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.

REPORT:Going forth into the Wilderness – to occupy *UPDATED*

The Wilderness Centre, up in the Forest near Plump Hill is known and loved by many folk in the Forest, and by the schools and other groups who have visited.

It has been administered, on behalf of the community by the Gloucestershire County Council – until the decision was taken to close it as part of the ongoing cuts.

But in January a group have occupied the centre, with the intention of running this community asset as it should be run. And Mark Hawthorn, leader of the County Council was not happy at this development..

According to a statement issued by those in occupation at the centre, the volunteers “have moved in to serve as caretakers and run it on a voluntary basis.

“We wish to work with the Friends of the Wilderness Centre and Gloucestershire councils to keep the centre open for the benefit of the local community and involve them in the process of deciding what the future of the centre should be.

“We believe there is an urgent need now more than ever to keep community hubs and educational spaces open so people can come together to learn skills and share ideas. These spaces empower and enable communities collectively to forge a truly sustainable economy and local resilience for for the times ahead.

“This closure is an especially big blow to local young people as it is depriving them of a means to learn about their ecological environment, learn skills to provide employment, and is taking away their heritage.

“We follow in the footsteps of the HOOF campaign whose efforts led to the protection of the forest for future generations. “

HOSTILE:

The response from Councillor Mark Hawthorne was hostile. He declared that the centre’s occupants were trespassing. He threatened legal action to evict them – and complained of the cost to the County of enforcing such action and introducing security measures.

“…Council Tax payers will have to foot the bill for any additional security that is needed and for hefty legal costs if we have to go through the courts to get them to leave the site,” he said.

We have news for Mark Hawthorne. His Council are the custodians of a community asset which it is supposed to administer on behalf of the people of the Forest and others who may care to use it. By closing down the centre in the first place, the County Council are in abuse of their role as custodians.

If Hawthorne is concerned about the costs involved in taking action against those occupying the centre, the answer is simple. Don’t take action. Work with those at the centre, and let them know that the Council is on their side.

Or does he have other plans for this very special site?

Ironically, Hawthorne seems to be out of step with his party leader here. The occupation of the Wilderness Centre is surely in tune with Cameron’s espousal of the “big society” – or have we got it all wrong?

As we go to press, the situation at the centre remains fluid. The threat of eviction remains, whilst those occupying the centre press ahead with ideas to involve the community in the future of the Wilderness. This could be an opportunity – if it’s not strangled by the intransigence of the County Council.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT: MARCH 2012

SAVING THE WILDERNESS

The Wilderness Centre at Plump Hill near Mitcheldean is special. It’s special to our environment, and to the thousands who’ve visited it over the years and used its services.

Formerly the grounds of a country estate, the Wilderness was opened under the auspices of the Gloucestershire Youth Service back in 1969, to operate as a field studies centre. And for over forty years it was open to visiting school parties, community groups and exchange visits by those from abroad.

It was an ideal spot – and not just for the scenery alone! It includes woodland and meadow land and buildings for study and teaching. For those concerned with our environment, and the interaction of nature with our own footfall on the land we inhabit, it is indeed special.

COUNTY COUNCIL:

The Gloucestershire County Council has been the custodian of this very important site. Maybe it’s been important to us – but to those in County Hall it has been merely a site, with no appreciation of its special significance.

In August last year, following the Council’s round of swingeing budget cuts which affected both the library service and county youth service in particular, the Wilderness Centre was closed down.

That, it seemed, was that. The County Council had achieved a fait accompli. But then, in January 2012, the Wilderness was once more in the news. A group calling themselves “Occupy the Wilderness” moved into the

The aim was to restore the Wilderness, through direct action, to its original purpose – that of providing a centre for the benefit of the community and those who appreciated our natural surroundings, and who could learn from them.

“ILLEGAL”:

The response by Council chiefs was immediate. They declared that the action was “illegal”. Security guards were called in to patrol the perimeter, and Mark Hawthorne (leader of the County Council) bemoaned the “cost to Council Tax payers” of this security and of taking legal action.

On Monday, March 5th, those who had taken part in the occupation appeared in Gloucester County Court on charges of trespass. The hearing lasted two days, and the defendants were found guilty.

