Tom Paine

At Last: The Left has the right response to Islamic extremism and the English Defence League

2009-10-28T14:48:00.009Z

I think my opinion of the far left might be about to alter.

On October 31st two groups will be protesting against each other in London:

Islam4UK: This is an Islamist organisation descended from the illegal Al-Muhajiroun. They are marching for the imposition of Islamic law in the UK. Whenever it is applied, Islamic religious law means repression for women, homosexuals, national minorities and dissidents.
English Defence League: The English Defence League claims to protest against Islamic fundamentalism, but it includes within its ranks several self-confessed football hooligans and others who espouse heavily generalised views of the Islamic community.

I can reveal that I have access to the EDL discussion boards, and therefore have some first-hand experience of the sort of people who support the movement. Many of the people who contribute to the discussion boards are not racists per se, and the language used is different from the 'traditional' ethnic minority bashing of the BNP. You get the feeling that the contributors are generally white working-class people who feel abandoned by mainstream politics.

The far left, under the guise of the SWP-inspired Unite Against Fascism, demonstrates against the EDL on a regular basis. Contributors to the EDL discussion boards criticise the UAF for siding with Islamic extremism against 'progressive' values. The EDL comprises people who feel threatened by militant Islam, however significant it is as a force in this country, and accuse the UAF of siding with them.

Against this background, the AWL have organised a third presence on 31st October. They want a 'working-class, anti-capitalist, anti-racist' presence that can present a positive case for common struggle against both the Islam4UK and the EDL.

I am glad that AWL will be taking a third position against both sides of this demonstration. It will show both the EDL and Islam4UK that the left supports a secular society and does not support any form of religious extremism. Furthermore, we can demonstrate against the potential influence of the EDL in white working-class communities.

I do not consider this to be a perfect response to the threat posed by both groups - I would also like to see more activism in local communities from AWL and other groups on the left to address the alienation felt in areas susceptible both to the BNP and to religious extremism. This is a good start, however. Well done, comrades!

Septidi, 7 Brumaire An CCXVIII

Compulsory trade union membership

2009-08-14T10:00:00.006+01:00

Is it time for compulsory membership of a trade union for all workers to ensure equality and create social solidarity?

For the last three weeks there have been 48-hour strikes on National Express East Anglia, the railway company which controls most of the train routes within East Anglia. The walkout results from a dispute over a 2.5% pay increase demand for drivers, which the management deemed totally unrealistic in the present economic climate.

Hundreds of thousands of other workers, often with no Union representation, have been forced to cope with pay cuts or pay freezes as the true impact of the recession hits the economy. Many of these people are commuters who rely on the service run by NXEA to travel to and from London. In these circumstances, it is easy to criticise people who criticise the strikers as lacking 'solidarity' with fellow workers. Of course, the press never report comments by people who actually support the strikes or what they are fighting for. However, we must recognise that witnessing one group of workers with union representation getting better terms and conditions for their militancy while another group does not leads to feelings of anger and frustration - that is human nature. People wonder how the train drivers could possibly have the front to ask for a pay rise when the companies they work for are squeezing their monthly pay.

Two possible ways of ensuring that all workers have the best possible representation are to strengthen employment laws but also to introduce basic compulsory membership of a trade union. It is not good for social solidarity that one group of unionised workers should be in a position to demand better conditions than another group. It creates inequality and it means right-leaning governments and newspapers can use the division between unionised and non-unionised labour as a 'divide and rule' tactic.

26 Thermidor An CCXVII

Doing Constitutions the Irish Way

2009-06-30T13:12:00.027+01:00

Should Britain follow the example of Ireland and establish a written constitution with provision for referenda to be held on amendments to it? Are the people of Ireland genuinely warming to the ideas set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, is the second referendum on the issue a cynical manipulation of the democratic process because Ireland did not come up with the 'correct' answer first time around?

Constitutional reform is not generally something which the Socialists concerns itself with in this country, and debate on such issues is generally the preserve of liberal commentators in the Guardian and the Independent. Furthermore, the issues surrounding the Treaty of Lisbon and the question of a national referendum on the issue feature mainly in the right-wing press with a predominantly nationalist and xenophobic colouring. However, we cannot escape the influence which our unwritten constitution has on the democratic process in this country, nor can we flee from the central influence of the European Union on our national laws. The left must have a position on the issues, so that it does not become the sole territory of the political right.

There is an important issue of constitutional law in this which might help us to understand the relationships between the European Union and its Member States. The need for Treaties to be incorporated by amendment to the Irish constitution began with Crotty v. An Taoiseach, a 1987 ruling of the Irish Supreme Court. This is an historical aspect of the Irish Constitution. The President has the power to decline to sign a Bill amending the constitution until the amendment is voted on by the people, if the amendment changes the whole constitution. Since 1941, every constitutional amendment passes through a two-stage process involving parliamentary debate and a public referendum.

Contrast this with Britain, which has no written constitution. There is no precedent in statute or in law necessitating a referendum to be held on any issue affecting the country. The 1975 referendum was an exception and the 1998 referenda for devolution in Scotland and Wales were established by statute. The main difference between the UK and the Irish Republic here is that they have a written constitution: we do not. Under our present constitutional system, we would need to enact a statute every time a referendum was proposed. However, this still gives complete discretion to Parliament as to if or when a referendum will be held. There is no automatic trigger as there is in Ireland. Issues of constitutional importance are too significant to be left to the whims of elected governments - especially when the trust in Members of Parliament has been called into question in such a way as it has now. A democratic constitution requires entrenchment of certain conventions such as the need to hold a referendum on such issues as international treaties with a prospective effect on national sovereignty. One way of achieving this is through a written set of rules. I find myself becoming convinced by the idea that the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, especially in the light of our Membership of the European Union. Provision for referenda on certain amendments could be incorporated into it.

