two short pieces

1. IT’S WIN, WIN FOR SOME!

RUTH RICHARDSON looks at who’s making big money out of those privatisation deals

The departure of Emma Harrison, the Prime Minister’s former “family tsar”, amidst allegations of fraud, focused attention on the huge contracts being handed out to companies carrying out public works.

Emma Harrison’s firm A4E was responsible for implementing the now infamous “welfare-to-work” programme. The company headed by Emma and James Harrison earned around £11 million last year wholly from the provision of public services.

PRIVATE… BETTER?

The mindset that private profit-making firms perform better than the public sector in many areas is one that both New Labour and Conservative governments have adopted in recent years. Last year Oliver Letwin told a think tank that the public sector needed “fear and discipline” instilled into it.

Meanwhile, an article in the Observer last month focused on who were the big earners in five areas of public provision; welfare being one of them. Other areas were prisons, health, schools and higher education.

PRISONS:

The UK has a greater proportion of prisoners in private hands than anywhere else in the world. It will be no surprise to Clarion readers to learn that the firm G4S (formerly Group 4) leads the way, with its CEO, Nick Buckles, earning £1.4 million in 2010. Twelve prisons have been transferred to private hands in recent years, and a further nine are out to tender.

HEALTH:

The creeping privatisation of the health services has been the subject of a number of articles in the Clarion. The Observer article highlighted the transfer of Hinchinbrooke Hospital to a company called Circle Healthcare in February, making it the first private firm to deliver a full range of NHS hospital services. The deal was worth one billion pounds, and the company’s CEO, John Griffiths-Jones, took home £2.62 million in 2010.

EDUCATION:

In education, private firms routinely provide many services such as supply teachers, ICT, grounds maintenance and “enrichment courses”, often in music or the arts, where teachers lack the necessary expertise. Breckland Free School, opening in September, will be run by IES – a Swedish company. Parents are quickly realising that managing free schools needs a measure of professional input, and a number of companies are ready to jump aboard. One such company, Wey Education, is quoted as saying that it saw an opportunity created by “the deconstruction of the education function within local authorities”. Pearsons, publishers of the Financial Times also provides educational services including the exam board Edexel. Pearsons’ CEO, Marjorie Scardino, was paid a salary of £969,000 in 2010, plus a bonus of £1.6 million.

UNIVERSITIES:

In higher education, provision through the private sector is perceived as a very real threat. At present there are two private universities in the UK. One of them, BPP University College gained almost £2 million in Government loans. BPP is owned by an American company, Apollo Inc., and its CEO, Carl Lygo takes home a modest salary of £500,000. Meanwhile, our public universities have suffered an eighty per cent cut to teaching grants and have to look increasingly to the private sector for funding. Some academics fear that this may compromise their independence to run the courses they choose.

POLICE..??

At the beginning of March, the Guardian led with a worrying story that there were secret plans to privatise the police force. Already private security companies are taking on many duties once performed by the police. We await developments.

Of course Tory ideology says that private is good whilst public is bad. Is that because of principle or is it because it provides rich pickings for the “haves”, including the Government’s cronies? With private firms, of course, the bottom line is always profit. And never mind the quality. After all, where’s the profit in public service service provision?
RR

2.

This sporting life: THE OLYMPICS: A TARNISHED IMAGE?

When the Olympic Games were revived, towards the end of the 19th Century, the founders had a vision. The Olympics were to demonstrate that peace and fellowship could grow through sporting contests embracing athletes from across the globe.

So where did we go wrong? Why has nationalism, and big business, become embedded so deeply in the very soul of the movement?

It may well have started with the Berlin Olympics in the 1930s – which was staged as a showpiece for Nazi ideology. In 1948, in a war-battered London, the Games put on a very different face. They were labelled “the Austerity Olympics”. Once again, the original ideals of the movement was forced to the fore. Britain won few medals on that occasion – but that wasn’t the point. Those who flocked to the sporting events, or followed the occasion through newsreels, newspapers or the wireless, enjoyed every minute of it.

Now the Olympics are back in Britain again. We’re all being exhorted to support “TeamGB”. After all, it’s our patriotic duty. Sponsorships from inappropriate business corporations multiply – and the whole event will take place in conditions of top security. Demonstrations are to be banned, and precautions include talk of a possible missile intercepter.

A site in East London was chosen, on the grounds that it was an area of urban decay – and, it was claimed, the games would bring regeneration and prosperity to all. Never mind the fact that there was already a community there. The community fought back – but housing and local amenities that were seen as irrelevant were swept aside, to make way for the glitzy Olympics infrastructure.  425 tenants of a local housing co-op found their homes being compulsorarily purchased, and they were dispersed into alternative accomodation across London.

Just to share out the pickings, contracts and sponsorships have been dealt out to many who surely must have friends in high places. Otherwise why would the contract for printing tickets go to a company in the deep south of the USA? Don’t we have printshops of our own?

Other dubious sponsorships include those given to BP and Dow Chemicals. Dow Chemicals bought the firm Union Carbide in 2001 – the company responsible for a toxic gas leak at its plant in Bhopal, India, which led to massive contamination and the death of thousands. Whilst no-one is suggesting that Dow, the present company, was directly responsible, it still has a responsibility. As Amnesty International says “when Dow bought Union Carbide, it bought liability for the Bhopal disaster.”

Gimmicks such as the decision to have the Olympic torch carried across the country by a motley team drawn from across the country won’t save these tarnished games. Big business and politics have taken over, all neatly packaged in the Union Jack.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: NHS – the fightback continues!