But the occupation has continued, and those occupying the Wilderness Centre have continued to try to put their ideals into action.

A BUY-OUT?

What the County Council initially wanted to do with the Wilderness is not known. But it has now agreed to talk to the “Friends of the Wilderness” about selling the site, who aim to restore it as a field study centre. But they have been set a target of raising one million pounds, to cover the purchase of the site from the County Council and the start-up costs to get the centre up and running again.

INTERVENTION;

The latest development in the Wilderness saga has been an intervention by a group of academics, who have put their names to a letter given front page coverage in the Review on March 14th. To quote the Review, those who signed up to the letter “slammed Gloucestershire County Council’s closure of the Wilderness Centre outdoor learning centre…”

The letter pointed out that it was twenty years ago this year that the Rio Earth Summit took place, calling for us “to think global, act local” to sustain our environment.

The signatories to the letter asked the question, “Does an environmental/outdoor education centre have a role to play…?” Their answer was “We think so. And we write to you from different parts of the world to express our concern and opposition to the decision to close down and sell the Wilderness Centre at Mitcheldean.”

Judging by his response, Councillor Mark Hawthorne simply doesn’t get it. But we do. And the fight to save the Wilderness continues.

MODERN TIMES: the Dinosaur Column

A bad case of rhyming slang:

What is it about bankers? Why do they seem to have the arrogance to assume that they’re indispensable – and that this gives What is it about bankers? Why do they have the arrogance to assume that they’re indispensable – and that this gives them the right to siphon off as much of our money as they like?

Bankers have never been popular – particularly those of the “merchant” variety. It’s no wonder that in the world of rhyming slang, the word “banker” became synonymous with another word beginning with “w”.

Since the markets crashed some three years ago (thanks to the greed of the aforementioned bankers), it’s been a case of “here’s mud in your eye”. They managed to lose thousands and thousands of their customers’ money, they’ve been bailed out, humbled – and still they give themselves pay rises and award themselves massive bonuses. You’d think a certain humility would be in order, wouldn’t you? The odd hair shirt or two, or some ditch-water instead of bubbly?

One recent pay-out came from Goldman Sachs, the banking giant operating out of the City and from Wall Street. Despite a sharp fall in overall revenue and profits, it has managed to find £7.9 billion to share out amongst its top wheelers and dealers. The money is being paid out in pay and in bonuses. We’ve also had RBS and Lloyds going over the top with pay-outs from the money that we gave them to bail them out.

Whilst I think the whole notion of bonuses is suspect, I fondly imagined that it was tied in with performance. If you did well, you got a bit extra to encourage you to do even better. Now it seems that the fat cats think that it’s their due regardless of anything.

Goldman Sachs, incidentally, reported that its revenues had fallen by 26 per cent last year, and profits were down by 47 per cent. Whilst it appears there’s still plenty left in the kitty it hardly seems to me to be the time to be dishing out bonuses on a grand scale.

for the last time, say cheese

I must confess to a pang or two of regret when those household names that we all took for granted over the years give up the ghost. Once they were part of our everyday landscape – and that of our parents..

I felt the shock waves when Woolworths disappeared from our high streets. Now HMV (short for “His Master’s Voice”) have had  a temporary reprieve from imminent collapse. But a bigger shock for me was the news that Kodak (the US company that pioneered the roll film – and even developed the first digital camera, even if it was the size of a biscuit tin) had gone bankrupt.

I remember clicking away with my old Kodak “Box Brownie” when I was just a young dinosaur, and waiting impatiently for the results to be developed and printed. in the local chemists All right, the snaps weren’t all that special, but in this case you have to blame the photographer. And many of them became treasured memories. But nowadays it seems as though fewer folk feel the need to treasure those “caught in time” moments. They’re more into instant gratification – a quick snap on the mobile phone to be shared briefly and then forgotten.

When I was young, though, the world of popular photography in the UK seemed to be shared between Kodak (who had the lion’s share) and Ilford. Ilford are still in business, but have retreated into a niche market selling black ‘n’ white film and accessories.

Meanwhile, the camera market went on to be dominated by the Japanese – and latterly by the Chinese. And now it seems the once mighty Kodak has sunk beneath the waves.

the rate for the job?