According to an opinion poll carried out by Quantum Research in January and April 2009, 24% said they opposed the Lisbon Treaty against 37% in January. However, there was an increase in the number of respondents declaring 'not sure', from 8% in January to 22% in April. Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was quoted as saying that the economic downturn had highlighted the role of European institutions in the banking crisis (Ireland has the Euro as its currency). The increasing proportion of 'not sure' respondents would seem to suggest that while the financial crisis brought people closer to the EU, the aftermath has caused more indecision. According to an Irish Times poll on 18 June 2008, 40% of voters who rejected the Lisbon Treaty said they did not understand it enough to vote in favour of it. The same poll showed a small drop in support for the Treaty (from 55% to 54%) so we cannot take the support for granted. Is Europe doing enough to make sure people know what it is about? The Irish Government distributed literature to each of the 2.5 million households. A compendium of the two previous Treaties, one of which was the Constitutional Treaty rejected by France and the Netherlands, of which Lisbon is intended to be a series of amendments, was unavailable in Ireland. In the absence of the compendium, it has been argued that the Lisbon Treaty is incomprehensible. If citizens of a country are going to make an informed decision in a referendum, then governments must provide them with all the necessary information. Not to do so is a cynical act of political manipulation and shows contempt for democracy: by parties wishing to force an issue one way or another.

This is not the first time that Ireland has rejected an EC Treaty in a referendum. The Irish had two constitutional referenda on the Treaty of Nice in 2001 and 2002 respectively. In 2001 53.87% of voters rejected the incorporation of the Nice Treaty on a 35% turnout. The following year 62.89% of voters supported the Treaty on a 49% turnout. The main issue at stake was the question of Irish neutrality, which many voters in 2001 felt would be undermined by ratification.

The second referendum on Lisbon is not a cynical attempt to make the Irish vote in favour of the Treaty. It is a requirement of the Irish Constitution that every amendment must be preceded by a referendum. What is cynical is the way in which politicians are seeing the referendum as a mere formality for pushing through ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all Member States. A referendum is no formality: it is a chance for citizens to give their consent to something which will alter their national laws in a significant way. It is not a right-wing viewpoint to argue that the people of the United Kingdom should not get the chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty - the transformation of our society necessarily involves empowering the people, from the bottom up, to grant or withhold their consent to elected representatives making fundamental reforms to our laws through the use of a referendum within the context of a written constitution.

13 Messidor An CCXVII

Milliband in the Guardian

2008-07-30T15:18:00.014+01:00

I agree with some aspects of David Milliband's article in the Guardian today but I have some fundamental points of disagreement with it. I agree that we should stop debating 'personalities' and that we should expose the Tory's claims on the progressive agenda for what they are. However, there needs to be a radical shift in Labour Party policy if we are to re-engage traditional Labour voters and the growing population of people on middle incomes. Overall, Milliband's article reads more like a manifesto to succeed Gordon Brown than an attempt to re-direct the party.

As long as we continue to debate personalities, we will not face down the criticisms of Labour's achievements in government since 1997. Whether or not Gordon Brown lacks charisma is not the main issue for the next general election: we have an economic crisis which threatens to become a recession, a shortage of affordable homes and a rising cost of living. The next general election, whenever that takes place, will come down to the response of different parties to the current difficulties. Milliband is right to point out the inconsistency in Conservative policies on the 'progressive agenda'. While the Tories say that they favour social justice, they 'insist on traditional Tory means'. For example, rather than putting more money into education and social services, the Tories would prefer to rely on charitable organizations and philanthropy. Instead of enforcing improvements in workers' rights through legislation, they would prefer to rely on the innovations of employers - most likely without a role for trade unions and employees. As Milliband points out, the Tories opposed the windfall tax on privatized utilities and the extension of maternity leave rights.

Unfortunately Milliband does not see the need for a radical shift in Labour Party policy needed in order to engage people who have become disillusioned with New Labour. He says we needed better planning for peace in Iraq, but he does not recognize the fact that many long-standing Labour Party voters felt betrayed by our involvement in the US-led invasion of that country in 2003. The Labour Party should make Britain independent of America in terms of its foreign policy without being hostile to the world's only superpower. Milliband says we should have reformed the NHS sooner - what does he mean by this? More private finance? More outsourcing of hospital services? Milliband says correctly that people want protection from a downturn made in Wall Street. However, he goes on to intimate that Britain needs to compete with countries like China and India in terms of service industries. If he is implying that we should sacrifice working conditions in favour of a more 'flexible labour market', then he should think again: we need an alternative economic system which distributes wealth more equally and protects people in the long-term.

Milliband is right to talk about distributing more power to citizens over education and health care but people also want more control over their working lives and in employment. In government, Labour should encourage more co-operative forms of organization in all workplaces. This means working with trade unions to help ordinary people get more control at work. Legislation to this effect will be important, but action from the bottom up always leads to more democratic outcomes than top-down reforms.

If we are going to make life better for the 'despised' people of Glasgow East and other areas which have deserted Labour, then the party needs radical change.

Revenge of the Despised

2008-07-25T09:16:00.005+01:00

Labour's betrayal of the working class provoked a massive electoral disaster early this morning. Margaret Curran lost the Glasgow East by-election to the SNP by 365 votes. The Scottish Nationalists overturned a huge Labour majority of 13,507 in the twenty-fifth safest seat in Britain.

Many people will now be calling for Gordon Brown to resign as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party. However, if this defeat were translated into a general election result, even the Prime Minister himself might lose his seat as well. Labour would be reduced to a small group in parliament and the Tories would have an enormous majority: something they would only be too pleased to manipulate to their advantage. The Conservatives would bulldoze through regressive policies in the same way that they have been able to do on Tory-dominated local authorities.