On March 20th 2012, the House of Commons delivered the death blow to the National Health Service as we’ve known it since 1948.

This, of course, isn’t the end of the campaign. It mustn’t be. But as the Service is fragmented, and the private sector moves in as “willing providers”, resistance will no doubt become more localised. Unions will continue to fight for pay and conditions of their members – and hopefully for the welfare of the patients that their members care for.

And, perhaps, we need to ask ourselves why? Why, after such an unprecedented campaign of sustained opposition, both from those who work within the NHS and the general public, did the ConDem government insist on pushing ahead with a piece of legislation that they knew was so unpopular. Why did they even refuse to listen to the health professionals themselves? After all, Cameron has performed U-turns on other issues – as he did on his Bill to sell off the forests. So why not on the NHS? Why wasn’t he prepared to bow to the will of the people?

Probably, on this issue, he felt that there was too much at stake. When it came to the crunch, his government had much more riding on it. And he had the vested interests of the private “healthcare” industry breathing down his neck. Despite all the blather, it was in their interests that the legislation has been forced through.

LABOUR:

And, of course, we’ve faced decades of creeping privatisation already – ever since the bleak Thatcher years in fact. It’s to the shame of the “New Labour” government under Blair that little or nothing was done to reverse the damage to the fabric of the NHS caused by the Thatcher years. Indeed, to give one example, the encouragement of PFI only served to make matters worse.

To its credit, the Labour leadership did campaign against the Health Bill, and voted against it in Parliament (the Lib Dems, of course to their eternal shame, voted in favour, and no doubt will be held to account for their actions). Labour has also pledged to repeal the Act when it returns to power. It is up to us, all of us, to hold them to this pledge. It’s all too easy for weasel words to emerge from those we elect a few years down the line, to the effect that “it’s now too late”. Or “we now have to work with what we’ve got”. When Nye Bevan fought to create National Health Service for all, “free at the point of need” he faced battles. But he built something special – and we want it back.

THE LOCAL SCENE:

For us, we will, no doubt, be turning our attention to the fate of healthcare in Gloucestershire. It is difficult to predict at this stage where we’ll be when the new legislation comes into effect. There may be battles to save local health centres, or even hospitals. What will be the fate of small community hospitals such as Lydney or the Dilke, for example? And what of those who work within the NHS locally? What does the future hold for them? Will they continue to be employed directly by the NHS, or will they find themselves working for a private healthcare company, with all that this implies?

In practice, the new legislation is so full of ambiguities that it is difficult to foresee what will happen further down the road. The “worst case scenario” is that the NHS will become merely a supervisory body overseeing a ragbag collection of privately owned healthcare bodies who will (in their own different ways) be given the responsibility of looking after our health on the ground – while perhaps remaining as provider of odd services that the private sector can’t cream off. It’s a daunting thought.

Meanwhile, we still haven’t been given the opportunity to see the secret “Risk Register” on the impact of the legislation. Until we do, we’re entitled to envisage the worst.

For all these reasons, of course, it’s why the fight MUST go on.

The Budget:

“MILLIONS ARE BEING ASKED TO PAY MORE, SO THAT MILLIONAIRES CAN PAY LESS”

It was Ed Milliband who said it all in his budget speech on March 21. In order to lower the tax rate levied on the super rich from 50 to 45 per cent, those on the lower rungs of the ladder are to be squeezed even more than they are now.

Well, the money has to come from somewhere doesn’t it? And if the super rich are going in for tax avoidance on a massive scale, why not lower their tax rate? After all, if they’re not paying up, does it matter?

Well of course it matters. The Chancellor, George Osborne, has now revealed that he’s not only a Thatcherite at heart but one in practice as well.

HITTING THE PENSIONERS:

Many pensioners will be particularly affected by Osborne’s budget. Some 4.1 million of them will be worse off. And new pensioners will lose out even more. As Dot Gibson, general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, said of the budget proposals, “it’s a classic case of smoke and mirrors… In reality there will be no extra money to raise Britain’s scandalously low state pension – just a different way of packaging the payment.”

“The Chancellor’s pledge to cut welfare payments by £10 billion over the next few years will also worry millions of pensioners who may think that their bus passes and winter fuel allowances might be under threat, and the long awaited social care White Paper is being delayed without any explanation, while around a million older people are struggling with a broken care system. The money is being given away in tax breaks for the richest in society…..Pensioners will feel bruised by his budget.”

But of course it’s been the Chancellor’s “gift aid” to the wealthy that really hit the headlines the day after the budget. It was that, that really revealed the true face of Cameron’s Toryism.

READERS’ COMMENTS: Did we go wrong? The campaign to keep Gloucestershire’s NHS public

Carl Spiby’s article (Clarion number 96) is very disappointing, considering that the campaign to halt the wholesale transfer of 3,000 staff out of the NHS into a private company (Gloucestershire Care Services) is ongoing.

It is doubly disappointing because Carl is supposed to be a member of of the Forest of Dean Against the Cuts group who have spearheaded this campaign. It’s a bit like having the postmortem conducted by a member of the family before the patient is dead.

Carl starts by saying that the campaign has failed and that we must learn where we went wrong. Well, considering the small number of active members of this group, I consider that we have achieved a lot in such a small amount of time, and it would be more productive to eliminate the negative and accentuate the positives.

(Is this a feature of the Hard Left – always looking on the dark side of life?)

Such campaigns as this need to have modest objectives in order to maintain the sanity of the protagonists. Did Carl really expect that presenting a petition to Harper and arguing with him at the time would persuade him to abandon the Health & Social care Bill and instruct the PCT to abandon plans to transfer all NHS community services to a private company? This is what the petition asked.

