Thursday 31 March 2011

Work Programme bid results announced today

Later today we will probably hear who has won contracts to deliver the new government flagship welfare to work scheme, Work Programme. A lot depends on the result. Already a number of companies have placed their employees on redundancy notice in a pessimistic anticipation they will not succeed in winning any bids.

The contracting vehicle for the Work Programme, called the Framework Agreement, divided the Work Programme into eleven geographic ‘lots’, comprising England’s nine regions and Scotland and Wales.

DWP has said it expects around eight organisations - likely to be large services companies, such as Serco, A4e, CDG, G4S and Maximus - to be allocated to each ‘lot’. These prime contractors will then subcontract the Work Programme to smaller jobs brokers across their contract area as they see fit.

According to the DWP, bidders needed to be “larger organisations” that have the financial capacity to handle contracts of between £10 and £50m, as well as the necessary cash flow to finance contracts where funding is provided on the basis of results, as well as the “ability to deliver across the whole of a geographical lot”.

So why did these companies bid for this contract? Because the overall purse is worth no less than £5bn

According to reports, successful companies will earn anything up to £14,000 for each client they successfully place in paid employment.

Talk about money breeding money!

Now you would hope staff working in the sector would see some benefit from all of this. You would perhaps assume the personnel would be given good salaries, decent pensions, nice working accommodation, good holiday entitlements and a high standard of continuing professional education.

Unfortunately, this is far from the case. Take this advert offering a vacancy as a job broker for a salary of

“As well as having experience in supporting employers to recruit and develop unemployed individuals, you ideally should also have experience of working with those unemployed individuals to ensure a smooth transition from benefit to employment. You should have the ability to build relationships with key employers, as well as possess excellent negotiating and mentoring skills. You must have, or be willing to work towards NVQ Level 3 in Advice and Guidance.”

Now, by the time you add on employer contributions and the cost of a little in-house training, you can expect total labour costs for hiring this person to be approximately £26 -28,000. In other words, as long as they get two people a year into a job, they are paying their way.
The reality is that many of these staff are extremely talented and dedicated people who genuinely want to help those who are jobless. They didn’t come into the sector to earn big bucks – because the flashy salaries don’t exist for frontline workers. Nor did they join the welfare to work sector because of some kudos associated with their work.

As far as the media and a large part of the public are concerned, frontline staff are a ‘welfare police’ mandated with the task of forcing scroungers back to work. Thankfully, many of these frontline staff know better and accept that nearly everyone unemployed has been forced into that situation through a series of unfortunate circumstances. No-one wants to be jobless and I cannot imagine anyone being happy to remain on benefit for the rest of their life. Penury, which is what people experience when they are on the dole, is never pleasant.

Staff employed to help the jobless back to work often come from a background where they too were unemployed and forced onto a government scheme. Indeed, many of these programmes have proven useful pickings for welfare to work companies to find good staff they can cherry-pick and then train to help others.

Unfortunately, this training is often desperately inadequate. Clients referred to training providers often come to interviews with multi-various problems – debt, housing issues, relationship problems, childcare problems, health difficulties, psychological problems and, in some instances, a lack of education. Add to this the known psychological problems often associated with unemployment such as depression, low self esteem, anxiety, paranoia and alcohol or drug misuse and you have major casework issues.

Though the NVQ level 3 in advice and guidance is a credible qualification, it is wholly inadequate for the situation. Caseworkers dealing with those who are jobless need to be skilled in counselling techniques, motivational interviewing (with detailed knowledge of approaches adopted when using models such as those recommended by Prochaska and DiClemente) and cognitive behavioural intervention skills.

The vast majority of frontline workers would jump at the opportunity to learn new skills – because they care, but the management within these companies have, until now, been disinclined to invest significantly in appropriate training. So, the end product has been a mish mash of a welfare to work scheme resulting in only 8% of those referred securing full-time, permanent work. Ask any caseworker whether they think things to could be done better and all agree. Sadly at every step along the way they have been stopped by managers exclusively focussed on the profit motive rather than the welfare of either the staff member or his/ her client.

Sometime today companies will learn if their bid has been successful and for many it will mean trying to do the same job for less money. Already some companies have set up systems to ensure staff will only keep their job if they take less pay. For others it will mean redundancy. Already many are looking to a date in June when their employment will end. They do not expect the new contract to save their jobs. They will, of course have had 90-days to find another job, but with an entire sector in total disarray, finding a new employer will not be easy. We can expect to see many really talented people to leave the sector. They will be mourned by some, but soon forgotten by others.

I say to those affected – always remember these pages will always remember the service you have given this sector. You will not be forgotten and we will never forgive the fat cats and the profiteers in the welfare to work sector for the way they have treated you.

May your successes be great and your pleasures be many. You have given several years of your life to helping others and as such, you have left an indelible mark on this world. I ask all of you now facing redundancy – when you finally walk out the door – stand proud, for you truly were professionals.

For those of you who remain – it is time to bring about change. We cannot keep doing this to ourselves. Are we truly saying we are so impotent? Are we saying we are so under the thumb of the bosses that we can’t say no to future redundancies?

Of course not. When the dust settles and we know who has won contracts it will be time for those who are angry enough to introduce the trade unions into your work place. Once we have united staff under a common ban we can face management and make the welfare to work sector an industry to be proud to work in.

In the meantime, it will be a rather grotesque experience today watching the multinationals suck off the cream from British taxpayers’ money.