This was the day when the inner-city working class got its own back on New Labour. People living in the East End of Glasgow might have tolerated Labour's rightward drift for the sake of remaining in government, but they are completely fed up with it now. Why are they fed up? They are fed up with rising food prices, the continuing housing shortage and a party which patronizes the poor instead of helping them. In a typical display of New Labour arrogance, Brown is expected to reject Union and grassroots demands for taxes to be raised on those earning more than £100,000. This will be rejected as 'Old Labour' and 'sending out the wrong message about aspirations'. Everyone has aspirations, and everyone works hard, but not everyone earns more than £100,000. The rich have a moral responsibility to pay more tax in order to improve education, housing and other public services.

Of course, the worst thing for Labour to do at the moment is to tear itself up between Left and Right. It would be wrong for the Left to break away from Labour because such a party would not have grassroots support which has been built up over the last 100 years. We have to remain one party. We need to regain the trust of our core supporters, from all social backgrounds, who believe in a classless society and social justice.

Everyone needs to look hard at themselves: not just New Labour 'modernizers', but also the hard left, trade unions and Socialist societies too.

I keep thinking of the episode of Cracker with Robert Carlyle as an angry young man called Albie Kinsella. He embarks on a killing spree motivated by revenge for the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989, the death of his father and, more importantly to the present discussion, disaffection with the left. "One day this country's gonna blow" he says "and people like me will light the fuse".

References:
The Unofficial Guide to Cracker [Online]. Available from: http://www.crackertv.co.uk

Personal Debt Crisis

2007-12-11T16:07:00.000Z

Investigations by Save the Children and the Council of Mortgage Lenders reveal the vulnerability of working class families to the turbulence of the housing market and the debt trap. The Council of Mortgage Lenders found that first-time buyers are spending an average of 20.6% of their total income on mortgages which is the highest level seen since 1991.

At the same time, Save the Children found that as many as 2.3 million families are taking out loans from door-to-door credit salesmen for basic essentials such as gas and water. The initial loans are often paid back with triple figure interest. High street lenders are often unwilling to lend money to people with poor credit histories.

Employers and governments have failed to deal with the debt crisis and must take part of the responsibility for the rise in unscrupulous lenders and dangerously high mortgages.

The regulations outlined in the government's green paper on housing are not enough to protect working families from the fluctuating house market. The Green Paper proposes more long-term fixed rate mortgages to protect first-time buyers. The report from mortgage lenders has said that such mortgages are in decline, which contradicts the desire of the government to encourage them. Long-term fixed rate mortgages sound like a good idea in principle, though they do not free people from the limitations of the free market: lenders are unlikely to be willing to accept fixed-rate mortgages if their returns were reduced in a housing boom.

The best solution for a Socialist government is to free people from the burden of home ownership by giving people the choice of subsidised housing. There must be no top-down paternalistic approach to this since many people aspire to own their own home as a lifelong investment. The government should allow people to sell their homes to local authorities if they so desire so that they can rent them back at a lower cost than they would do on the free market. The Conservatives' right-to-buy policy in the 1980s drastically reduced the council housing stock. It would now be very difficult to increase the stock without building new homes (e.g. councils acquiring private homes). The dilemma over building on the Green Belt looms on the political horizon if we are going to deal with the housing crisis.

Communities must report loan sharks to the police and the government should aim to clamp down harder on renegade lenders. However, Socialists must tackle the root causes of debt as a priority. This involves getting a fairer deal for working class families who pay a significant proportion of their income on utility bills through the tighter regulation of utility companies.

21 Frimaire An CCXIII

Off The Rails

2007-12-10T12:26:00.000Z

National Express has recently taken over the franchise for the Great Northeastern line which links London with York, Newcastle and Edinburgh. According to the Guardian, train operators are arguing that the government's regulation of rail companies is too stringent: they should be given longer franchises to allow them 'to innovate and invest'.

It is a joke for train companies to say they ought to be given more freedom. Rail privatisation has been a disaster and the answer is not more deregulation. Train operators have increased fares to cope with rising demand for services when the cost could be better served through the public purse. As people become more conscious of their carbon footprints and move from the road onto the rail, rush-hour use of trains is becoming unsustainable yet the rail companies cannot cope with the demand.

All transport should be run as a public enterprise in the interest of the public and people who provide the service. Since 1994 the rail companies have demonstrated that they cannot work outside purely commercial interests, leading to disasters such as the accidents at Ladbroke Grove in 1999 and Potters Bar in 2002.

Even a significantly bigger public stake in the railways would not work and we only have to look at the part-privatisation of Royal Mail for an explanation. Despite being the main shareholder in the national post office network, the government has refused to intervene in the aggressive management claiming that this falls outside its role as a 'shareholder'. Much more government control is needed combined with the political desire to run public transport in the public's interest.

In the interests of safety, the government must bring the railways into democratic public control.

20 Frimaire An CCXIII

The Government is right to encourage immigrants to learn English

2007-12-07T12:07:00.000Z

The government has issued new guidelines to local councils on where they should provide translations of public service literature. According to the Department of Communities and Local Government, many local authorities are under the impression that the recent race relations legislation compels them to translate literature. The DCLC has now clarified this situation and has said that one of its aims is to encourage more immigrants to learn English.

Councils will still be able to translate literature though they will have to decide whether people would be disadvantaged without a translation and whether only sections of the text need to be translated. Councils are also being asked to promote English language learning through their publications.

This guidance is correct - when immigrants and other new arrivals come into contact with other people through work it is likely that English will be the main language used. An inability to speak English could isolate immigrants from mainstream jobs thus forcing them into a twilight world of exploitation and underpayment.