This suggests to me a scale of naivety which is hard to comprehend.

The petition was very successful in directly informing well over 2,000 people in the Forest of the details of what was being proposed. And therefpre it was a vital part of raising awareness which is the first objective of any such campaign.

As for Carl’s silly conclusion that we were late in starting the campaign, we were campaigning long before he came along. And, really, it’s the outcome that matters.

It is quite conceivable that we could succeed in the legal challenge that the PCT acted illegally in handing over a £100 million contract without following the proper procedures. And then we can truly rejoice, rather than arguing how we could have had a better campaign.

PETE STANWAY (member of the Forest of Dean Against the Cuts, but written in a personal capacity).

RIGHT TO REPLY

(author of said article responds to PS’s letter)…

Pete Stanway’s response is to my article is unfortunate, but welcome. I will not, however, rise to the points which are personally-directed – ill-founded as they are – I suspect they are of no interest to readers of The Clarion. But in the interests of accuracy on some important details, I feel, I will exercise my right to reply.

First though, may I repeat that the SOSAgain campaign is indeed creditable and that I sought to include many of its gains in my article. Also I never stated the FoD Against the Cuts had folded or implied anything like that about the SOSAgain campaign either.

But when Pete says he prefers not to consider the reality of the situation and instead “eliminate the negative”, I would counter that it is not for us to pick and choose the terms of the debate.

Pete will recall that the root of the article’s argument lay with a question asked by a member of the public at our own public meeting. In that question was all the worry and desperation of why hadn’t something been done before? And that is what I sought to answer.

The reality is that it was under New Labour’s 2008 document ‘NHS Next Stage Review: Our vision for primary and community care’ (published by the Department of Health), PCT’s were given the prod – not as Government policy – but as ‘guidance’ expected to be taken, that the decision on how to deliver local health services should be made locally by PCT’s (the responsible statutory authority, as overseen by the Strategic Health Authority).

Wrapped up in the follow-on document – the 2009 Department of Health ‘Transforming Community Services: Enabling new patterns of provision’ – which is still under Labour’s tenure in government you will notice – is the next death-knell, pushing the ‘guidance’ now as ‘best practice’ with the split between service provider and commissioner of services now seemingly a given among policy-makers as the means to build local health services for the future. Our campaign should have been in full swing come 2008; by 2009 it still could have pushed the PCT in a different direction.

Indeed, even GCS’s own Business Plan (of 2011) admits that staff were ‘unanimously against’ the changes, but by this point the guidance had been endorsed by the PCT and had become local policy consistent with the national operating framework which had been in place from 2008 onward.

Cited in the same plan is the revealing wisdom that successive guidance reinforced these issues: ‘The Department of Health’s Transforming Community Services programme…did not change them. The County Council’s Cabinet and the Trust’s Board endorsed the plan for integration in July 2010.’

Meanwhile staff themselves outlined their opposition to a social enterprise, (in a letter to the NHSG PCT  Board of 14th October 2010) with ‘the preferred option of remaining within the NHS and therefore are proposing a vertical integration with 2gether NHS Foundation Trust.’ The fact that this avenue has failed to materialise as a creditable alternative suggests that the PCT’s decision to adopt New Labour’s guidance is irreversible.

A legal challenge which can prove that THAT avenue was not fully explored could be fruitful but on what basis it might be made, I do not know. Certainly the current case presented by our friends in Stroud cannot insist 2gether submit a tender. Besides, it also assumes that 2gether NHS Foundation Trust themselves wish to opt to take-over these services, which I am not entirely sure – as a separate body already  – they will be able to do, especially since their focus is in mental health provision. So that avenue remains suspiciously quiet, and I certainly haven’t see any literature or letters from my fellow campaigners (and do not remember supporting that avenue at any of the meetings I attended) to support that action.

It is exactly these changes, however, which are being replicated and worsened by the Tories in their dreadful NHS reform bill.

Meanwhile we distracting ourselves with the semantics of a local issue when the decision to push the service provider/commissioning split was made by a previous government some four years prior is – in my mind – fighting the wrong battle.

The national issue is still in the debate stage (in the House of Lords). As I see it we are given a second-chance to oppose the changes, and this time bodies like the BMA and RCN are definitely on board. So, let’s learn from the mistakes of the local campaign and focus now on saving the NHS for us all.

While I support debate in The Clarion on this issue, I’d rather readers wrote against the national NHS reform bill to the Lords and their MP. See the 48degrees for tips for starters. I hope on that alone Pete and I might be of one mind.

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE COMMENT:

The Stroud Against the Cuts case settled with Gloucestershire NHS PCT out-of-court. Advertising for ‘Expressions of Interest’ were immediately posted by the PCT but the Forest and Stroud groups remain committed to keeping local NHS services public.

So long, Bill: A tribute to Bill Punt

Clarion Editor-in-chief, Alistair Graham, leads the tribute to the socialist, trade unioninst, champion of the pensioners’ cause – and long time Clarion friend of the Clarion.

There must be many folk who missed Bill Punt when he left the Forest some six years at the age of 90. And many folk will have been sorry to hear of his death at the end of last year.

He made many friends – and some enemies, too, as he never suffered fools gladly (as the saying goes). But he was passionate in his beliefs, warm-hearted, and devoted to his family.

Bill was an active member of the TGWU, ever since his days as a tram driver on the streets of London just after the war. He served on the union committee at the New Cross tram depot and then went on to serve on the buses, until in 1961 he became a full-time trade union official at the Covent Garden fruit and vegetable market where he worked until retirement in the early 1980s.