Wednesday 30 March 2011

No chances fro the young thanks to Gove

Last year, in a thoughtless and deliberate attack on students, the government announced they would be cutting the £560 million Education Maintenance Allowance, This scheme was introduced by the last Labour government and provided up to £30 a week for low income students, allowing them to stay in school or college after age 16. Payment was determined in the first instance according to eligibility – depending on the income of the parents, but if the student was found to fall within its criteria, weekly payments could then be paid if they attended all classes/ lectures during the week. This week, Michael Gove announced a fundamental U-turn in the government’s policy by revealing they will replace it with a £180m bursary targeted to the poorest students. In a pathetic attempt to justify his about face, the education secretary defended the huge cut by asking whether: “…it is socially just to be paying 45% of students a cash incentive to stay in learning when we could be concentrating our resources on removing barriers to learning faced by the poorest.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has actually already answered his question. They found EMA increased the proportion of eligible 16-year-olds staying in education from 65% to 69%, and increased the proportion of eligible 17-year-olds in education from 54% to 61%. So clearly the answer is “yes” – a point that has been made by students since the government went on their attack on further and higher education. Even accounting for the ‘deadweight costs’ (people who would have stayed in education regardless of the allowance), the costs of the scheme are exceeded by the higher wages recipients go on to earn in the future.Neither should Michael Gove use the high proportion of students who receive the EMA to justify concentrating it on ‘the poorest’. While it is undoubtedly a good thing the government are continuing to provide for the 12,000 or so most disadvantaged students, the full EMA was only ever given to those children from households earning up to £20,817 and no child from a household earning over £30,810 received any cash at all. In other words, EMA was always targeted for poorer families and never designed to be a universal benefit. This was already a more targeted transfer than – for example – child benefit. It was also a more conditional transfer than other benefits, because it could be removed if the student failed to attend school or college, so it was more likely to lead to the government’s intended outcome. So the evidence suggests unequivocally that the answer to Michael Gove’s question is ‘yes’ – EMA was socially just. The same is going to be far less likely when it comes to the government’s scheme. Their intention is to pay those school students who are in receipt of free school meals. What Gove is missing is only somewhere between a quarter and a half of the 16 percent of children who are eligible for Free School Meals are in the bottom 16 percent of the distribution of household income. Even worse, according to Child Poverty Action Group, only just over 6% of poor pupils receiving free school meals remain at school to take A levels, compared to around 40% of students overall. Some students choose to leave school and go on to further education. According to Gove’s announcement some of these students will be eligible for his allowance and the money will be distributed on a discretionary basis by the college. In other words, every college could easily have different criteria to determine eligibility – and with a much smaller purse available, it is inevitable many of our ‘most in need’ young people will be left by the wayside. The Tories have pretended they have some kind of commitment towards young people. Just before the last general election Citizen Dave, the people’s toff said: “I am determined to ensure that the next Conservative Government provides a radical and exciting new opportunity for all the nation’s young people.” Well since he has been in power the opportunity he has offered is for the young to live in penury and with 25% of them having no hope of a job. Even those with aspirations for advancement and going to university will find their costs tripled thanks to the Tories. Nothing exciting or new there, Dave – it’s time to take another look at what you are doing.

Tuesday 29 March 2011

From bleak mid-winter to a cold Spring

Reports yesterday indicated the UK economy shrank by less than previously thought in the last three months of 2010 and that, according to fresh data from the Office for National Statistics, gross domestic product (GDP) slipped by 0.5% in the period. Its initial estimate for the quarter suggested that the economy had contracted by 0.5% - with heavy snow blamed for the slump. The 0.5% fall is the largest quarterly contraction since the second quarter of 2009. At the same time as the economy was shrinking, unsecured debt rose by £768m in February, driven by an increase in personal loans and overdrafts, whilst the number of remortgaging loans approved stood at 35,725 in February, the Bank's figures show. This was up from 33,972 the previous month, slightly up on a previous high in November, and higher than the average of the previous six months of 31,674. What does this tell us? Well what it indicates is that more and more people are finding it hard to live within their means. Rising prices and Government cut backs mean nearly 50% of mums say they'll be forced to use savings, earmarked for their family's financial future, to cover household bills over the coming year according to research from Family Investments. The research revealed a staggering 47% of mothers will be cutting their family savings by nearly £400 and channelling the cash into covering their day to day living expenses. And in order to 'balance the books' they will be slashing savings in three ways. Firstly short term savings, typically the money normally saved in instant access accounts, (for this summer's holiday or emergency car repairs); this will be cut by £240 a year. Then there are cuts to the kids' savings by £60 a year; and parents will also be sacrificing their pension savings, which for nearly 20% of us average around £160 a month, in order to boost the household piggy bank. This means a combined total of over £1 billion will be cut from family savings across the country as households struggle to meet spiralling costs on everything from food and petrol to energy bills. And it's those energy bills that are creating the biggest headache; up around £37 a month, with over three quarters of adults worried about how they'll pay them. Over one third of us worry about covering the cost of that weekly supermarket bill which has gone up faster than the rate of inflation, according to research from investment bank UBS, adding another £35 a month to our household spending. And filling the car for the daily school run costs more too; with petrol prices hitting a new record high now topping £6 a gallon, and with the current situation in Libya and the Middle East worsening it means we're unlikely to see pump prices slashed in the near future. For many, things are only going to get worse. Each day we are hearing about redundancies. 1. Sheffield Council are planning 273 redundancies; 2. RAF are predicting 11,000 redundancies 3. Hampshire County Council will lose 1,200 jobs 4. London Midland will lose 1,200 jobs 5. Warwickshire County Council will shed 1,800 jobs 6. Meanwhile in the Royal Mail, two London mail centres could close as part of a Royal Mail restructuring plan, which puts over 700 workers and 1,000 managerial jobs on the chopping block. A further 1,700 head-office posts could go in a future review. 7. Northern Rock is to make 680 more redundancies this year – meaning nearly 4,000 will have been axed since its crash in 2007. The list just goes on and on and on. And what is Cameron’s solution? A nothing budget that will do little to stimulate growth. As for building business? Well Citizen Dave had this to say: "This government is backing small firms, it's getting behind the start-ups, it's getting behind the doers and the grafters who are going to get our economy moving and create the jobs and the wealth and the opportunity that we need." Pretty words Dave, but where is the evidence? You’ve taken away the Regional Development Agencies, you’ve taken away superb organisations like the West Midlands Observatory … and the other observatories around the country, you have done nothing to encourage the construction industry which contracted 2.3% last month alone. Even the service sector – noted for being a substantial employer throughout the country experienced hardships, with a 0.6% contraction last month. What will it take to knock into Citizen Dave, the people’s toff’s head the fundamental notion that is strategy just isn’t working and it is hurting people. The answer may be simple. On May 5th the people will have the opportunity to go to the polls and voice their discontent. In that election I urge every voter to vote for the candidate best able to knock out the sitting Tory or Lib Dem councillor. In wards where the Labour candidate has the highest chance, vote Labour. But if the Green, or Independent candidate is better positioned to win, then vote strategically. Naturally I draw the line on asking anyone to vote BNP or for any of the neo-fascist parties that will put themselves up in May. If we can force Cameron to face a loss of over 1,000 councillors and the loss of all seats in the Welsh and Scottish assemblies he could be forced to review his position. We have a golden opportunity ahead of us – we must not waste it.