Furthermore, encouraging more immigrants to learn English will build stronger communities, prevent ethnic segregation and ease community tensions. Particularly in multi-ethnic areas the language barrier can lead to conflicts and misunderstandings - a 'lingua franca' would resolve these problems. Furthermore, speaking English would allow immigrants to play a more active role in local community groups, clubs, societies and local authorities. From a class perspective, a common language creates more class solidarity.

Unfortunately I believe the government is still not funding courses for learning English properly. This needs to be resolved immediately.

17 Frimaire An CCXIII

Social mobility and race: the Government's response to the REACH Report

2007-12-05T15:43:00.000Z

The Department for Communities and Local Government has outlined a programme for raising the aspirations of black boys in response to the REACH Report earlier this year. The aim is to address the culture of 'low aspirations and low attainment' amongst black youths in inner city areas.

I think the government is racialising low achievement when it should have a socio-economic explanation and solution for the problem. This approach will lead to further social segregation and create antagonism between ethnic communities, even though this may not be intentional. Low social expectations and aspirational poverty affect young working class people of all backgrounds. If you have a family history of believing that the 'bastards will always grind you down', then that attitude sticks and it is not easy to get out of. Where there is obvious racial discrimination this can add to these feelings, but the answer is not a solution based on ethnicity - it must involve the whole working class community and not just certain parts of it.

This report is just full of New Labour jargon about 'aspirations' and 'low attainment'. From being a party which saw poverty in economic terms, the Labour Party now sees it in terms of emotional resiliance and 'aspirations'. The reality is more complicated than that. Working class kids from all backgrounds admire rap stars and sports celebrities because they have gained a lot of material wealth very quickly (I did when I was young). The media build them up and give them the space to flaunt their wealth in public.

A good start would be to get communities working together with trade unions and local schools to decide how to deal with poverty. Unfortunately a government approach which actually divides communities will not work.

15 Frimaire An CCXIII

Chavez Loses Constitutional Referendum

2007-12-03T15:34:00.001Z

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez narrowly lost the referendum in which a decisive 'yes' vote would have given him the freedom to run for the presidency indefinitely subject to re-election. 50.7% of electors voted for the changes while 49.3% voted against.

Many committed supporters of Chavez voted 'no', revealing that some Venezuelans are unwilling to march down a slippery road to 'elected dictatorship' which could have been the result of scrapping the time limits on presidential terms.

The route is now open for Chavez to accept the results of this referendum and prove to the world that he is nothing more dangerous than a democratic leader with a radical social and economic agenda. A committed 'Chaviste' was quoted in Le Monde as saying that "no one will be able to call Chavez a dictator any more".

That Chavez is someone who commands a great deal of authority is without dispute - the British Left could learn a lot from Señor Chavez. Since he was elected president in 1998, he has faced opposition to his policies from the United States and the largely right-of-centre media in his own country. There is a parallel between this and the way our own right-wing media constantly savages anything which appears to be progressive or egalitarian.

13 Frimaire An CCXIII

The Left in Crisis?

2007-11-28T19:16:00.000Z

I can only imagine how depressing it must have been to be a Socialist at the outbreak of war in 1939. The Civil War in Spain had ended in defeat for the progressive Republican government and the country had been taken over by Franco. Stalin had consigned any pretence of progressivism or 'Communism' to history by forming an alliance with Nazi Germany in the dying months of peace. Since 1931, the Labour Party had been split into those who supported the Tory-dominated National Government and those who thought its monetarist policies were causing mass unemployment.

The current state of the Left makes you feel a bit like that. It hasn't been a very good year for any of us. The Left is slowly tearing itself apart while the majority working class in Britain lack political representation or an alternative to the neo-liberal dogma.

Labour Party

Labour sustained heavy losses at the local elections this year and was wiped out in several local authorities. John McDonnell failed to make it onto the ballot paper for leader of the Labour Party because of the lily-livered Parliamentary Labour Party and the ineptitude of the party rules for selecting leadership candidates. On top of that, Labour Party conference voted away its remaining influence over policy-making after the abolition of contemporary resolutions.

In order to respond to these problems, the Labour Representation Committee held its annual conference in London on 17th November. Chairman John McDonnell hailed the conference as an overwhelming success, although the attendance was smaller than last year and the optimism of the impending John 4 Leader campaign last year was lacking this time around.

Respect

There have been two 'high' points for Respect since its formation. In 2005 Respect elected its first Member of Parliament (George Galloway) and in 2006 it gained seven councillors on Tower Hamlets Borough Council, thus becoming the second largest party with the Conservatives.

Since then Respect has split in bitter circumstances. On 17th November, two conferences took place in London which both had 'Respect' in their name. One Conference (Respect Renewal) consisted of those who supported George Galloway. The rump held its own conference and was mainly dominated by the SWP. It is not clear whether the SWP or Galloway caused the split, but the disintegration of Respect has been followed closely in the Weekly Worker.

In short, the SWP faction was not totally happy with the 'broad church' approach adopted by Galloway and his supporters. Galloway wanted to build a party which would attract Muslim voters in his East London constituency: this led to several core Socialist policies being dropped or watered down such as gay rights and the right to choose an abortion. Other left-wing parties were appalled that Tower Hamlets Respect was being dominated by Bengali businessmen who did not entirely agree with the spirit of progressive politics and the Labour Movement. Similarly, the Galloway faction was not happy with the centralised and undemocratic approach of the SWP towards decision making.

Respect was always going to fail because it became too ethnically divisive. Instead of uniting working class people of all backgrounds on the basis of class, it chose to embrace identity politics with a passion. It also relied to heavily on the personality cult of Galloway: hardly a consistent Socialist at the best of times.

Independent Working Class Association

Perhaps the only left-wing party making any progress at the moment is the IWCA in Oxford.

