of crime in this or any prior recession. The Thatcher era in Britain also saw this link demonstrated beyond doubt. As the number of jobless rose to 3.6 million by 1983, and homelessness increased from around 57,000 households in 1979 to around 127,000 in 1989, crime rose by about 124%. The connection between poverty and crime is even more stark when you consider the fact that we live in a society that perpetuates and entrenches both extreme poverty and extreme wealth. A report by the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) tells us that “intergenerational income mobility” saw a “sharp decline” for “for children born in 1970″ and reaching employment age under Margaret Thatcher “compared with those born in 1958″ which has “stabilised,” or remained constant, “for children born in the period 1970-2000.” The birth of the neo-liberal economics that today dominate the globe, then, saw social mobility grind to a halt." There are a multitude of reasons for this. One is education. The Ofsted report, Educational inequality: mapping race, class, and gender shows that “there is a strong direct association between social class background and success in education: put simply, the higher a child’s social class, the greater are their attainments on average.” Moreover, “there is evidence that the inequality of attainment between social classes has grown since the late 1980s. For example, in relation to the five higher grade benchmark, between 1988 and 1997, the gap between children from ‘managerial/professional’ backgrounds and ‘unskilled manual’ groups grew from 40 to 49 percentage points.” At the same time, educational inequalities also exist on an ethnic basis whereby “inequalities of attainment in GCSE examinations place African- Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils in a disadvantaged position in the youth education, labour, and training markets, and increase the likelihood of social and economic exclusion in later life.” And there is no evidence whatever to suggest that ethnic minorities or poorer people are naturally less intelligent or capable. Rather, the imbalance is systemic; Research in both the United States and Britain overwhelmingly concludes that Black pupils and their working class white peers are likely to be over-represented in lower-ranked teaching groups, for example, where schools adopt ‘setting by ability’ or other forms of selective grouping. Their disproportionate concentration can be mapped by tracing the process of selection inside schools. Research has documented how these processes are significantly influenced by differential teacher expectations, which tend to be markedly lower for these groups of pupils. The pupils’ subsequent placement in lower ranked teaching groups, in both primary and secondary schools, institutionalises these differences and can create additional barriers to achievement. Even in schools that do not embrace setting, some form of selection is increasingly common. The structure of the GCSE examination itself now requires most subject areas to enter pupils for one of two different ‘tiers’ of exam, where the highest grades are only available to pupils in the top tier." It is no surprise that this group of people are more likely to fall into povety and into a trap of struggle which they will find it hard to get out of. "If we accept, then, that prisons are merely another facet of the state-corporate system and serve not to punish or diminish crime but to remove those who do not serve the interests of power from society, what do we put in its place? So in place of prisons what should we we look to be an alternative and how could we get t here this is brilliantly summed up by Phil Dickens again over at Propety is theft "In a world of anarchy, where poverty and inequality are removed through the abolition of private property and the control of capital by labour, crime will be greatly reduced. People will not be forced to turn to theft, prostitution, or racketeering in order to make ends meet. Local communities organised on the basis of mutual aid will resist organised crime as readily as the domination and coercion of the state or capital. Such as drug use will be seen, properly, as a social problem rather than a crime, with addicts treated and rehabilitated, and farmers free and organised so that they do not have to grow illicit crops in order to make a living. Dissent and independence will be encouraged rather than criminalised, and the crimes of war and state will be eradicated. But there will still be crime. Anarchists do not envision a utopia. We do not imagine human beings more perfect than they are, merely recognise the dramatic negative effects of violence, coercion, and hierarchy upon society and the increase in disorder that results from our atomisation in the name of profit. No, though it will be greatly reduced, there will still be crime in anarchy. The question is, if the prison system is such a brutalising instrument of state, how do we deal with it? The answer to this question – as well as useful summation of the argument for the abolition of the prison and state-justice system – is offered up by the authors of An Anarchist FAQ. As such, it is worth quoting at length; We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual responsibility. While recognising that rape, for example, is the result of a social system which represses sexuality and is based on patriarchy (i.e. rape has more to do with power than sex), anarchists do not “sit back” and say “it’s society’s fault.” Individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions and recognise that consequences of those actions. Part of the current problem with “law codes” is that individuals have been deprived of the responsibility for developing their own ethical code, and so are less likely to develop “civilised” social standards (see section I.7.3). Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally disappear in a free society. Therefore, some sort of “court” system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to adjudicate disputes between citizens. These courts would function in one of two ways. One possibility is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third party. Then the “court” in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. The second possibility is when the parties cannot not agree (or if the victim was dead). Then the issue could be raised at a communal assembly and a “court” appointed to look into the issue. These “courts” would be independent from the commune, their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a case. As Malatesta pointed out, “when differences were to arise between men [sic!], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right lies than through an irresponsible magistrate which has the right to adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent and therefore unjust?” [Anarchy, p. 43] In the case of a “police force,” this would not exist either as a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did consider that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. Such a system would “not be entrusted to, as it is today, to a special, official body: all able-bodied inhabitants [of a commune] will be called upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune.” [James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 371] This system would be based around a voluntary militia system, in which all members of the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current police force or a private security firm exercising a policing function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by accustoming a population to intervene in anti-social as part of the militia, they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, so reducing the need for its services even more. Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but would simply be on call if others required it. It would no more be a monopoly of defence (i.e. a “police force”) than the current fire service is a monopoly. Individuals are not banned from putting out fires today because the fire service exists, similarly individuals will be free to help stop anti-social crime by themselves, or in association with others, in an anarchist society. Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and so the “guilty” party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did occur we can imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of action. The injured party may look into the facts themselves or appoint an agent to do so or, more likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at a community assembly to investigate specific crimes of this sort. Such a group would be given the necessary “authority” to investigate the crime and be subject to recall by the community if they start trying to abuse whatever authority they had. Once the investigating body thought it had enough evidence it would inform the community as well as the affected parties and then organise a court. Of course, a free society will produce different solutions to such problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so these suggestions are just that, suggestions. As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of crime as of disease. In other words, crime is best fought by rooting out its causes as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these causes. For example, it is hardly surprising that a culture that promotes individual profit and consumerism would produce individuals who do not respect other people (or themselves) and see them as purely means to an end (usually increased consumption). And, like everything else in a capitalist system, such as honour and pride, conscience is also available at the right price — hardly an environment which encourages consideration for others, or even for oneself. …Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and actively encourages the use of all our intellectual, emotional and sensuous abilities, crime would soon cease to be the huge problem that it is now. As for the anti-social behaviour or clashes between individuals that might still exist in such a society, it would be dealt with in a system based on respect for the individual and a recognition of the social roots of the problem. Restraint would be kept to a minimum. Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive non-co-operation by neighbours, friends and work mates would be the best means of stopping acts which harmed others. An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to learn from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of social order without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider as essential to justice today can be found in such societies. As Kropotkin argued, “when we imagine that we have made great advances in introducing, for instance, the jury, all we have done is to return to the institutions of the so-called ‘barbarians’ after having changed it to the advantage of the ruling classes.” [The State: Its Historic Role, p. 18] …However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would be the only option and such people may have to be isolated from others for their own, and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be used, or an area quarantined for their use created (perhaps an island, for example). However, such cases (we hope) would be rare. So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of punishment and revenge, anarchists support the use of public opinion and pressure to stop anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically rehabilitate those who commit anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued, “liberty, equality, and practical human sympathy are the most effective barriers we can oppose to the anti-social instinct of certain among us” and not a parasitic legal system. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 117] with quotes and extracts taken from the excellent blog at propety is theft you can read more at http://propertyistheft.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/abolish-the-prison-system/