What is happening to Labour?

What is happening to the Labour Party? News today that members of the public registering as individual supporters could be given the vote in leadership elections and at Party conference is an outrage. It makes a mockery of all those people, like me, who have religiously paid our annual subscriptions for membership of a political organization. It makes a travesty of those members of trade unions who have, over the years, consistently supported the Party by paying the political levy.

Peter Hain, the architect to the plan says the plans “… are designed to give Labour the chance to leapfrog the other parties and become a new party for a new political age.” So, the late 1990s we had the “New” Labour project – and that failed, and now we are going to have the “Squeaky clean, very New” Labour Party and guess what folks … it will fail too.

Those in favour of this approach argue it is because union affiliated membership has halved over the years and this will give ordinary working people a ‘say’ in the running of the Party. How short is the human memory? Last Saturday, 500,000 angry people marched through London calling for this Tory government to bring an end to the cuts. These people are our life-blood, our electorate – and many were students, pensioners, trade unionists and socialists – we cannot dismiss them so readily.

Hain goes on to say “If unions could rebuild their membership, they would speak with a stronger voice in society. Despite improved union recognition rights under Labour, they have been unable to do so.”

This is a fundamental bending of the truth. Since the May elections, trade union membership has dramatically increased and continues to grow. Daily, workers are recognizing they need the protection of working together under a trade union banner to protect their jobs, their pay and their rights. With each new member coming through the door, Labour has the chance of a new recruit. The fact the Party has been unable to attract large numbers of supporters says more about how we present Labour to the public than the demise of unionism.

Miliband has argued “The Tory-led government and its current alliance of power with the Liberal democrats does not change my belief that there is a progressive majority in this country.”

I confess I am not so sure. I think at the moment, many people are far more right-leaning than he gives credit for and in his naiveté, assumes Labour is on a roller coaster ride to sudden electoral victory. Well, we thought we would win under Kinnock and we failed. We should have won under Foot and we collapsed totally. The historical evidence tells us the British people are far more conservative. The right have long argued Labour is the natural party of opposition and the Tories, the natural party of power. It should be the job of Labour to reverse this, by educating and informing the electorate about socialist ideals and principles.

Giving a vote to members of MumsNet (however worthwhile the organization) is not the answer, nor is the notion of allowing floating voters who, on a whim, call themselves Labour supporters the opportunity to change policy. I have canvassed on doors before now and heard Labour supporters call for the return of hanging, tough immigration restraint and the castration of paedophiles. Do we truly want this kind of influx into our party?

Miliband must stamp on this report and throw it out. There can be no place for these principles in our great Party and should be shunned at all costs. If we fail, we might as well say goodbye to all vestiges of being a socialist party.

Instead, we should be helping to build trade unions and party branches so they become an effective resistance to this government’s uncaring, right-wing ideology. We should be a political vanguard pushing the cause of socialism on every front.

Above all, we must never lose our dedication to socialism and the trade union movement.

Monday 28 March 2011

Who said nuclear is safe?

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has said his government is in a state of maximum alert over the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant. Plutonium was detected in soil at the facility and highly radioactive water had leaked from a reactor building. Officials in China, South Korea and the United States have recorded traces of radioactive material in the air.

If ever there was evidence that we need to move away from nuclear energy, it is in this news today.

We need an energy system that can fight climate change, based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years.
Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions.

The Nuclear Age began in July 1945 when the US tested their first nuclear bomb near Alamogordo, New Mexico. A few years later, in 1953, President Eisenhower launched his "Atoms for Peace" Programme at the UN amid a wave of unbridled atomic optimism.
But as we know there is nothing "peaceful" about all things nuclear. More than half a century after Eisenhower's speech the planet is left with the legacy of nuclear waste. This legacy is beginning to be recognised for what it truly is.