FIGHTING FOR PENSIONERS:

Bill and his wife Lou chose to retire to the Forest, setting up home first in Aylburton and later in Lydney. One of his first moves was to set up a branch of the British Pensioners’ Trade Union Action Association (as it was then called) in the Lydney area – a non-party political organisation dedicated to campaigning for the rights of pensioners. It became a thorn in the side of Paul Marland, then the Forest’s Tory MP – particularly during the campaign against VAT on fuel payments.

LOYALTY TO LABOUR:

Despite implacable opposition to the Blairite policies of the “New Labour” Government, Bill always refused to leave the Labour Party. He saw it as his party, hi-jacked by those who sought to distort or reverse its basic principles. It was this rebellious, stubborn streak which endeared him to some – whilst irritating others!

Bill worked tirelessly through the Labour Party for the election of Diana Organ, who finally beat Paul Marland to become MP for the Forest in 1997. Her election must have owed something to the work of Bill and his fellow pensioners.

Many will remember how he organised trips down to Tolpuddle, to the “Levellers’ Day” events in Burford, or to pensioners’ rallies in London – and how he mobilised us all. It was difficult to say no to Bill!

DISILLUSION:

His disillusion with the Labour hierarchy began in 1997, with the “re-branding” of the Party, the dropping of “Clause 4″ from the constitution, and the election of the Blair Government. He saw it as a betrayal of much of what he had he had fought for, for so many years. For Bill, the song “Things Will Only Get Better” was a mockery, and he became a bitter critic of the Government’s policies.

His views were expressed in a piece that he wrote for the Clarion in 2005, shortly before he left us:

“My party right or wrong? Castration of the trade unions? Who could ask for more!

“When will we return to the movement’s maxim, organise, educate and agitate, instead of acting merely as electioneering fodder and trailing behind the dictats of leadership like castrated poodles?”

Bill was a firm supporter of the Clarion and was a member of its editorial group from the very beginning, in 1996. His hard hitting articles and reports – often laced with his own brand of humour – became a familiar part of the paper. And he continued to contribute for some time after he moved to Kent.

He resigned as secretary of the Lydney pensioners’ group in 2001. His wife and loyal partner, Lou, died in the same year.

After living in the Forest for over twenty years, Bill had become part of its very fabric. But he had been born and bred in Bermondsey and as a youth worked in the local Cross & Blackwell factory, before being called up for service in the Army during the last war. Shortly after being sent to Africa, he was taken prisoner, and spent some years in prison camps before escaping during the chaos that followed the Allied advance after the D-Day landings.

He and a mate hid by day and travelled westward by night, avoiding any entanglement with the retreating Germans – until they discovered that for several days they had been escaping through British held territory. “It was then we thought it was time to give ourselves up,” said Bill.

Just one of the anecdotes of a full life that Bill liked to tell us!

ALISTAIR GRAHAM

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ALICE BATES:

We were also sorry to hear of the death of Alice Bates, a long-time subscriber to the Clarion, one-time editor of  the Pensioner magazine, and an active campaigner in the pensioners’ movement in Manchester.

As her daughter Sylvia wrote, “she was a positive and cheerful person to the end.”

Worried about Ed

With public resistance to Tory policies mounting, where in the general scheme of things is the Labour Party leadership? Where is its vigour and determination to expose and campaign against the impact of the cuts? Where is the presentation of Labour’s alternative? Indeed, is there one to be presented?

For those who supported Ed Miliband for leadership of the Party, his record so far has been disappointing. It’s true that he’s had to establish his own sense of identity in the eyes of the public, as well as uniting a somewhat disparate shadow cabinet behind him. But so far his success has been somewhat underwhelming.

Labour has opposed the Government’s plans to dismantle the NHS (so far, sadly, without too much success. External campaigns and bodies like “38 Degrees” have made rather more impact). And after the election it spent some time engaging in a “listening exercise” orchestrated by Peter Hain and involving Party members and supporters. What happened to the results of this initiative, we don’t know. But is has shown little sign of re-galvanising the party – leaving opposition to the coalition Government’s policies to be spearheaded by campaigning pressure groups.

As for Ed Miliband, he has so far failed to establish a firm sense of direction for Labour, leaving an impression in the public mind of a floundering party. His declarations in January that cuts would have to continue under a Labour government only served to accentuate the negative, and cut the Party leadership adrift from those who might have rallied behind it. Indeed, he has now put himself at odds with Len McClusky of the Unite union, whilst other trade union leaders are hardly happy either. And he seems to have done little to even try to counter Tory lies that the cuts are “necessary” to get us out of the “mess” that the previous Labour administration got us into.

Of course there’s another way – one, indeed, that’s necessary if we’re to succeed in saving the economy. We have to invest in the public sector and build confidence and employment. At present all the signs are that Government  policies are leading us into a “double dip” recession, from which we’ll all suffer. Any talk of cuts by the Party’s leadership should be directed towards those who can afford them – including those bankers who were the ones who got us into this mess in the first place. And how about dispensing with that expensive folly, Trident renewal, whilst we’re about it? As folk used to say, it’s neither use nor ornament.

The Party leadership has also failed to recognise that many of the cuts are ideologically driven. They are not simply there to balance the books – they have been implemented deliberately to undermine the Welfare State (which past generations of Labour worked to build).

Quite rightly, Labour spokesmen continue to attack the Government’s record on rising unemployment and increased levels of poverty. But they seem to fail to make the connection between cause and effect. In other words, the implementation of the cuts is creating mass unemployment and driving many families in to poverty.