We’ve all seen the blurb when one of the big supermarket chains wants to set up shop somewhere There’s always the promise of more “choice” for the customer, and more jobs for the community.

Many of these jobs, though, are highly suspect. Often they’re part time – or imported from elsewhere. And now a report from the Fair Pay Network accuses the four largest supermarket chains of paying staff “poverty” wages whilst make huge profits.

The report says that hundreds of thousands of those working for Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons are not being paid a “living wage”. And the Network’s director, Mark Donne, says it couldn’t be acceptable that profits and executive pay were soaring whilst employees were sinking further into debt. Indeed, more than half of them say that they don’t earn enough to live on. That, it seems, is one cost of our cheap food.

Dinosaur

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

“We’re the 99 per cent”

Why the “occupy” movement is taking action

Capitalism has failed us. Particularly the finance capitalism of the big banking corporations that has ruled the global economy in recent decades. There must be another, better, way – a way that we can equate with Socialism.

That, basically, is the message of those who have involved themselves in the “Occupy” movement, which kicked off in September with the camp city erected near Wall Street – America’s financial centre.

It soon spread to other cities in the USA, and then crossed the Atlantic to protest camps set up outside St. Paul’s in the City of London and sites in other cities in Britain, including College Green in Bristol.

The slogan of the protesters is based on the fact that the top financial elite make up (roughly) one per cent of the population. By their manipulation of the money markets, their actions affect the lives of the rest of us – the remaining 99 per cent of the world population.

The message of the movement was reinforced in October, with the news that top directors in the UK had given themselves a pay rise of 49 per cent – at a time when others in the population were suffering cuts in their standards of living and their pensions – or being thrown out of work. The gap between rich and poor in this country has been growing for some time – and it’s been growing particularly since the present government came to power.

MAKING MONEY:

But what do the financiers in the City actually produce? Is it anything useful, like food, houses, railways, or the stuff of engineering or technology? No, it’s money – money made on the backs of those who do produce the goods and services that the rest of us need to carry on our lives.

No doubt a bank or investment trust would claim that they provide the capital that allows those who work on the farms, build the homes, etc., etc., to do their bit in the social structure. Up to a point – but it’s largely other people’s money they’re investing, and at the end of the day its not altruism that guides their actions – it’s profit. And all too often their actions wreak havoc with other people’s lives.

THE TERRIBLE COST:

This drive for profit at all costs can have terrible consequences – as happened with the financial collapse of 2007-08 when toxic investments (largely in the housing markets) spread like a man-made plague throughout the world’s financial system. The banks who’d gambled with our money were bailed out – but the rest of us had to pick up the tab.

We can trace the roots of this financial disaster back at least to Thatcher’s de-regulation of the banking system in the 1980s and ’90s. Or we could go back to the grim thirties for another object lesson. Indeed, there have been many times when the system that gambled with money entrusted to them by other people had played havoc with the economy – and people’s lives. Of course we don’t have to go back to the financial collapse of 1929. There are those who’ll recall the dark days of the early 1990s when shares tumbled and panic in the City nearly brought about another disintegration in the markets.

SYMPATHY:

It’s significant that the “Occupy” movement has gained a level of sympathy amongst many, and the authorities in the USA and Britain seemed at first reluctant to move against them. since 2008, it’s been difficult, even for supporters of capitalism, to defend the bankers and the system that they uphold.

Of course the right-wing press has done its best to belittle the camp communities. But it wasn’t until November that the authorities in America moved in with riot police to evict forcibly the camps that had sprung up in New York and elsewhere in the USA. Over here, the Corporation of the City of London finally decided to take action.

“ROBIN HOOD” TAX:

And whilst the authorities may be successful in dispersing the protesters, they haven’t quelled the ideas of those who set up the camps in the first place. More and more people are backing the idea of a “Robin Hood” Tax (roughly based on the proposal for a “Tobin Tax” put forward by the economist of that name) – for a modest tax on financial transactions which could be used to ward off the impact of any further collapse.

The City as a whole, of course, is against it. After all, why should they be expected pay for their greed? But many, more thoughtful, economists and businessmen have given their backing, and so has the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The camps HAVE made an impact. They have created debate, and wrong-footed even the most ardent supporters of finance capitalism. Whatever happens next (and with winter approaching and a tougher libe being proposed by the authorities it may be that they won’t be able to sustain themselves), the debate that they have provoked will no doubt carry on for some time.