2015 and the bumpy road ahead for the UK

As we draw closer and closer towards the general election in 2015 there is much to be concerned and worried about going forward. Not least that whoever gains power next year be it a coalition or a majority government of any sort we will be in for a lot worse cuts and tax rises to come of that we can be in no doubt. “The Conservative-led coalition faces an election next May and its main pledge when it came into office in May 2010 was to ‘balance the budget’ and reduce government debt. After the huge bank bailout and the impact of the Great Recession of 2008-9 on tax revenues and welfare spending, the government deficit stood at over 10% of GDP and gross government debt had rocketed to over 75% of GDP. The government blamed this on the profligacy of the previous Labour government. This was nonsense, of course. Labour had run relatively small deficits, has reduced government spending as a share of GDP and debt was low until the global banking crash.” “And the Conservatives would have done exactly the same as Labour in bailing out the City of London with more borrowing. The Conservatives are obsessed with the government deficit and debt – getting them down has been their measure of ‘prosperity’. But even on this measure, they have failed. Osborne made much of the reduction in the deficit ‘by half’ by April 2015. But back in 2010, he forecast that he would balance the budget by April 2016. He has now announced that this target will not be achieved until April 2019.” With an estimated figure of about 40% of cuts seen so far we are still yet to feel the worst of austerity to be honest. Huge chunks of the public sector could be privatised parts of local government could cease to function as they should and a hell of a lot more out sourcing is on its way to a country which already leads the way in out sourcing. The coalitions plan of eliminating the deficit by 2015 looks incredibly woeful now going into the next 5 years we can expect a very bumpy ride if any plan to eliminate any deficit is to be achieved “And to meet this target, even assuming that Britain continues to grow at 2-3% over the next four years, the government will have to impose a massive round of public spending cuts on welfare benefits and services. It will also have to raise taxes, although it claims that it can cut income tax again during the life of the next government (although that promise is pushed back to 2019). And the deficit is one thing. Government debt is still rising in real terms. Debt is over £160 billion more than forecast back in 2010 and is now well over 90% of GDP on a gross basis and is not expected to peak on the best forecasts until 2019. The government has failed because the UK economy has not grown in income anywhere near as much as the government forecast back 2010. Osborne forecast real GDP growth would average about 2.7% a year; instead it has averaged up to this year only 1.3%, half the rate. At the same time, although unemployment has come down, most of the new jobs have been part-time, low-paid and self employment ( This has meant that real incomes (i.e. after inflation) have fallen by the largest amount since the Great Depression of the 1930s.” We have to be clear young people who have been hit the hardest in real terms by austerity and have seen their pay fall the furthest have very little cause for optimism I’d suggest their future looks very bleak indeed. With little in the way of meaningful jobs and even more so of those which pay a decent wage to the fact many will never see a pension or even afford to buy their own home let alone affording a rent the future for young people growing up today is a very dark one indeed. “The government stood back from imposing too severe a reduction in the budget deficit after 2012, for fear that the economy would drop back into a new slump – and it nearly did. But that just means, in its obsession with the deficit, that if the Conservatives win the election in May, they will launch a new round of austerity measures. Maybe a new round of austerity won’t happen because the Conservatives won’t win next May. But all three major parties are committed to more spending cuts in bowing to the God of ‘fiscal probity’. “All parties support balancing the current budget in the next Parliament. Deficit spending is clearly still deemed to be politically untenable in the UK.” Gavin Davies, FT. Compared to the Chancellor’s plan, Labour would permit extra borrowing to finance investment (1.5% of GDP) and would allow them longer to attain balance for the current budget. But they would still impose austerity to the tune of half the amount of the conservatives. Behind the obsession with deficits and debt lies the real agenda. It is two-fold: to reduce the size of the public sector and destroy any vestiges of the ‘welfare state’, opening up public goods and services to deliver profits to the capitalist sector. The other aim is lower the burden of tax on and increase the subsidies to the capitalist sector over the long