EXCESS BAGGAGE:

 Admittedly, Ed and his colleagues in the leadership of the Party are hampered by the baggage of past “New Labour” administrations. And there are still plenty of unrepentant Blairites in the Parliamentary Labour Party to act as brakes on any radical alternatives. There is a strand in the Party that seems to have forgotten is roots and in whose interests it was founded to serve. For them, the ghosts of Keir Hardy, George Lansbury, Attlee, Bevan – and even Harold Wilson – have been exorcised.

But, however we look at it, Ed Miliband gained the leadership because he was seen as a new broom, capable of sweeping away the trappings of the last decade or so. If this is the case it must involve, at the very least, a recognition of the importance of the public sector and the welfare state in our society – and continued support for the under-privileged in our society. All these are under attack by the present Government.

READERS’ LETTER: Communist East Germany & British Socialism Today pt.2

WORKING FOR SOCIALISM: outside the Labour Party – or in?

Dear the Clarion

Tyler Chinnick sets out an inspiring programme in his “What Next for Labour” article. Sadly, at the present time it is no more ace than the Socialist Party programme. Indeed, much of what he says would sit happily within it.

It would seem that most people on the left share the same aims. We want a fairer, safer world, one in which resources are used wisely, shared more equitably, and where the culture is co-operation not conflict. And that is just about where consensus ends. The gap between being IN the Labour Party and OUT is wide.

If, like me, you choose to work within a minority party you are “sectarian”. Carl Spiby rightly ridicules my show of indignation at being packaged together with the Socialist Workers Party. If one as politically educated as he is does not know the fundamental difference between their way of working and the methods of the Socialist Party, it is unlikely that 99 per cent of the population would either know or care. But of course it matters to me.

Politics are global, national and also highly personal. Being an activist can be tedious and time consuming. It can take you away from your families and friends and hinder careers and other more simple pleasures. It is, then, important to align yourself to a group that makes all this worthwhile. You do have to believe in the vision and the programme and you do have to trust the ethics of the executive and the paid party workers. And how is it any longer possible to do this where the Labour Party is concerned? I believe that the culture of careerism and deception is too deeply embedded to be routed and that this applies to both local councils and national government. Presumably, the local councillors who have impressed Carl do not come from the Forest of Dean. Our own have either given support or kept resolutely silent whilst our health provision has been under attack. Once again, the campaign to retain services within the NHS came from outside of the mainstream political parties.

Carl is of course right (or almost right) when he says that the SP etc., will never win a seat in Parliaments, but he’s off the mark when he equates Parliamentary seats with “reflecting the aspirations of the mass of working people”. Voting figures are woeful and many of us who go to the polling stations mark a cross with a heavy heart. We have been taking part in the only democratic process available to us.

As I said in my response to Carl’s original article, the Labour Party offers nothing to people who are desperate for change. The fact that the trade unions preferred Ed to David has not filled the poor with joy. How many of the young Jarrow marchers or the anti-capitalist campaigners will be rushing to vote Labour? The once great party has had its day. Yes, we do need a mass party but a new one. And to quote the Socialist Party’s “what we stand for”:

“For a new mass workers’ party drawing together workers, young people and activists from workplace, community, environmental and anti-war campaigns, to provide a fighting political alternative to the pro big business parties. Trades Unions to disaffiliate from the Labour Party now and aid the building of a new workers’ party.”

Hopefully, not too sectarian!

DIANA GASH

And an insider’s view:

I have some sympathy with Diana’s view of the Labour Party – though that doesn’t mean that I share it. To some extent it mirrors the disillusion by many on the left, particularly during the bleak Blair years, when party membership plummeted, and those members who remained found themselves increasingly out in the cold when it came to policy.

But significantly, this fallout didn’t result in any increase in support for those Left parties operating outside Labour. These parties remained marginalised, operating outside the mainstream. What did increase, though, was the level of support for “single issue” campaigns, and, under the Cameron-Clegg coalition, these have continued to increase. And long may they continue to do so. The activities of groups like UKuncut, the “Occupy” anti-capitalist camps, and resistance by the public sector unions are all healthy signs of democratic protest.

Now, I hesitate to use the word “sectarian”. After all, its use is a value judgement. Neither would I like to lump together such parties as the SP, the SWP, the SLP, etc. But what they tend to have in common is a prescriptive approach to politics and action which inhibits any major political breakthrough.

Tony Benn once described the Labour Party as a “broad church”. Despite the stifling impact of the Blair regime, it still is today. It is a (comparatively) mass party, representing a range of views and groups (including the trade unions and the co-operative movement). And this has long been its strength. Hopefully in the future we will be able to look back on “New Labour” as an aberration.

As for Diana’s strictures on our local councillors, I think this needs to be taken in the context of the steady emasculation of local government since the days of Thatcher. Local authorities have in effect become commissioners of local services rather than providers, and few nowadays have much control over their destinies or those of the people who vote for them.  And, I suspect, this has narrowed the vision of many hard working councillors who, at heart, still want to serve the communities they represent.

I can also sympathise with Diana’s point that being a political activist can be tedious and take one away from family, friends, etc. But this, of course, is the consequence of the marginalisation of politics. Once it could be inclusive, but not these days – for which the politicians are to blame!

ALISTAIR GRAHAM

LABOUR IN LIVERPOOL:

Reflections on the party conference, by former South West region MEP GLYN FORD

The last time that Labour met in Liverpool was eighty six years ago, in 1925. This was in the wake of the defeat of the first ever Labour government, hounded from office in November 1924 by “red scares” and the Daily Mail’s brandishing of the infamous forged “Ziniovev Letter”purporting to show that the Communist Party in Britain was being told by its Soviet masters to prepare for an imminent uprising. Within five years, in 1929, Labour was back in power.