Things are moving slowly in the right direction. In November 2000 the world recognised nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague. Nuclear power was dealt a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001.

The risks from nuclear energy are real, inherent and long-lasting.

For days we’ve heard conflicting reports about the safety of radiation levels in the food and water in Japan. Just a few days ago, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government stated that radiation levels had decreased in the city. However, reports released on Wednesday cited the detection of radioactivity in the Tokyo water and warned with levels of radiation reaching twice the recommended limit, infants should not be given tap water.

The Japanese authorities have also started reporting on the contamination levels found in 11 different vegetables. In many vegetables, such as broccoli and cabbage, from the Fukushima prefecture - the most contaminated area - the radioactivity levels exceeded safety limits set by the Ministery of Food and Safety. In Motomiya, 50 km East of the plant, the Caesium -137 concentration in ''kukitachina'' leaves was detected to be 164 times the accepted limit. The government called on consumers to avoid eating all eleven vegetables and all food exports from the contaminated areas have been banned.

This alarming rise in reports of radioactive contamination in Japan’s food chain and water supply demonstrates that the government’s constant reassurances and downplaying of the Fukushima nuclear crisis and risks public health are at best unreliable. The way to avoid this risk again is for governments around the world invest in energy efficiency and to redouble their efforts to harness safe and secure renewable energy sources.

Governments in Britain and abroad need to open their eyes – nuclear fuel is not safe and when a disaster occurs, the consequences can last for a lifetime. Remember, the buildings on the perimeter of Sizewell are now deemed to be nuclear waste – we don’t that to become one of our towns or cities.

Sunday 27 March 2011

"Fat Cats"? Hardly - more like stalking lions

I’m getting a little tired of the current trend amongst bloggers to go union bashing and in particular to attack the supposedly huge salaries their leaders earn. They do a superb job and, unlike those who write in the blogosphere, they were elected to the post and only stay there if they receive sufficient approval from their members.

It is true many of them do receive substantial incomes for their services. Bob Crow is reputed to earn over £133,000 per annum, but this is not exceptional for a union leader. Dave Prentis of Unison earns over £127,000, whilst the leader of USDAW earns about £105,000.

Compare this with the average earnings of a chief executive of a large company and it rather contextualises it. At a political level, a Minister of State earns substantially more and the director general of the BBC earns 4 times as much as the average union leader.

Even many executives working for local councils earn as much, if not more than the average union leader. The difference is that union leaders must face re-election and if the members are unhappy with their leader they can call for their resignation. Far from giving themselves “huge” salaries, these figures are agreed and ratified by the membership.

Noticeably, most of these criticisms are coming from the political right, who seem to be far les vocal about the salary earned by Boris Johnson last year - £143, 911. Nor did they starting screaming “fat cat” when Andrew Pierce, the Tory party chairman was awarded £120,000 a year.

The same bloggers who attack Bob Crow were far less angry about the £475,000 awarded to Andy Coulson whilst he was Director of Communications at Number 10.

Given this, one has to ask why bloggers like Guido Fawkes are so enthusiastic in their condemnation of union leaders. The answer is simple – they are scared. Until recently, the government were largely having things all their own way. Then last Saturday things changed. Suddenly, Cameron was being held to account and found to be failing.

In an interview with the BBC, Vince Cable arrogantly stated the government would not be thrown off course because of the demonstration. Fair enough – now we know where we stand with the Lib Dems – as if we didn’t know before. If Clegg and Cable want to tie themselves to the Tory banner, the left are quite happy to take them on too.

What we saw last Saturday was only the beginning and those union leaders that the right enjoy condemning will be at the heart of a campaign to oppose every aspect of Tory cuts. Over the coming months Cameron can look forward to opposition at a level that hasn’t been seen since the days of Maggie – in fact, he has helped achieve something that his predecessor helped to destroy – he has reunified the left.

Now Labour party members are standing shoulder to shoulder with trade unionists, Socialist party, SWP, Communist and Respect party members in unified opposition to what Cameron is trying to achieve.

Bloggers grumbling about union salaries will not be enough to stop us. Indeed, I was once told when I was much younger that sarcasm is the lowest kind of wit and their attempts to ridicule our union leaders are a perfect example of how true the statement remains.

My message to those bloggers is simple – carry on with your griping if you will, but you will not stop us. We will strike, we will march and we will occupy premises. Soon the government will see they cannot subjugate an entire country. Those who oppose Cameron will be watching to see those who are our friends and those who are not.

When I was a young man, we used to march against Maggie and in those days we would shout a very simple slogan. Twenty years on and it remains as relevant today as it was then:

The Workers united will never be defeated.