term to boost profitability. This hidden agenda is sometimes exposed. Only this week, a Conservative MP called for huge cuts. “The Chancellor could make a £20 billion start by culling Whitehall’s sprawling bureaucracy, enforcing public sector pay settlements, freezing benefits, reducing the welfare cap, scaling back middle-class welfare and looking again at the state pension.” Dominic Raab, Conservative MP for Esher and Walton. Note the attack on the state pension. This has been sacrosanct up to now. But the Conservatives are now preparing to dismantle it, using the argument that the young should not have to pay for the old and that’s unfair. The right-wing Economist magazine took up this call: “Britain’s fiscal problems are partly the result of over-generous spending on the old. They should pay off some of the debts instead of passing them all on to the young.” But apparently it is not unfair for the poor to pay for the rich. In the UK the bottom 10% of income earners pay more in all taxes as a percentage of their income than the top 10%. The government could switch its priorities on spending from defence, subsidies to industry, lowering corporation tax, more tax cuts for the rich to boosting public investment, services and welfare. Despite its headline noise on a few infrastructure projects (rail, flood protection etc), it is doing no such thing. Faster growth would soon deal with any deficit anyway. In terms of real annual GDP growth, the OBR estimates that a 0.1% point increase would do as much over the four years from 2015-16 for the deficit as roughly £3 billion of spending cuts. The trouble is that the UK economy may be growing at 3% a year currently, but nobody expects that to last. The Office for Budget Responsibility has actually revised down its forecasts for growth after this year for every year up to 2019. Even Osborne admitted that the "warning lights" are flashing over the health of the global economy, and Britain "cannot be immune". Yes, any new downturn in the world economy would soon push the UK economy back into recession too. Osborne raises only that risk to a booming UK economy (the fastest in the G7 this year). But there are serious domestic risks too. Most of the contribution to the ‘boom’ of 2014 is coming from the unproductive sectors of the economy (housing – prices rising at 12% a year; and financial services as the City of London ploughs on). Manufacturing output is still struggling and despite a huge devaluation of the pound back in 2010, UK exports have failed to get anywhere near the government’s expectations.” “That’s mainly because the business sector is unwilling to invest in new technology or skilled labour at good rates of pay. Investment to GDP in most major capitalist economies has been falling. But it is particularly low in the UK. And that is because profitability in the corporate sector, although improving a little after all the austerity measures so far, is still below levels seen in the late 1990s or even 2005. After six years, the UK economy has only just got back to where it was before the Great Recession.” It’s certainly going to get a lot lot worse before we even see a glimmer of improvement for most people. With thanks to the excellent Michael Roberts for quotes and extract, you can read his full post and blog over at http://www.applevis.com/forum

The socialist Party and the police

I am long since a member of the Socialist party which has if I like it or not formed a lot of my politics to date. Yes they did many good things and I can say I gained my class politics from them to understand things in Marxist terms if good for me or not. I do think the bits I learnt much of it off my own back too to be honest as the education the SP gave out was hugely patronising and really basic stuff meant for primary school kids I’d say rich bad poor good we need to change this, join our party etc etc. Well I don’t need anyone to tell me I found myself frequently at odes of what the party put out and said as time went on. If not visibly then certainly in my head. One of my first bones of contention was the party’s relationship and views towards the police and the state as a broader identity. I joined in 2011 after the student mass demonstrations of the year before maybe this formed a point of which I wished to join a revolutionary organisation after being a labour party member for a few months before and after the general election which on class lines was a really big one when it came to class. For me even as a very timid and partly non educated political thinker I could still tell that the general election of 2010 was a very political one and a deep sense of unjust that the ruling class were back in power via the Tories and their lackies the Lib Dems and this was not right. I somehow thought labour was for the people and they would be my natural ally in the coming months to years. How wrong I was…. So I joined the SP in hope of better answers. For a while they gave me that but in time I began to question things as I’d always been brought up to do. One of the things that did stand out for me was the Socialist party’s line on the police and whether we should stand in solidarity with them or not. For me the SP was firmly behind the police and many instances can back this up sadly. This for me while students were getting beaten back by the police and riots were happening sparked off by a policeman attacking and killing an innocent black man in Tottenham in 2011 sent me into wonder how the SP could square having solidarity with these people who clearly had it in for our class. In recent years when the police have gone on strike or protested about their pay and conditions we in the SP were urged to support