This time around it will not automatically be that swift a return.

In Liverpool, the most eloquent statements of this were made in the Exhibition Hall, rather than from the podium or platform. While many delegates spoke as if Labour’s bounce back to power at the next election was assured, the same was not true of Labour’s corporate collaborators from our years in power. They were largely absent without leave, taking the view that Labour was here to stay in opposition. Certainly Tory gerrymandering with fixed term parliaments and the shaving down of a bloated House of Commons by a scanty fifty MPs to maximise their electoral advantage, makes the task that much harder in May 2015. But making it all worse is the “blame game”, media bias and the malaise infecting traditional social democratic parties across the European Union.

DOGGED BY CLAIMS:

Labour is constantly dogged by the ConDem alliance’s claims that the current crisis is the fault of Labour – stating simultaneously that it’s the global crisis that’s getting in the way of a British recovery. Now, we have to take some responsibility. Labour failed to tackle the greedy bankers, bent coppers and feral press. We didn’t tighten up banking regulation after the Tories’ big bang, ignored evidence of police corruption and kowtowed to Murdoch. Yet none of these would have helped avoid the toxic crisis in the US or the problems with the Irish, Greek or Italian economies.

Second, the very idea of a coalition seems to have stood the BBC’s idea of “balance” on its head. It’s no longer Government and Opposition, but rather Con versus Lib as the two coalition partners have their say centre stage with Labour having a mere walk-on part after those two have finished. Worse, when Labour does get a word in edgeways, it’s not our current spokesman who appears but one of yesterday’s men, and women, often now washed up in the Lords from the flood that swept Labour away.

DECLINE OF THE LEFT:

Third, our problem is one at the heart of western-style democracies. Socialists and Social Democrats less than a generation ago were in government in the majority of EU member states. Not so today. But what about Denmark, made much of in Liverpool? I’m delighted that the Danish Socialists are in power, but we need to be honest with ourselves. They had their worst result in ninety years and actually lost seats. They are in power because of the success of two small left partners and a radical liberal party who are sustaining them in coalition.

So what’s the message, and where do we go from here? More of the same and mere triangulation won’t work. New Labour with all its faults served us well. But in the end it brought us down. Nor will the electorate buy Labour as “Tory-lite”, a party whose cuts will be just that much smaller and made with genuine sadness rather than hidden joy. People know that times will continue to be tough, but they want a different vision of society from that of Cameron and Clegg.

GLIMMER OF HOPE:

The best glimmer of hope in Liverpool came from Ed Miliband’s speech. It was the first social democratic leader’s speech since 1992. It was not perfectly structured or delivered, but it began the process of putting into place a new framework of thinking for Labour. Ed derided rigged markets, asset strippers and vested interests, promising to become the voice of the hard-working majority, the squeezed middle and the crushed bottom. As he said in his devastating attack on the Tory leader, “only David Cameron could believe that you make ordinary families work harder by making them poorer and you make the rich work harder by making them richer.”

There is a long way to go, but Liverpool set Labour off in the right direction. If we can build on this over the next eighteen months to two years, we can attract back those who left us in 2010, keep those who remained with us and attract back those who had given up on politics in favour of abstention, or been seduced by the siren voices of the mad, bad and sad – UKIP and the BNP – and the regional and political sectarians.

WHERE NEXT FOR LABOUR?

asks TYLER CHINNICK

Over the past year, the Labour Party has been inviting people, members and non-members alike, to give their ideas for the future direction of the Party.

New Labour always held that any move to the left would make the party “less electable”. But there are many policies to the left of current orthodoxy that I think would make the Party more, not less, electable. Here are some of them.

MPs should receive the national average  wage.

Failing this, their earnings should be linked to the minimum wage. Politicians, when they are elected, lose touch with the hardships of life as most people live it. Earning a national average wage would make MPs much more aware of life as we live it, and thus more able to represent our interests.

Re-nationalise the railways.

A “yougov” poll conducted in 2009 showed 70 per cent support for re-nationalisation. It would not only be popular, it would also save us money. We’ve spent nearly four times the amount subsidising private industries than we ever gave to the industry when it was in public hands.

Bring NHS cleaning services back under public control.

There is a clear correlation between those hospitals where the cleaning staff are contracted out and high rates of MRSA. And end the ludicrous charade of PFI/PPP. As far as I’m aware, the only other political leader to try the “buy now pay much later” approach was Mussolini. I don’t think we should be following his example!

Introduce a “Robin Hood” tax.  

Charged at a measly quarter of a per cent on those financial transactions that do not involve the public, this would raise an estimated £100 to £200 billion. This is fair, practical and popular, and is supported by many mainstream figures.

Scrap Trident.

It’s a “deterrent” designed for the Cold War and has no relevance today. We’re told that the main threat we face to our national security is from global terrorism, against which Trident is useless.

Crack down on tax avoidance and evasion.

It’s not impossible, as the Tories claim – and it has overwhelming public support. Tax havens should face a cooling of political, diplomatic and trade relations. It they continue to act as they do, they should receive the same kind of treatment as other rogue states, such as sanctions or freezing of assets.

Keep the Royal Mail public.

Privatisation will inevitably lead to a massive deterioration in the service and won’t save us money.

A referendum on the EU.