Its four councillors are strongly united and have gained in popularity since their first councillor was elected in 2002. The IWCA are not a Marxist party and they repudiate the traditional arguments which have split other left-wing organizations. The IWCA supports increasing the political participation of working class people in working class areas. Arguably, it concerns itself with nitty-gritty issues affecting local people rather than international debates. For example, it campaigns against anti-social behaviour and the privatization of council housing. It has courted controversy on the middle-class left by opposing identity politics which divide the working class: for example, the IWCA believes that social policies which result in social segregation should not be supported by the left, even if they are intended to be progressive (e.g. faith schools).

The IWCA is a very small part of the Left and it restricts itself to local issues. This means that it can only make achievements on a local level and cannot legislate through the national policies which would improve the economic circumstances of the working class.

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

Recent events on the left do not give activists much cause for optimism. This may not be any way near as bad as 1939, but some left-wing minds seriously need a reality check.

Where do we go from here?

8 Frimaire An CCXIII

Who will rid us of these retired imperialists?

2007-11-23T11:14:00.001Z

The military services in any capitalist economy are never going to be on the side of the working class and their representatives in parliament, but for the generals to fall out with New Labour is something else.

New Labour has not exactly been parsimonious when it comes to the Armed Forces. Since 1997 defence spending has increased dramatically and politicians eulogize the deaths of military personnel killed in overseas combat. This has been the most militaristic Labour government ever. In his pre-budget statement in October, the Chancellor announced an extra £400 million for military operations this year and that he would increase the defence budget to £37 billion by 2010, including investments in accommodation for military families. The latest announcement is that ex-servicemen may be given priority to NHS treatment.

Admiral Lord Boyce, the defence chief at the time of the Iraq invasion, claimed that the government cared very little about the armed forces and that this was reflected in Des Browne's duel role as Scottish Secretary and Defence Secretary.

Basically, the army has sour grapes because its role has changed dramatically over the last sixty years. The British Army is no longer defending an empire upon which the sun never sets, instead it's primary involvement is in 'peacekeeping' operations as part of the U.N. or N.A.T.O. The generals are itching for some chauvinistic argy-bargy to flex their muscles and quench their thirst for violence and barbarity. They are fed up with what they would see as 'politically-correct' humanitarian interventions and desperately want to go and shoot some natives. Never mind the squaddies who do all their dirty work: as usual, all the generals have to do is stand in a room playing with their toy soldiers.

The money spent on our bloodthirsty generals could be put to better use if it were invested in building health care and education services in Iraq and Afghanistan.

3 Frimaire An CCXIII

Break In Posting

2007-09-05T15:11:00.000+01:00

I shall be taking a short break and won't have access to a computer.

However, I am in doing some research on blog topics so please watch this space!

19 Fructidor An CCXIII

Fat cats are getting fatter

2007-08-28T11:30:00.000+01:00

Increasing city bonuses are creating waiting lists for Rolls Royce cars as a result of high demand for luxury items

City bonuses are up 30% this year to £14bn, representing nearly half of all bonus payouts in British industry as a whole. According to Guardian analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics, this figure is the result of mergers, takeovers and private equity buyouts. The huge bonuses have lead to increasing demand for luxury items waiting list for a Rolls Royce car is now five years long and there is a shortage of crew for super-yachts.

Inequality in this country continues to widen as a result of the growing gap between the rich and the poor: in spite of increases to welfare payments. The average worker continues to be short changed by the prosperity of British industry: while profits grew 16% last year, wages only increased by 3.6%.

It is not fair that a minority of businessmen continue to earn such large sums of money when there are millions of people in this country earning the National Minimum Wage. This is not about rewarding people for hard work: many people in the lowest paid jobs have to work harder for less money. The money spent on city bonuses could be better spent on schools, hospitals, council housing and improving the transport infrastructure.

I expect that the Establishment will try to justify the huge bonus payouts and argue that we should do more to assist those at the bottom of society to achieve 'higher social expectations'. Many of the candidates for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party said we should 'avoid the politics of envy' and look at ways of helping people to achieve upward mobility. I would like to hear the ilk of John Redwood and Hazel Blears explain this to modestly-paid working class people who continue living with their parents due to the lack of council housing. The years of hard work at school and university followed by a poorly-paid job are insulting to some and people do not end up this way because of idleness - it is because the profits of the economy do not filter into the wage packets.

According to Sir Ronald Cohen, a founder of a private equity group and one of Britain's richest men, the gap between rich and poor could lead to rioting. What will the Establishment do? Will they re-open the workhouses like they did in the nineteenth century to pacify the masses? Will they restrict the power of trade unions even further?

We should not have to wait for the rich to offer us the crumbs from their tables: if we want working class emancipation we must fight for it tooth and nail.

11 Fructidor An CCXIII

Just accept it - Comprehensives are the best!

2007-08-24T11:18:00.000+01:00

I was very pleased to hear that the biggest improvements in GCSE results this year have been in comprehensive schools. Although I think New Labour have been trying to tinkle with the comprehensive system, I am satisfied that the extra funding given to state schools since 1997 is beginning to pay off. According to the right-wing Telegraph, 15.1% of comprehensive school pupils were awarded an A* or an A grade this year compared to 14.3% in 2005. In private schools, 50.7% of pupils achieved the same grades, down from 51.6% two years ago.

Supporters of private education will use these figures to suggest that private schools get better exam results. On the face of it, this appears to be the case: more students at private schools get top grades than those in comprehensives. However, this masks the underlying socio-economic population of private schools whose pupils mostly come from wealthy backgrounds and whose parents have a high level of education. Most private schools are also selective and are therefore better predisposed to academic success.