them. This stuck in my throat and I could never bring myself to supporting these agents of the state and lend them solidarity from our class when only weeks before they had attacked students fighting for a better future. It never sat well with me. It is a scene workers are all too familiar with. In a bid for savings, the "gravy train" of rank-and-file pay and benefits is being slashed by the highest earners who remain unaffected. However, sympathy may be muted by the fact that the workers in question are the police. While at first it is understandable to many to have solidarity with the police after all don’t they work for a wage and need to work for their living?? Their role when it comes to the working class and when we fight back is very very telling for me. , "the idea that police neutrally uphold democratically-decided laws has been exposed as a fiction." In the words of Fitwatch; It’s time to wake up –these institutions do not exist to protect us but to subjugate us. They give us enough to believe we live in a free and democratic society whilst protecting capital and those who defend it. What is the use of having rights if the state determines when and where we can exercise them? We are given the right to protest when we’re no threat, but refused the right to even assemble when it’s most critical. If public anger over the government's attacks on the working class ever emerges as anything even remotely radical, the police are the ruling class's first line of defence. Their job is to act against their class interests and either keep us in line or lock us out of the way. Until they decide to spurn that role, they should expect no sympathy. Working class solidarity should not be reserved for those who exist to smash it The SP clearly think that supporting the police and helping them split the state will in some way help the workers movement. The fact workers decide to join the police is lost on them and that workers do not always fight for their own class instincts. The fact that some feel drawn towards the police and the wider state should make us ask questions of why and how this is so. As @piercepenniless from twitter once wrote at http://piercepenniless.tumblr.com/post/19795478930/on-police-strikes “ I’m happy for the police to strike, but the right to strike is taken and retained, not granted, and we should ask why police don’t strike, that is, what police think they do, what they actually do, and so on. ) Extending an abstract defence of the power to withdraw labour into an argument that activists should defend police against funding cuts is logically questionable. It relies on a notion of police as a subsection of a greater set of ‘public servants’ that elides some fundamental differences. If they are so, we should ask, which public, and served how? We defend against cuts because they involve dismantling things like the NHS and welfare services, not because the organs of the state are inviolable goods. Hence this tautologous argument that anti-cuts activists ought to oppose cuts because they are anti-cuts activists elides the reasons that people oppose cuts. This elision is significant. The arguments put by serving police officers as to why they shouldn’t be cut largely involve their subsequent inability to afford water cannon, tasers, routine arming, &c. They also often extend to their need to exist to keep scum (etc) ‘off the street’. This is not benign civil work: it is racist, it victimises the poor, the inconvenient and the vulnerable. Any argument that we attain a moral victory by defending their working conditions and thus enable them to further fulfill their structural role seems to me rather weak. ) Should we not consider the work the police do as obviously and qualitatively different from the work of other portions of the public sector, and should they really fall under this rubric at all — in other words, what kind of work is this work?” Every time there is talk of police marching, striking or in any way protesting, liberals and leftists have put out calls for solidarity and support. This makes me feel very uneasy and now more than ever with events in Ferguson in America and lots and lots of attacks on black people by the police who we are told are there to serve us this is clearly not the case but a illusion to keep the mass’s where they are and in order. There some in the anti cuts movement who have written that "those of us in the anti-cuts movement should be protesting alongside them." Their reasoning is that although there are "the few nasty police," who "we want out," at the moment "our fight is elsewhere." The police who will take place in any march "are ordinary people with families and rents and mortgages," and we should "do for them what they wouldn’t do for us." My train of thought goes off in a somewhat different direction. Unlike these leftists , I don't see the behaviour of the police as an abberation. The fact that they are more aggressive in handling protests now, and are actively seeking to clamp down on dissenters by releasing footage and seeking "suspects," is not just something that happened. You can see it every time there is a serious threat to the established order, from events like Bloody Sunday back in 1911, through the Miners' Strike, Hillsborough and the Poll Tax Riots, to the G20 and, of course, the more recent student protests. In between, there are a myriad of other incidents, such as the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes. Not to mention the Forward Intelligence Teams, DNA databases, arresting people simply to be able to take their details, and other "illiberal" tactics Sumpter cites. As an article in The Commune points out; “Fair-minded people are against “disproportionate”, “provocative”, or “brutal” policing; and presumably in favour of a polite push and shove. This is an appealing message (and it may make sense to accentuate it to the cameras), but is more or less a fiction. Of course, there are incidents here and there where we can say that particular police could have been less brutal. But if the direct action we defend has any content at all, it must mean we supported, and support, concrete attempts to stop the law being passed, up to, including, and beyond the invasion of parliament – and we are in support of people trying as hard as possible to do that. And it is a fiction that the police could have tolerated that, or that preventing it could ever have been done gently. If it could have been, we wouldn’t have really been trying. If the police hadn’t been at parliament square during the student demonstrations of 2010, and if they hadn’t been prepared to act brutally, parliament would have been stormed, and legislation to triple top-up fees and abolish EMA would not have been passed. The brutality of the police is not incidental to the nature of the state, it is essential to it. So you have to pick: the state, and horse charges against children who object to having their pockets robbed; or against the state (which means: against capitalism, for social revolution); and against the police too; brutal or otherwise. Polite fudges are polite – but more or less part of the continuous stream of liquid nonsense which constitutes the news media. This is not a matter of a "few nasty police." If we support the police against cuts to their numbers and their services, then we actively support the institution of the police. That cannot mean anything except the state's monopoly of violence and the cracked skulls of working class activists and their repression. The Police Federation's own propaganda underlines this. The image before us is a line of riot police blocking a road, presumably less able to do their job because their numbers are cut. If you choose to support or join their march, that is what you are standing in solidarity with. Remember that. Every baton swung at the head of a protester just for being in the way. Every horse charge to keep the crowds in line. Every kettle because people wanted to cover their faces. Every taser that kills or paralyses somebody. Every stop and search of youth simply for being youth. Every Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes, Smiley Culture or Mark Duggan. It's on your head as well as theirs. Because you marched to defend it. Yes, the police are working class. They have to sell their labour for a living in order to feed their families this is not the end of the matter though . Nobody made them choose, or stay, in a job which exists to subjugate the same class that they come from - to smash picket lines, choke off dissent, and maintain the dominance of the ruling class. I was once told of a police officer who refused to attack picket lines - and was shuffled around the country until he ended up the constable of a quiet and inoffensive area. He is no doubt not the only one. So, if police can be persuaded to side with the workers and against capitalism, then it is clearly a choice that sees their career either go down the toilet or end altogether. Those still on active service, in the big cities, and marching to preserve their jobs, will be those with no qualms being on the other side of the class war. Thus, I still have no sympathy for the devil. I maintain that "working class solidarity should not be reserved for those who exist to smash it. so lets be clear, the police and their hangers on are not our comrades or on the same side as us and should be treated as such

Why we don’t need another party of the left

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

Ferguson, no justice, no peace

Overnight we heard the news that the police officer who shot Michael Brown 12 times was let off all charges. The cop named Darren Wilson, has gotten away with murder – and the American injustice system sent the message once again that black lives don't matter. It was long after dark on 24 November when St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch marched to the microphone and announced that a grand jury had refused to indict the Ferguson, Missouri, police officer on any charge at all for killing 18-year-old Mike Brown on 9 August. This was the result that millions of people expected, but it was shocking anyway: a white cop who shot more than a dozen bullets at an unarmed African American teenager, killing him, was not only off the hook, but was being portrayed as a victim. After days of rising tensions as the long-awaited grand jury decision didn't come, people in Ferguson and around the country erupted in bitter protest. Even while Barack Obama followed McCulloch onto the airwaves to make his own statement urging peace, police fired their first volleys of tear gas and smoke grenades in Ferguson. The media bemoaned the "violence" in Ferguson when a police car was wrecked and local businesses set on fire – without the slightest recognition of the violence that African Americans living in a city like Ferguson endure on a daily basis, directly at the hands of racist police and indirectly as a result of endemic poverty and unemployment. Many liberals will cry disgrace for the level of violence but i dont think we can fully understand the situation being outside of the situation and us not going through what black people in Ferguson go through on a daily basis as white people. We can offer black voices a platform wherever we can and fight to help them have their voices heard as a small step . The media vultures had their cameras trained on Ferguson, but there