Saturday 26 March 2011

Budget impact on support for people with learning disabilities

GUEST POST: Anthea Sully is the Director of the Learning Disability Coalition. There are 14 member organisations and over 150 supporter organisations which campaign to ensure there is better funding for social care support for people with a learning disability. The budget focused heavily on the Chancellor’s plans for growing the economy and job creation, but there was very little which acknowledged the deepening crisis in social care support. The Learning Disability Coalition, formed in 2007 to fight against the cuts in social care, has often found that in times of crisis, it is the people who need the most support who suffer the most. In our current age of austerity, this has never been truer. In the last year, we have seen an unprecedented reduction in services and support for people with learning disabilities. These range from big cuts, such as the closure of day services and respite homes to arbitrary cuts of 10% or more to all support packages, to the small, seemingly harmless cuts such as the reduction the number of incontinence pads for which a child is eligible. Sometimes it is the smallest cuts which take away people’s dignity and are the hardest to fight against that do the most damage. It is hardly surprising then, that so many people with a learning disability, their parents and carers joined the March for the Alternative on 26th March. The recent report, Social Care – the Continuing Crisis by the Learning Disability Coalition, showed the struggle facing local councils to balance their budgets and provide adequate social care support for people with learning disabilities. 90% of councils who responded to the LDC survey stated that they have less funding than last year, with 20% already making cuts. People with learning disabilities and their families are very concerned for the future. One parent of a person with a learning disability has told us that, “they are proposing 50% cuts to the care budget [for my daughter], total removal of 1-to-1 support, and a threatened move, against our daughter’s will, to a cheaper provider.” Another summed up the importance of social care support to them, by saying: “services for disabled people are not extras or luxuries, but just help towards enabling [them] to achieve some kind of equality with the activities and lives of the rest of us.” In times when budgets are stretched, it is vital that local authorities must continue to prioritise social care and spend the money allocated on such support. However, this alone will not solve the social care crisis. There are long-term pressures, including the increase in the number of people who need support, and the higher costs of supporting people with higher needs. The Government insists that it has provided enough funding for social but it is very apparent that there needs to be significantly higher levels of funding in the system. That is why we will be continuing our campaign to ‘Protect the Frontline’.

Libya - an expensive price for Tory jingoism

Every day the government tell us the country was close to collapse when Labour left power. They insist the only way out of this ‘mess’ was the introduction of some of the most stringent cuts the country has seen since the days of Margaret Thatcher.

Already thousands have been affected and have either been reduced to short time or worse, have been made redundant as companies try to cope with a changing economic climate where the rate of inflation is now beyond the estimates the government made and a number of skill sectors find themselves either stagnant or in decline.

Meanwhile, unemployment exceeds 2.5m and more are likely as the year progresses. The Tories keep saying there isn’t enough money, so they cut essential services like Sure Start; they take away essential financial support for college students and they increase the cost of going to university threefold. In case that wasn’t enough, they sell off our beloved NHS and allow private enterprise to cream off profits from our sickness and ill-health.

They say we have no money in the coffers, but we have the funds to fire missiles on the people of Libya. The Ministry of Defence, in marked contrast to the Pentagon and the French armed forces, declines to say how many bombs or missiles have been fired from RAF Tornados or how many Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired from HMS Triumph (a Trafalgar-class submarine which the MoD declined to identify until David Cameron named her in the Commons). However, defence sources say a total of seven Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired from Triumph, compared to at least 168 fired from US submarines and ships.

Liam Fox, the defence secretary, said Tornado aircraft on Thursday launched “a number of guided Brimstone missiles at Libyan armoured vehicles which were threatening the civilian population of Ajdabiya”. He described Brimstone as a “high-precision, low collateral damage weapon optimised against demanding and mobile targets”. This was the first time the Tornados had fired weapons at Libyan targets since Saturday, the first night of the campaign.

Four Tornados were involved, probably firing no more than two bombs or Storm Shadow missiles each. The following night, the Tornados’ bombing run was aborted because a number of civilians, later identified as including western journalists, were found to be in the “intended target area”, the MoD has said. It is possible that no more than about eight bombs or missiles had been fired from RAF Tornados before the Brimstone attacks on Thursday night.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, said on Thursday that the RAF had flown 59 missions over Libya. The large majority have been reconnaissance missions. They have also included what the MoD emphasizes were the first Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft deployed in what it described as “hostile airspace”. The 10 Typhoons are only suitable for air-to-air combat, according to the MoD. The ground attack version apparently is not ready to take over the Tornados’ role – though defence sources point out that the high profile the Tornados are enjoying will make it much harder for the government to scrap them as soon as it would otherwise like to.

Now, if we take these estimates of weapon use – and they seem reliable, if not rather conservative, this would imply 15 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired at a total cost of £15m, four Storm Shadow cruise missiles costing £750,000 each – a total cost of £18m in missile use. Add to this the estimated 60 to 150 fly hours used by our aircraft for the 59 missions they have flown and this adds at least a further £4m to the cost.

Then you have our naval involvement. The Ministry of Defence has been reluctant to reveal how many ships are engaged in military activity, but we know of at least one submarine and there are almost certainly going to be others. Assuming only two ships are involved and only one of these is a submarine, then this increases the cost so far by a further £32m.

In other words, we have probably already spent betwee£25m and £60m on fighting this war in Libya. Looking at the situation over there logically, it is probable that our forces will be engaged in military activity for a few more weeks, because Gaddafi has made it abundantly clear he will not stand down. This could involve the use of our land forces to quell any resistance he might offer – all at an extra cost to the UK tax payer.

Now, before readers accuse me of over-exaggerating the costs, these figures are extremely conservative estimates, based on the very small amount of information coming from the MoD. The actual cost could be much higher.

You might ask why we are doing it – why are we spending so much of our money at a time when we are so hard up? It’s a good question. Fundamentally, the answer has nothing to do with humanitarianism, or the upholding of democratic principles. Since when have the Tories developed a penchant for supporting popular uprisings? They were silent when Castro fought Batista and they said little to support Ho Chi Minh when he took on the might of the US military. Similarly, Cameron and his cronies have never offered any kind of encouragement to ETA and the Basque separatists, or the IRA and their opposition to British colonialism.