The European Union is undemocratic and enforces the same neo-liberal market orthodoxy that has ruined so many western countries in recent years. In the early days of the EEC, it was Labour who were most vocal in opposition. Now the only criticism we hear comes from the Right and is usually accompanied by scarcely concealed xenophobia.

Build more Council Houses.

The building sector was hard hit by the recession and there is a massive need for affordable housing. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Before the last election there were even some Tories talking about the need for more social housing. And when the Tories say we need more council houses, then you know we need more council houses!

Scrap university tuition fees and reinstate the EMA.

Or, at the very least, reduce them. Education is a right, not a privilege. Labour should become a party for young people once again.

Electoral reform.

The fact that in the 21st century, half our government is unelected is outrageous. The House of Lords needs to be democratically elected (preferably by PR) – or abolished altogether.

A new Green deal.

Ed Balls in an interview with the CWU paper Voice said that the road to recovery was through Keynesian economics. What better way to resurrect the economy than by embarking on a massive building project to create the energy of tomorrow? This could be partly funded by ending subsidies to the arms industry. It’s the most heavily subsidised industry in Britain costing taxpayers £851.91 million a year. It’s obscene that so much is spent on creating devices of torture and death when it could be spent on green energy.

Make public services more democratic.

Why shouldn’t workers in the public sector who know their industries have a say in who runs the service and how? Nurses, teachers and many other public sector workers have a huge wealth of knowledge that currently goes untapped.

An ethical foreign policy.

Which would involve: withdrawing support from regimes such as Saudi Arabia (whilst possibly ending our dependency on oil). Ending complicity in torture, and not invading countries which do not threaten us.

Reforming the media.

The media have made it perfectly clear over recent years that they are unable to regulate themselves. The Press Complaints Commission therefore needs to be independent of the industry, and made much stronger – with real sanctions, particularly fines, which they are unafraid to use. A law such as “one man, one newspaper”, or a ban on foreign ownership of British media should be introduced. The kind of monopolies that exist in the media world today not only endanger free speech and democracy, but also inevitably lead to heinous abuse.

Just a few of these policies would be enough to secure a Labour victory at the next election, and they would all, without exception, have an enormously positive effect.

East Germany & the Fall of Communism – reply to the responders

by C. Spiby

My article on East Germany and the failure of communism drew some interesting responses. Here I intend to reply to some of the points raised, including Diana Gash’s communication which can be found on our letters page.

Of course, in an essay of such wide-reaching scope as the nature of modern socialism, it is difficult, if not impossible to give much depth. Some points had to be made fleetingly as not to offend the dreaded word-count.

The thrust of the article was to ask the question of whether this was the time to rehabilitate the legacy of the great socialist tradition from the legacy or tyranny perpetrated by the likes of Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin. This being a vehicle to reflect on the past as a means to inform the present.

I argued that yes it was and moreover that – for British communists and socialists alike – the place to realise the socialist agenda was in the Labour Party.

And to do so now, possibly more than ever in at least my lifetime.  I was criticised, rightly, for not making this absolutely clear. So let me re-state it.

The Labour Party is now at a crossroads; if we do not make it our own now, then I for one feel the cause of modern British socialism is lost for at least a generation. A new leader, following a huge electoral defeat which has favoured vile right-wing agenda in the ConDem Government. These are all the ingredients necessary to urge a new generation of left-wing resurgence.

I am not for one moment suggesting that the Labour Party is to be hi-jacked as a communist party. But I have personally resigned from the Communist Party of Britain precisely to help re-boot Labour from within, rather than build the movement outside it (as the CPB’s own programme advises). Both positions are valid. But less so, I feel, is that of the separatists.

We can argue over the right path to socialism until we are red in the face. But only a mass movement will truly take the first steps in government. Although I was accused of ‘timid conclusions’ – I think this denies the struggle of the journey ahead of us.

I showed that the narrative offered by the works I cited (books and movies) is that Marxism will always bring about a totalitarian state. But this is not true – the whole of socialism is built on Marx, and I argued that while Marx can only foresee a socialist revolution through violent change, other paths show that this need not be the case.

I was criticised on drawing on the example of faith leaders. True, as an atheist, this is a trite thing to do, but here I hoped to show the innate nature of socialism. Perhaps I would have better used Robert Axelrod’s 1984 scientific work ‘The Evolution of Co-operation’.

My survey of the GDR was limited to about 3 books and 3 films. Most came out negatively, but the interesting point in the responses is that no-one rushed to defend even the defensible elements of East German life. Rather, the criticisms were aimed at my intended target – the nature of the debate for today’s society in Western Europe. Diana seemed at once enthused and concerned, also recognising the new zeitgeist for socialism – this is the dialectic in action.

But she remains concerned about Labour’s recent past. Rightly so. I have not voted Labour since the war on Iraq. I would have struggled anyway on issues like foundation hospitals, PFI, PPP and forcing mothers back to work rather than supporting their decision to stay at home, were that their choice. These policies, however, were New Labour. With Ed rather than David, we have the opportunity to bring the Party back to the left
both by contrast to this hugely unjust Tory government and the fact of the Unions’ backing of Ed as the new leader. With no programme yet, this is OUR chance. And also, I have been impressed with Bruce Hogan. On the Wye side Hamish Sanderson considers himself a socialist. And councillors like Armand Watts for Bulwark talk my language. Then there are good local citizens like Di Martin who have stood and won as councillors for Labour driven by the causes socialists would recognise as theirs. This is the chance to re-seed the foundations, while the right attacks our most precious wins such as the NHS; this is the home for our best defence.