were angry demonstrations around the country after the grand jury decision was announced. In Chicago, hundreds of protesters took over Lake Shore Drive. In Oakland, California, in the largest protest in the Bay Area, the hastily organized solidarity demonstration drew more than 1,000 people who marched through downtown and later blockaded Interstate 580, one of the major routes through the city. Nearly a thousand turned out to Times Square. There will be more protests today and in the days to come. We need to make sure everyone who was outraged by Mike Brown's murder and inspired by the rebellion in Ferguson against racism and police violence raises their voices and sends a message: We won't forget Mike Brown – and our struggle for justice will continue. just finally you can Donate to the Legal Support Fund for Justice for Mike Brow at n' https://secure.piryx.com/donate/mS25KFCe/MORE/mikebrown Also there is to be a vigil outside the US embasy tommorrow evening for all those who wish to protest and voice their feelings against the non justice of this decision here Ferguson solidarity vigil called by London Black Revs, UFFC, DTRTP outside US embassy in London tomorrow, 7pm. FB: https://www.facebook.com/events/312433102293366/?ref=3&ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular one last thing to finnish on for us if we were to wrongly think this is not a issue which happens in this country Between 2004-2014 over 800 ppl died after contact with the police in the UK. Last successful prosecution was in 1969 https://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/deaths-in-british-police-custody-no-convicted-officers-since-1969

Bandaid 30 and questions on charities attitudes to disability

Bandaid 30 and questions on charities attitudes to disability Inspired by a excellent piece I read over at disability now by Ian Macrae http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/blog/bandaid-30-and-lessons-disability The piece makes some excellent points and draws some interesting comparisons between the roles of charity with helping those in Africa and those who are disabled in this country and the attitudes present in each. I can identify with allot of what he writes in terms of how charity can make us who are on the receiving end feel as a result of their work. Allot of charity relies on portraying the objects of a charity as poor things and need to be pitied I get this allot with blind charities like the RNIB and similar ones who will often make out blind people are incapable of living independent lives and do nothing to challenge the popular idea of disabled people needing help for even the smallest of daily tasks and that life is a existence. While for some it may be pretty depressing but many blind people I know live very fulfilling lives. I republish the disability now piece by Ian below "As the charity single hits No 1 on the UK chart, the thoughts of a British/African musician raise some questions on charity of Ian Macrae Let’s get the obvious stuff out of the way first. I’m writing this blog post sitting in the headquarters of one of Britain’s biggest disability charities. Scope funds the Disability Now website and also pays my wages. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t ask and address difficult questions relating to charity and disability. Indeed the fact that I am sitting where I am empowers me to do so. So I was fired up to read a recent piece by Fuse ODG a British musician who comes from the Ghanaian diaspora. In it he explained why he had felt unable to accept Bob Geldof’s no doubt strongly persuasive invitation to join the Bandaid 30 project. Not only did he object to the re-written lyrics, he also recognised the irony of Africa, which he described as a resource rich continent constantly being portrayed by those outside it as death-ridden and poverty stricken. Acknowledging that the starry line-up, striking though negative images and charitable sentiment associated with the song might deliver short term benefits, he also said that the long term damage would be more difficult to undo. The question central to this point of view is to what extent do initiatives like Bandaid happen and exist to promote themselves and sustain their existence> ? As a service user of one of the big old impairment charities, I have previously come to a similar realisation. As blind people we were always suspicious about the fact that we were often portrayed and presented as worthy, even deserving of public pity. It was clearly in the charities interest to present us in this way because that’s what persuaded the public to put their hands in their pockets and donate. But what was not in question was whether such imagery was of benefit to us or whether it served instead to perpetuate the charities’ existence. Our suspicion was that they were serving their own ends and agenda. While charities may think that this disabled point of view is all well and good, they also argue that without fund raising they would not be able to go on providing the sorts of products and services we needed. But we disabled people go on to ask more questions. What’s the trade off? Is it worth the price? And to what extent should we sell or be sold out? Could Bandaid 30 have done things differently? Almost certainly as a bunch of African musicians, including Amadu et Marianne, the Blind Couple of Mali halve demonstrated. But the other thing the single has brought about is a commonality between a twenty-something British/African musician and a blind journalist who is getting on a bit. Neither of us like being portrayed as objects of charity."

New political formations and managing capitalism

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