No, the answer lies in oil! Osborne needs that to flow again so he can count on the UK economy growing again. If it doesn’t, inflation will increase and unemployment will rise. Indeed, without oil flows starting again there is a very real danger Labour could be proven right and we could slip into a double dip recession. Already Greece, Ireland and Portugal have become vulnerable and other countries could also fall.

The bottom line is this. We need to pull out of our involvement in Libya – we simply can’t afford it. If we can’t give our pensioners a decent income and offer them a robust health service, then we surely can’t afford the luxury of a jingoistic foray in the deserts of Libya.

Unfortunately, as always, the UK ignores the please from the left – until the body bags start coming back. We saw them coming from Iraq and we see still coming from Afghanistan. There is a very real danger we will soon see them coming from Libya.

We must do all we can to prevent another serviceman or woman dying on foreign soil.

Thursday 24 March 2011

Osborne's plans will force unemployment to rise

So much for Osborne helping the common man by keeping the price of fuel down. It seems he didn’t follow the likely possibilities through when he inflicted a £2bn tax on North Sea Oil.

According to latest news bulletins, Tens of thousands of jobs in the UK will go as a result of a windfall tax on North Sea oil producers announced in the Budget, the industry has warned.
Mike Tholen, economics director of Oil and Gas UK, said the change would also damage long-term energy security.

"What you see is the UK's reputation as a global player in oil and gas industry falter because of this. Many companies from abroad are looking at whether to invest in the UK, to help us get the new oil and gas reserves out of our waters. What we see is that image yet again shattered because of the tax change."

He said the chancellor had previously promised stability: "Some five years since the last big tax hit on our industry, investment had begun to pick up. Our big concern is that investment will collapse again as a result of what he's done."

"We will see jobs go and we will see technology lost, and we will undoubtedly see our nation less well off when it comes to energy security in the years ahead.

"As an industry, at the minute we are responsible for employing nearly half a million people across the UK, and there will be tens of thousands of those who will not now have jobs in the future because of this."

Mark Hanafin, managing director of Centrica Energy, said the tax hike "could have a chilling impact on future investment in the North Sea".

But a Treasury spokesman said: "We do not expect this tax change to have a significant effect on production and investment - and therefore on jobs - in the coming years as profits are expected to remain high because of the oil price.

"Even with this change, average post-tax profits per barrel are forecast to be higher in the next five years than the last five."

If ever you needed evidence that this government doesn’t know what it’s doing, it is here. Now we have a chancellor who will cause devastation to another industry (His colleague Iain Duncan Smith has previously caused chaos in the welfare to work sector). Over the coming months we can expect to see thousands of people made redundant – and why? Because Osborne wanted to give people 5p off fuel .. forgetting we already suffer over 80p a litre taxation on the stuff anyway.

Even his measly 1p off fuel didn’t work – the oil companies put the price up hours before the Budget, so when he reduced it, the price just went back to how it was at the start of the working day! There was no saving.

It is time for Osborne to go. He is incompetent and worse, his pathetic attempts at economic planning are causing chaos to the lives of thousands. How much more do we have to suffer under these Tories before they accept the will of the people and leave office in disgrace?

Tomorrow, thousands will march to make this sooner rather than later – join us. March against the cuts, march for jobs and march because it is the right thing to do.

The "no help for the poor" Budget

Despite the fact that yesterday’s budget offered little to ease the burden on thousands being made unemployed , the trade body that represents the majority of apprenticeship training providers in England (the Association of Learning Providers) has warmly welcomed the further expansion in the government’s apprenticeship programme which was announced in the Budget.

ALP said the challenge is to ensure a good proportion of the extra places go to young people as well as to converting members of the existing adult workforce into apprentices. Well whooppee-doo, but where do they hope to find these jobs, when companies are reluctant to take on new staff. Or are they going to market apprenticeships as an easy way for companies to acquire little more than slave labour?

Whatever their reason, ALP has been pressing ministers since this Tory-led government took office for adequate pre-apprenticeship provision to be in place to help school-leavers who aren’t eligible to start full apprenticeships. Reasonable, except they are setting up young people to fail – at the moment, the jobs aren’t there and with OBR growth forecasts looking bleak there is little reason to assume it will change.

So what are they key areas of the budget that might affect those less well off? Well, he has proposed a rise in the personal allowance for income tax (£3.3bn) and a rise in the child element of the child tax credit (£1.2bn). As for the rest – well Osborne and the Tories would have us believe his measures will help the world know “Britain is back in business”. But let’s look at some of these key proposals that will help industry so much.

First there is the decrease in corporation tax – well as companies are struggling to make profits this will hardly have a profound effect. In case he hasn’t read the news, many sectors are struggling to expand and some are actually in decline. Admittedly he did offer some tokens to the construction industry, but it was hardly a mass house rebuilding programme - which is something this country desperately needs if it is to adequately address housing problems and homelessness.

According to the FT last night, the winners were most companies and motorists, whilst the losers were banks, oil companies, tax avoiders and people in Lear Jets. In other words; no help for the 2.5m unemployed, no support for pensioners as they face nearly 5% inflation and watch their savings become meaningless; no support for the sick and disabled as they struggle to face daily living on a fixed income that is generally regarded as being below the poverty level; no concrete measures to combat global warming and encourage companies to adopt greener machinery and hybrid vehicles.

Noticeably, when Osborne down and listened to Ed Miliband deliver his response he looked singularly at the accusations being made against him. Admittedly Clegg tried to come to his aid by calling on Miliband to calm down – why Nick? Didn’t you like hearing the truth that you are mixing with a crowd that are creaming the wealth out of this country and sharing it amongst their capitalist cronies?