My brief reference to the likes of the SP and SWP was a crude ruse to dismiss their input into the laying of those foundations in this new breed of Labour. That is not to devalue the role these groups have in local campaigns and in the debate on socialism, but their influence is – clearly – on
the outside of where the real challenge lies for the mass movement.

If, like me, you really believe in socialism, then join us.

This could be our last chance to claim the Party back for ourselves. You could stay in the SP, SWP or – as I was – in the CPB. But these parties will not ever win a seat in Parliament and therefore cannot truly hope to reflect the wishes of the mass of working people. Yes, we might feel uncomfortable in taking a place alongside people who supported New Labour, but look beyond them and we see others who feel the way we do like, say, John McDonald, and we only have to remind ourselves that the LP was the home of Tony Benn to see that the Labour Party is still the rightful place for socialists.

The answer may not appeal to the radicals. But for those of us who have trod the line of radical politics for so long, coming to real party of the mass movement IS in itself radical.

The debate about communism’s rehabilitation is due. But it is for nought if the people are not with us. The GDR offers examples of warnings and evidence of where things went right like social cohesion. But that debate is only a debate. The point is to change the world.

The Lib Dems will be nowhere in the next General Election. Their members need to join the Labour Party (re-join in some cases) to realise their dream of a social democracy. Their rightful place is in a democracy that puts social values first. And anyone who cannot see that modern British socialism doesn’t seek to achieve a similar goal is out on their own. Only a united front of socialist-driven Parliamentary power will be able to  hold the Tories and big business to account. Forget New Labour – it is up to us to ensure that social welfare drives the party not the end of boom and bust, the slaves of a shallow affluence which has left our Party dwindling and our country morally bereft. I mean, could you ever previously imagine a discussion, policies even on competition in the NHS?

That’s why you can either join the fight. Or talk about it while being defeated – at best –in the odd skirmish on the periphery.

{please feel free to Comment here or write or e-mail us}

READERS’ LETTER: Communist East Germany & British Socialism Today

Dear the Clarion

I wish to make a response to Carl‘s article from the Clarion, July issue, entitiled ‘East Germany, and the fall of Communism’.

I read the article with interest; the quote from Rowan William’s Easter address was particularly relevant given that the most heartfelt and cogent condemnation of the  current Coalition policies has once again come from the Church. Today, we are not used to people with much to lose speaking unpopular truths.  A reminder of the South American Liberation Theology movement when brave priests defied the Vatican, engaged in politics, and worked to feed people  and keep them safe before looking after their spirituality.

So true, that Socialists must always see the struggle in terms of the current times and conditions however constant the goals may be.  Marxist principles remain but as Carl pointed out the thinking must be revised to suit our age.

I have found the final statements in the article extremely thought provoking.

For the minority of people in the Country who are actively engaged or seriously interested in politics these are exciting times.  Opportunities for change seem more possible than for some long time.  The excitement one feels can seem vicarious – the very conditions that are giving rise to such possibilities are causing acute anxiety and misery for many people and those who are already poor are right to feel afraid. The need to join with other like minded people and ‘do something about it’ has never felt more urgent.

Apparently, the feeling is that the most effective path to change is to join the Labour Party and influence policy and thinking from inside the ranks. I can see how attractive this may seem to people who have been members of minority groups or Partys. The thought of belonging to a mass Party and enjoying the benefits of campaigning from such a secure base is perhaps inviting. The idea of debating with right wing Labour stalwarts, winning the arguments and making a difference to people’s lives is a great challenge.

BUT I am curious to know what has happened to the Labour Party to make this possible?

I totally agree that the conditions outside are conducive to progress but see little or no change inside.  Some people have always held the view that it is better to work from inside. I was one of them for very many years, until as members we were expected to register our links with Socialist groups and it was made very clear that we were not wanted in the Party.  Dave Nellist, a tireless MP and a committed Socialist was thrown out of the Party and his job for his beliefs and his actions.  Some people chose to remain inside and have held fast to principled and humanistic values.  Sadly they have been unable to rise through the ranks and their influence inside the Party has been small despite being inspirational in many campaigns. Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Benn to name two. Tyler Chinnick in his ‘Cuts’ article makes fair comment about Labour’s  appallingly weak opposition to the havoc being caused by the Government.  So far Ed Milliband, despite some promising words, is not looking like a man who is about to prepare his Party to take on the worst aspects of Capitalism.  Socialists know that this is what is needed if poverty is to be eradicated and justice and equality is to be achieved.

From my, possibly jaded, perspective the energy and the action is coming from elsewhere. from small local groups, from single issue campaigns and from a growing sense of outrage amongst people who have little faith left in mainstream political structures.  If these people are to be politicised it seems unlikely that they will be drawn towards old style Party meetings and the beaurocracy that goes with them. Hopefully, the Trades Unions will support growing grass roots opposition to what is happening and this in turn may influence Party politics.

As a member of the Socialist Party, formerly The Militant, I was somewhat dismayed to see that Carl had bracketed us together with the SWP in terms of our level of maturity and at some stage would be interested to know why.  The SP has a good record of standing  in local  and national elections and when elected, of building good reputations for their hard work in protecting services. Members are encouraged to be active and take up positions in their workplace Unions and give unflagging support to worker’s struggles. They have a good education programme and young people are encouraged to speak out and organise campaigns on issues which affect them. The SP has a policy of working together with other groups, of course with the agenda of influencing direction, and has strong and active links with overseas workers.  I believe that any Socialist would find it difficult to fault the aims of the Party.

My response to Carl’s article was not meant to turn into an  advert for the SP  but more a difference of opinion on the Labour Party being the ‘only one true place for British Socialists’.

DG, Coleford (Forest of Dean)