Private schools have questioned the validity of the statistics and have suggested that the reason for the drop in pass rates is due to the fact that public schools are entering students for the International GCSE rather than the conventional GCSE. However, he head of the examining body which deals with IGCSEs said that the number of public schools taking up the new exams is extremely small. Private schools are trying to explain away the fact that the quality of education they provide is getting worse. Teachers in private schools do not have to hold a professional qualification as is a requirement in state schools.

I think pupils and teachers in comprehensive schools should be proud of this success. We must continue to expand comprehensive education by abolishing the remaining 164 grammar schools and setting a timetable for the abolition of private education. We must also make sure that we provide the opportunity for children to study a wide range of subjects in schools, especially those which are being neglected (such as Modern Languages). Private schools tend to have smaller classes which makes it easier for teachers to tailor their teaching to individual pupils' needs. The government must do what it can to build more schools so that no one is swallowed up in a large class.

7 Fructidor An CCXIII

Exam results

2007-08-20T14:09:00.000+01:00

When the exam results come out, there is the annual tradition of the media claiming that the examinations are too easy, that O-Levels were much better and that modern education is failing people. However, the subject took a new turn last week.

I was on holiday when the A-Level results came out, but the headline on the front page of The Independent last week grabbed my attention immediately: "A-Levels: the Class Divide". According to Mike Creswell of the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, private schools and grammar schools are responsible for rising 'A' grade pass rates.

The media appear to have given up trying to persuade us that the only way for children in most state schools to get better results is through easier examinations.

3 Fructidor An CCXIII

Debunking the poverty 'myth'

2007-07-21T10:28:00.000+01:00

The Daily Mail's campaign of hatred against the working class continued today with a report by Melanie Phillips on poverty. Phillips claims that poverty is a myth in a society where destitution is a thing of the past and that what we are concerned with now is relative poverty rather than absolute poverty. She blames the 'social reform establishment' which 'subscribes to the same unchallengeable Left-wing, politically-correct world view'. She says 'the suffering of the truly destitute cannot possibly be equated with the situation of people protected by the national minimum wage...not to mention health care and education'. She claims that poverty is often a result of anti-social and self-destructive behaviour.

The national minimum wage was supposed to protect people from low pay, however rising house prices and the high cost of leaving mean that many people on the NMW are forced into further dependence on the state or on other people for the basic necessities. More and more young people are living with parents because they cannot afford to buy or rent their own homes. The provision of council housing is so poor that local councils have to prioritise what little stock there is rather than being able to provide roofs over the heads of all those who need it. It can be argued that young people should learn to make sacrifices in order to afford the basic necessities, but why should people save less money or go without decent food in order to provide themselves with shelter? The problem is that the massive inequalities resulting from our current economic and social system cannot be resolved simply through the Welfare State alone - we need massive industrial transformation forcing employers to pay their workers a decent salary as well as building more homes to free people from the burdens of mortgages, home ownership and greedy landlords.

Phillips is wrong to claim that 'poverty in large measure results from anti-social or self-destructive behaviour'. People do not create the social conditions they live in any more than they are to blame for social isolation, poor local amenities and bad teachers. When faced with the utter hopelessness of life and the depression resulting from it, the will to do something constructive is gone. People in this situation can fall very easily into drink and drug abuse, crime, anti-social behaviour and dependency on other people for assistance. No amount of life-coaching, confidence-building classes or prayers will release people from their private hell - it takes a good Socialist government to create the sort of society which gives people automatic self-confidence and self-respect.

Phillips claims that the 'high-minded' Quakers of the Rowntree dynasty would have blamed materialism and the loss of moral bearing on social problems. This was the Victorian middle-class antidote to social exclusion: go to church and beg for forgiveness. The idea 'God helps those who help themselves' is not a Quaker idea. I know from personal experience that the Quakers, more than any other Christian denomination, are the ones who do the most work for social justice and economic equality. I know some of them can be a bit too 'holier than thou' at times, but their intentions are always honourable.

This article appeared in the same edition of the Daily Mail as an article about the wealthy young teenagers who visit Polzeath Bay in Cornwall every year. A sixteen-year-old boy called called George Frewer died after falling from a clifftop on the eve of his seventeenth birthday. It took hours for anyone to notice he was missing on the night he died. Intemperance is not confined to the poor - it is also a symptom of affluence. Parents in high-flying jobs who do not have the time to look after their kids will send them off to boarding school during term-time and pay for them to go on holiday during the holidays. Such parents are normally the ones who blame bad parenting and self-destructive behaviour for the problems in poor areas, but they rarely look at themselves and their own behaviour. When I was at university I had a friend whose parents were pushing her to conform to their own career expectations for her. They made life such a misery for my friend that she attempted to commit suicide several times, then pretended she was stable in order not to appear 'weak'. Are the working classes supposed to use these people as role models?

If we are going to look deal with social inequality, we need to look at how we can change our economic system rather than blaming individuals for their own problems.

3 Thermidor an CCXIII

Tony Woodley Responds to Monbiot

2007-07-13T09:35:00.000+01:00

The joint general secretary of my trade union (Unite) responded to George Monbiot's article about the Labour-union link.

Tony Woodley reinforces my argument that Monbiot did not propose any alternative to Labour Party affiliation. He is correct to point out that those trade unions which disaffiliated in recent years have not managed to set up an alternative party. I would draw his attention to the fact that Bob Crow did support the Socialist Alliance when it had candidates in 2001. However, he gave a speech to the Labour Representation Committee annual conference last year so I get the impression he is moving back into the Labour fold. The SWP withdrew its support for the SA in 2003 and I don't think Crow had much enthusiasm for Respect. I don't think the RMT will affiliate to the Labour Party again until there is a significant change in direction.