The sooner we can dump this government the better.

This morning, several thousand people working in the welfare to work sector will wake up realizing they are close to their last day in work as their redundancy notices finally expire. Thousands more in the same sector are waiting for the axe to fall on them. Osborne’s budget changes will have done nothing to save them and offer them little hope for finding alternative employment. Yet these are people that have given years of their lives to supporting and helping thousands of people out of joblessness. They never asked for huge salaries – indeed, many earned quite low incomes and nor did they want acclaim and fame. All they wanted was a little job security – but the Tories and the bosses took that away from them.

Some in this sector are in their late fifties and will probably never work again. They had never intended to retire and until recently had hoped for a few more years work to build up a small amount of savings to help them in their later years. They won’t have that now – and the finger of blame lies firmly on the likes of Osborne, Duncan Smith and Cameron.

On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of ordinary people will march against this government to show them we can take their type of politics no longer. We will show the Tories you can’t mess with the working class and get away with it. Some of my readers may not see themselves as political, others are perhaps less left-wing than myself. But I am convinced all of you care about the people in this country.

Whatever you are doing on Saturday, if it can be delayed them join with us – come to London and let your voice be heard. Let Citizen Dave, the people’s toff know we will not sit idly by and watch thousands of good people in the welfare to work sector get pushed aside for the sake of a Tory dream.

If you don’t tomorrow the bosses may well be calling you in and giving you a redundancy notice!

Tuesday 22 March 2011

Griffin and the BNP - The End is Nigh

Those readers who seldom, if ever visit the Hope not Hate website are missing something of a treat. Recent reports have suggested Nick Griffin’s future as leader of the BNP seems bleaker as each day passes. Last week a number of individuals and companies owed money by the BNP began a class action against the party and Nick Griffin personally. On Sunday night much of the North East came out against their leader.

Below, is an excellent, if long article by Mattew Collins outlining some of the issues facing Griffin and the BNP. Anyone interested in becoming more active in the fight against fascism should really consider becoming involved in a local group of Hope not Hate - the anti-fascist campaign group. Details of the organisation and local groups are available HERE

A tired and rather bloated Nick Griffin has looked better. As a fresh-faced fascist in the 1980s he projected a suave, revolutionary image as he and other middle class and university educated young men took control and strangled the life out of the moribund and predominantly working class National Front. Nick Griffin
The years of ideological neglect which saw the once mighty NF falter into little more than a spent Hitler-admiring political sect, were swept away with the ascent of the Cambridge graduate. He used long words and waved strange flags, he excited and enthused as much as he shocked and confused his followers. In his own words, you were viewed as old if you were in your thirties. He then lost control of the NF, dumped it and walked away, not long afterwards being declared a bankrupt. An incident with a shotgun robbed him of his eye.

Nearly twenty years on from the death of his “Political Soldier” NF, Griffin must be experiencing déjà vu. For the second time in his unillustrious career, Griffin is watching another party he led turn in on itself and more disturbingly for Griffin, against him again.

The British National Party and Griffin in particular are now in serious trouble. The party has gone from extreme and bullish to bellicose, lazy and confused in just over a year. The rot had set in well before last year’s electoral humiliations.

The problems had been evident since the moment Griffin took over the leadership in 1999. Each time there was discourse or a popular uprising, political conditions were such for Griffin and the BNP that he could simply paper over the cracks as the party’s members clung onto their wild political dreams.

The party under Griffin has had no fewer than four serious splits – splits that each time dented the party. Even Eddy Butler, Griffin’s most formidable and experienced opponent to date, admits that despite his fears and doubts about Griffin’s behaviour it “seemed stupid” for him to take a stand on principle “when the BNP seemed politically to be taking the correct course”. Even if, as Butler claims further, when the BNP made its first electoral gains in 2002 “Nick Griffin copied word for word my discourse”.

Of course, Griffin has never been alone when it has come to driving his political ambitions into the wilderness. His trip up the revolutionary and religious garden path in the 1980s was inspired and facilitated by Italian fascists wanted for questioning over terrorist acts, who turned his Conservative head towards dead Eastern European demigods, Colonel Gaddafi, stupidity and a temporary political suicide.

It’s either a lack of confidence in spite of his arrogance or perhaps extremely poor judgement in others that has ensured Griffin has never sunk alone. The younger and impressionable Patrick Harrington acted as Griffin’s “wingman” during their NF days, even obligingly photographing Griffin standing in front of a portrait of their political hero Colonel Gaddafi while on a begging mission to Tripoli. Harrington then took the picture to the London magazine Time Out, exposing the NF’s leadership to an uncomfortable scrutiny that has followed them everywhere since then. Since the pair ran the NF into the ground, Harrington has borne the brunt of the venom directed at the two by former members and observers, while Griffin has made a thousand public apologies and self-criticisms for his few years of revolutionary weakness, even backing a violent street approach when joining the BNP in the mid nineties, to stave off the party’s modernisers at the time.

Harrington appears to have developed no such weakness for popularity contests, and since joining Griffin on the BNP’s European payroll and as leader of the BNP’s trade union front Solidarity, has seemingly continued a destructive and controversial course that Griffin so warmed to. Others have fallen by the wayside; Dr Mark Deavin, formerly of the UK Independence Party and a close friend of David Irving, jumped ship when exposed as Griffin’s right-hand man by the Cook Report in an exposé screened in 1997 exposing Griffin’s plan to take over the party. The NF’s Wayne Ashcroft also deserted Griffin after he too was exposed. His job was supposed to be the delivery of the rump of what was left of the NF, a party that remained ferociously anti-Griffin.