ALISTAIR GRAHAM

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}

CAMERON’S ANGRY SOCIETY:

Who’s save from the cut and burn policies of the ConDem government? Certainly not our future pensioners!

ANGER – and protest – are now becoming a hallmark of Cameron’s “big society” as more and more of the Government’s repressive policies are unveiled. And on Thursday, June 30, public sector workers made their feelings felt about the attack on their pension rights.

A range of public sector unions, including civil and public servants and teachers, took action in a one-day strike. Although the Government, predictably, tried to down play the impact of this day of action, there is no doubt that anger and determination prevailed in the many demonstrations held across the country.

PENSIONS AT STAKE:

The issue was pensions. Until now, public sector workers have been assured of a relatively secure and adequate pension provision when they retire. Through their working lives they have been able to pay into a superannuation fund, backed by their employers in the public sector, which has allowed them a degree of peace of mind when they reach retirement. And that, most would surely agree, is how it should be.

Now, under new Government proposals, they will have to work longer, pay more into the pot – and at the end of it all receive a smaller pension.

No wonder public sector workers are outraged at these proposals. And no wonder so many of them supported the strike, as a means of showing their anger – as well as drawing attention to the Government’s plans.

The Government’s response has been that public sector pensions are “no longer sustainable”. They have drawn attention to the contrast between many in the private sector, whose pension provision has declined significantly in recent years, resulting in many falling way behind those in the public sector.

So, rather than attempting to safeguard the pension rights of all, our Government has preferred to drag down those who work in the public sector – seeking the lowest common denominator when it comes to providing for old age.

“DEFERRED WAGES”:

The pensioners’ movement sees the money paid to old folk in their retirement as “deferred wages”. Most of us, one way or another, pay into the pot during our working lives in order to ensure some level of security and a quality of life when we retire.

We pay through the work we do, as well as the taxes we pay. We pay national insurance, as well as the more specific superannuation schemes found in the public sector. And many of those who can afford it may well pay into private insurance schemes as well.

SOCIAL DIVISIONS:

What the issue of pensions means is that class and income divisions in society are carried on beyond retirement into old age. The wealthy take their wealth with them – and no doubt live to a ripe old age. Those who have worked hard all their lives on more modest incomes may well struggle to make do when they retire. The State pension these days is often only just enough to help them to survive.

No doubt the top ranking bankers, whose reckless gambling with the money invested by the public, will have no financial worries when they retire. Neither will the top politicians.

If we are to believe the weasel words of the Cameron Government (and its supporters in the right-wing press), we can no longer afford to “support” the growing number of elderly people in our society. The implication is that once we reach a certain age we become a drain on society. We no longer contribute anything to wider society, we degenerate rapidly into a state of dependency, and are (by implication) merely a burden on the rest of society. That’s why we must now all work longer and pay more for our own old age.

WRONG:

These assumptions are wrong on a number of counts. First, there have been studies to show that even with increased life expectancy we can still afford to pay decent pensions. It’s just a matter of the allocation of resources.

And, second, after retirement pensioners continue to pay taxes. Taxes are based on levels of income, not on whether a person is working or not. Not only that but many pensioners continue to keep themselves occupied doing unpaid work which often oils the wheels of the voluntary sector on which Cameron’s notion of the “big society” depends. These are the people who now have the free time to work in charity shops, or to volunteer to help others less fortunate than themselves.

Declining health and dependency may well catch up with us eventually – but what sort of society would refuse to help those who need it, on the grounds that “we can’t afford it”? Or, perhaps, we could resort to a mandatory programme of euthanasia to end the problem of old wrinklies at a certain age? All paid for out of our taxes, of course.

The shadow of the IMF

David Cameron positively glowed with pink-cheeked satisfaction when the International Monetary Fund gave its endorsement to his “slash and burn” approach to our economy.

You can see where they’re coming from. These days getting the IMF’s seal of approval is like being endorsed by Shylock. Yet it was founded with the best of intentions.