I agree with Marsha's comments about the need to 'get off our arses and fight'. I think there is far too much of a lucky dip at the moment with union membership: each union has a different level of militancy. USDAW is rarely organizing strike action whereas the CWU and the RMT are more actively coming into conflict with management.

I would encourage Bob Crow and Matt Wrack to re-join the Labour Party and work within the LRC using their energy to radicalize the rest of the trade union movement.

26 Messidor an CCXIII

'Female Circumcision' is universally barbaric

2007-07-11T14:02:00.000+01:00

A report in today's Guardian said that there are 66,000 women in England and Wales who have been forcibly mutilated. The national newspapers have often reported the problem of female circumcisions, but no reporter has yet described exactly what it is. I decided to visit Wikipedia to find out more about it: what happens, where it is practised and what the medical implications are. What I discovered ought to make anyone with a human conscience feel nauseous and the graphic descriptions of the various types of circumcision remind me of plays by the Marquis de Sade.

I think that genital mutilation is barbaric and that the police are correct to seek prosecution of anyone who practises it. It is a form of child abuse as young girls tend to be the main victims of it and it degrades the female body when it is used to control women's sexuality. I do not accept that there can be any exemptions for anyone to continue this on cultural grounds.

I expect the left to be divided on this issue between those who support universal Socialist human rights (like me) and those who believe in cultural relativism. In my view, supporting cultural relativism is retreating from working class politics as well as denying what is fundamental to all human beings: the right to life and the right not to suffer from degrading treatment.

24 Messidor an CCXIII

Sorry, Comrade Monbiot: The Labour Party is still the natural home for the trade unions

2007-07-10T13:58:00.001+01:00

Writing in today's Guardian, George Monbiot challenges the trade unions to disaffiliate from the Labour Party.

I have often considered leaving the Labour Party - and given my political views I should probably have never joined. During the last few years this question never ceases to torment me, but time and again I decide to remain within the party and I disagree with Monbiot's challenge to the trade unions.

Firstly, Monbiot fails to name an alternative political party to which trade unions might affiliate. I am a member of the LP because I think it has done a lot for working class people since it first formed a government in 1924. If it had not been for the Welfare State, the National Health Service and a more democratic education system my parents have been able to benefit from postwar reforms. However, I am increasingly a party member by default rather than out of commitment to present policies. I fear that this is the position of most trade unions at the moment. With the exception of a few far left union leaders, no trade union has entertained the possibility of affiliating to a party of the extreme left. The Socialist Alliance and the Respect Coalition are eager for trade union affiliations, however I think these parties would be likely to manipulate the trade unions for Stalinist or Trotskyist aims which most ordinary workers would oppose. If trade unions were to affiliate to the Socialist Workers' Party, I believe members would be forced into approaching industrial disputes from the perspective of central committee members, many of whom have a limited experience of the working class. Another option could be the Independent Working Class Association, however the IWCA appears to concentrate its activism in traditional working class communities rather than in the workplace.

Another option for trade unions might well be affiliation to the Liberal Democrats. The party would be uncomfortable with trade union affiliation: after all, were the former Labour Party members who set up the Social Democratic Party in 1981 not trying to distance themselves from the 'grubby herberts' in the Labour Movement? Was their intention nothing more than to set the agenda for New Labour in the following decade? I apologize for my flippancy, but in order to fit in with the Lib Dems, the unions would have to swap beer and sandwiches at No. 10 for cappucini and paninis in Hampstead. I do not think the unions would find much support in the Green Party which has no roots in the Labour Movement and has a rather bourgeois support base.

Therefore, the only party which can offer real political support to the trade unions is the Labour Party. As for Monbiot's other accusations, I still think the working class is better off under a Labour Government than it would be under anyone else: rather than using the Private Finance Initiative or Private Public Partnerships to fund public services, I strongly suspect the Tories and the Lib Dems would opt for the full privatisation of the NHS and the education system (or they would reduce funding to such a level as to make state ownership unmanageable). If it were not for the Labour Government, Britain would have continued to opt out of the European Social Chapter (which compelled us to introduce the National Minimum Wage). The Labour Government had the persistence to force through the repeal of clause 28 and the abolition of most hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

I'm sorry, comrade Monbiot but unless you can provide a political alternative I think the trade unions should carry on paying their affiliation subs to the Labour Party.

23 Messidor an CCXIII

Emotional coaching for badly-behaved children

2007-07-06T14:12:00.000+01:00

Today the government announced a programme to deal with the behaviour of children in schools. The programme (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) is supposed to improve social mobility and employability by giving young people confidence in their own skills and by showing them how to interact with others in a positive way. According to the Guardian, children's charities and teaching unions have welcomed the move.

However, I think the initiative fails to understand the causes of bad behaviour in schoolchildren.

Firstly, I think economic background can affect pupil behaviour. Working class children are more likely to experience material and physical barriers to learning. They may feel that education will not improve their lives and that there is no point in learning if there is not going to be a significant financial reward at the end of it.

Working class children are more likely to end up in schools with large classes and high staff turnovers, leading to a feeling that they have been rejected by adult role models who see them as 'hopeless cases'. It is a sad fact of our education system that too many teachers give up to easily with 'difficult' pupils when their job is to inspire them.

I also think the pressure of modern consumer society is creating bad behaviour in children. Whether they are working class or middle class, young people are bombarded by images of 'successful' celebrities who have made it without many educational qualifications. When they see the rich flaunting their wealth in public it takes the strain on even a very strong character. They begin to feel bitter for not being able to emulate their 'idols' and no longer see education as an escape route. They will be more likely to find other ways of making 'easy money' like stealing, drug dealing and other crime.

Unfortunately New Labour still takes the attitude that poverty is no barrier to aspiration when for many people in the most deprived situations it quite clearly is. It is a very bourgeois view of the world which believes in individual aspiration without thinking of the barriers involved. It is a world view which defines 'success' in terms of bourgeois values. The Labour government should bring in policies to equip trainee teachers with the necessary skills to boost confidence in those children who are lacking in it. More crucially, they need to concentrate on transforming the social conditions which lead to bad behaviour in schoolchildren and stop blaming working class people for their own shortcomings. Better teacher training must happen in tandem with economic change.

19 Messidor an CCXIII

French Parliamentary Elections: Left gains ground

2007-06-18T18:59:00.000+01:00

The new President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, did not receive the landslide majority expected in the French parliamentary elections. The ruling Union pour une Majorité Populaire (UMP) gained 324 seats compared to 205 seats for the Parti Socialiste (PS). The Parti Communiste Français (PCF) gained 18 seats. The remaining 30 seats were divided between the centrist Mouvement pour la Démocratie (MoDem, 4 seats), the Greens (4 seats) and the Nouveau Centre (22 seats). This gives the UMP a majority of 72 if it does not form an alliance with the other parties.

Anti-fascists will be pleased to hear that the Front National (FN) failed to gain a single seat - Marine Le Pen was the only candidate to make it to the second round and lost to the PS in Pas-De-Calais departement.

According to Le Monde,

"With 227 seats for the left, the parliament will be the place for the discussion of hot topics more certainly than the
streets. Dissatisfaction will be able to be expressed there with a
few chances of being heard or otherwise listened to...[the right] must take
the opportunity to explain, to listen and to amend or face more
significant losses than the relative inconvenience seen on Sunday..."

This is certainly true - with a reduced mandate, Sarkozy's government will find it more difficult to unpopular measures such as the controversial Contrat Premier Embauches (CPE) which provoked weeks of street demonstrations in the early part of last year and they will face more. With unemployment running at 8%, we can expect the UMP to introduce draconian proposals for dealing with this as well as the stagnating economy. François Hollande, or whoever replaces him as leader of the PS, will have to lead the opposition to le Sarkozyisme.

In order to provide the progressive alternative to Sarkozy's Thatcher-esque policies, the Left must break away from its elitism and its Jacobin traditions. They must campaign for the decentralisation of political power to the regions and break the rigid hierarchies in state institutions - for example, they must begin to dismantle the Napoleonic grands écoles and introduce a more egalitarian education system which takes account of vocational and academic abilities. The left must be the voice of the entire working class and not just play to the whims of a minority of fonctionnaires in the public sector. On the other hand, the PS should not allow itself to fall into the New Labour trap of believing that supporting growth along with a more de-regulated Labour market and privatization of state utilities will win middle-class votes. The French working class will not accept 'Tony Blair à la française' in whatever form it appears. Finally, they must understand the rage of all the working class youths who rioted in the run-down council estates during the autumn of 2005.

In France there has always been a gulf between the technocratic elites and the people they represent from the aloof despots of the Ancien Régime to the Énarques of today. For the moment, the French have not been seduced by the false anti-establishment rhetoric of the FN. However, unless the left in France can break with protocols and traditions in order to articulate the anger and frustration of working class people as well as uniting the other parties of the left, then we may yet see 21 April 2002 all over again.

30 Prairial an CCXIII

Bottom of the class

2007-06-17T18:16:00.000+01:00

The Daily Mail's opposition to greater social equality in schools is motivated my class hatred. The latest controversy about lotteries for admissions to popular schools is another example of this.

The new government guidelines encourage local councils to allocate places at random in oversubscribed schools rather than simply giving priority to children in the immediate catchment area. Wealthy parents can often afford to move into areas where there is a 'catchment premium' - houses in the catchment areas of 'good' schools are more expensive than schools in areas with 'poorly performing' schools. This provoked an angry response from middle class parents in Brighton and Hove which was the first local authority to test the scheme. They are concerned that the education of their children will suffer if their offspring are 'bussed' into a school outside their catchment area.

I think the Daily Mail and Brighton parents fail to see the following points: the new guidelines will make it easier for working class children to buck the catchment premium and attend schools in the wealthy neighbourhoods. There is a misconception that schools are inherently 'good' or 'bad' without reference to their environment: a school which has majority of pupils whose parents are well-educated or have the money to afford private tuition are going to perform better than schools where pupils do not have the advantages of money and local amenities.

When the Daily Mail accuses the Left of social engineering, what the paper is saying is that middle-class parents confer 'superior' genes on their children: the Daily Mail believes wealth, ambition and success is inherited rather than determined by environment. Therefore, we should not discriminate against the natural superiority of the middle class. This is the root of the class hatred which the middle class has always shown towards those at the bottom of society. Forcing middle class parents to send their children to certain schools would ensure that middle class kids would get the exposure to people from different backgrounds that is an important part of any rounded education.

The Left is often accused of provoking 'class hatred' or 'class envy'. However, what else can we do when we face constant insults from the condescending middle classes and their political conspirators? The middle class is politically organized whereas the working class is not. As New Labour moves further to the right, it is time for working class people to regain control of what was once considered to be 'their' party. If this fails, then we must establish new groups to rebuild the political confidence of working class people. Middle class prejudices and values infect our political climate and this will not change unless the working class raises its voice above the parapet.

29 Prairial an CCXIII

Introduction: Your Class Needs You!

2007-06-14T21:06:00.000+01:00

We live in a time when:

The gap between rich and poor is the widest it has been since the 1930s.
The main political parties have disowned the mass of working class people in this country in the misguided belief that 'we are all middle class now'
Millions of ordinary workers, many on the lowest wages, are not unionized.
British workers are the most exploited and the least represented in Western Europe.
When the far right exploit the insecurities of working class people to gain votes.
Democratic participation is at its lowest level since the advent of universal suffrage.

Your class needs you!

26 Prairial an CCXIII