It’s come a long way since it was first set up towards the end of the war – in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, USA, in July 1944. Its aim was the stabilisation and re-building of the world economy after the slump years of the ‘thirties and the economic disintegration caused by war.

Economists like J. M. Keynes backed the idea. But what was to emerge in later years was something very different from the original ideals of the IMF. Loans came to be given to those in need under strict conditions. Usually it meant the restructuring of a country’s economy and the sale of public assets. Resources in “Third World” countries were plundered at the behest of the IMF.

Examples abound. After the Haiti earthquake disaster, the IMF gave a loan of $100 million – on condition that public employees would be refused any pay increases, and the price of electricity was raised. In Tanzania, the IMF loan came with the condition that the country’s water supply was sold off. In Bolivia, the government was told to sell off its oil and water.

And so it goes on. For some time now, the IMF has been accused of merely acting to further the interests of Western (mainly US) capitalism. But one critic goes even further.

Joseph E Stiglitz (a leading economist and former senior Vice-President at the World Bank) said:

“When the IMF arrives in a country, they are interested in only one thing. How do we make sure the banks and financial institutions are paid. It is the IMF that keeps the speculators in business.”

A harsh verdict from someone who knows what he’s talking about. An old saying springs to mind: “beware of Greeks bearing gifts”. Except ironically in this case it’s Greece that is bearing the brunt of the “bail out” imposed by the IMF and the EU.

So when the IMF tells Cameron and Osborne that they’re following the right policy, we need to see this in the context of the Fund’s track record. And who would really want a helping hand like this?

 

What is “the State” – and why is under attack by Cameron?

According to his own propaganda, David Cameron’s declared mission is to cut back on the “Big State”, and replace it by the “Big Society”. State control of services, of provision for our citizens, is to be cut back to the bare minimum – to be replaced by an amorphous concept where our general wellbeing is provided by eager volunteers who will work willingly for the good of all.

The reality is of course very different. And it it also dodges the question – what do we mean by “the State”? According to the Oxford Compact Dictionary, “the State” is a “political community under one government”, or alternatively, “civil government”. However we define it, it is the glue that holds our society together, and we diminish it at our peril.

INVOLVEMENT:

Of course in any healthy democracy, it should involve us all participating in the political process. That should go without saying. What is worrying, though, is the fact that since the bleak years of Thatcher (when the concept of the State was last under attack), the proportion of the population bothering to vote has dropped significantly. And the number of us who are actual members of political parties has dwindled to a mere fraction of the population. This has affected all political parties, but in Labour’s case, membership is now under half what it was in 1997 – despite an increase in the number joining since the last election. Union membership, too, has seen a long-term decline – at a time when jobs and working conditions are under attack.

These are worrying signs for those who are involved in politics, and in the defence of what remains of our Welfare State. In the short term this trend might not concern the Camerons and the Osbornes of this world. They live in their own little political cocoon, bolstered by their own hype, whilst they cut and slice the fabric of our society under the pretext of “cutting the State down to size”.

THE WRITING ON THE WALL:

The impact of their policies will last for generations and we, as a society, will be all the poorer for it. Once social provision has been abandoned, the Health Service been transformed into a structure to serve the needs of the big multinational “health” corporations, and pensions that are meant to provide security in our old age have been cut back to the minimum, then it will be difficult to return to the kind of society in which the State provided for the wellbeing of all in a participating, caring society.

We have been warned. As Polly Toynbee wrote in the Guardian at the end of April, “few yet realise the scale of the conservative revolution in progress. Professors Taylor-Gooby and Gerry Stoker have just revealed that by 2013 public spending will be a lower proportion of GDP in Britain than in the US.”

Yet, for many, Cameron’s smokescreen still hides the true intentions of his Government. Whilst his promotion of the “big society” has been met by general cynicism, the wider claims that we must cut public spending to the bone to eliminate our deficit are still widely accepted. And his attacks on “the State” are not being countered.

Yes, there has been opposition to his policies. Protests by students, by trade unionists – and mass opposition to the Government’s NHS reforms have hit the headlines. But so far these have been fragmented. The fact that so few of us join political organisations – and the growing number who don’t even both bother to vote – is all grist to the mill for the Conservatives and their tacticians. Sadly this goes for many in the Lib Dem leadership as well.