While the old guard put up a formidable fight to stop Griffin sweeping to power in the BNP’s first ever leadership contest in 1999, they were crushed by a campaign orchestrated to humiliate them and destroy their own political careers and aspirations by ridicule, populism and modernisation.

Griffin’s eventual running mate for wresting control of the BNP was the convicted bomber Tony Lecomber, a man who had also reinvented himself after a period of terrorism, street thuggery and imprisonment. Lecomber had used the second chance given to him by the party to get himself close enough to John Tyndall, who was then the BNP leader, to be in a prime position when the time came to deliver the fatal and personal blows to Tyndall’s leadership.

A steady growth and the capture of several council seats around the country from 2002 onwards allowed Griffin the sort of leeway Butler speaks of. Scandals involving extensions to his family home and the sale of second hand cars in the party’s publications caused large rifts, large enough even to see off some deputy leaders, but Griffin’s real weakness has been to surround himself during his 12-year tenure with people of either dubious morals or personality defects.

Lecomber later fell by the wayside after Griffin’s former bodyguard exposed what is alleged to have been a plot orchestrated by Lecomber to hire him for politically motivated murders. The bodyguard, an alleged gangland hitman, fell by the wayside himself and suffered too from the party’s desire to purge not people of questionable values and lifestyle, but those expressing dissent in what they felt was the defence of the party over Griffin’s personal interests.

The closer people get to Griffin, the more obvious it seems that it is their own judgement call over whether they protect the interests of the party or adhere to the cult of Griffin’s personality. By keeping and promoting people with behavioural, political or lifestyle skeletons in their cupboards, Griffin is able to keep a lid on dissenters and the competition firmly at bay. But the past 12 months has seen this all collapse like a house of cards.

The Belfast operation, a call centre staffed by the family of both Griffin and its owner Jim Dowson, drew national and international attention to the way that Griffin’s BNP did business. Dowson, an evangelical anti-abortionist with an ego almost as big as Griffin’s, had a record for screwing money out of people by any means necessary and an arrogance that demanded he was obeyed and was always right. Initially Griffin promoted Dowson to run almost every operation in the party, from funding to staffing and even some aspects of campaigning. When Dowson spoke, party members and employees had to dance to his tune. The large sums of cash funnelled into the party were far more important than the constant noise of disquiet emanating from within the party over the business practices, which often bordered on plain harassment.

Griffin’s election to the European Parliament in 2009, his tenth year as leader, quelled an internal revolt. Dowson took a huge amount of the credit, the success of Griffin and Andrew Brons in getting elected to Europe was due to the large amount of money Dowson had raised and the professional looking operation he ran for the party. The dissent in the party immediately quietened down, but it was perhaps to be the last great political celebration of Griffin’s leadership. Dowson paid the piper and now the man described as Griffin’s consigliere, a term for a Mafia adviser, was calling the tune and being referred to as the party’s owner.

Searchlight threw a large amount of resources into investigating the call centre and Dowson in particular. Over painstaking hours investigating Dowson’s financial dealings, we uncovered a paper trail that began with the exposé of the truth behind who actually owned the BNP’s “Truth Truck”, a long wheelbase vehicle the party never actually owned, despite claiming they had bought it. We also exposed – at great pain to the BNP’s cautious membership – that call centre workers were in fact not dedicated ideological fanatics like themselves but were in fact hired help from a Belfast employment agency.

Working out of Belfast we began to turn the screw on the BNP as far away as in Brussels. We uncovered a series of plush properties that the BNP were leasing, as well as funding and property scams and, most surprising of all, that at the peak of the BNP’s activity there, no fewer than four staff members were passing or had passed information about the BNP’s internal affairs to various newspapers.

As Dowson grew increasingly unpopular with the BNP’s members, Griffin more and more relied upon him. Dowson had heated clashes with staff members who eventually sued, costing the party large sums of money. The party ran up huge debts and legal bills, as Dowson also gave disastrously damaging legal advice over the Marmite election broadcast.

As the BNP prepared for the 2010 elections, the lack of money began to kick in. Membership renewals began to tail off and there was a recruitment freeze to contend with, resulting from the legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Internally, the BNP was saying that it could take not only the Barking parliamentary seat but bizarrely another two seats, as well as full control of Barking and Dagenham council. To ensure this, Griffin believed that he had to spearhead the campaign personally, choosing for himself the plum Barking seat and putting out of joint the nose of the party’s London Assembly member Richard Barnbrook.

In the absence of either dissent or reason, senior party sycophants believed that all this was actually possible. Large debts were run up in preparation for an enormous campaign and, as creditors closed on the party, new credit accounts were opened. Belfast, on Dowson’s own doorstep, appeared to have a number of businesses grateful for the BNP’s trade.

The first high profile person to break ranks was Mark Collett, the party’s director of publicity and former Griffin protégé. For a while he had been lined up as Griffin’s possible successor and had even dated Griffin’s daughter, Jennifer. Collett, another one with shadows hanging over him, became the victim of a bizarre invented story that he had attempted to have Griffin and Dowson murdered.

On 8 May 2010, Griffin was telling the media that “London is finished” and that he was only there (at the election count in Barking and Dagenham) to “pick up the bodies”. While Griffin faced the hostile and jubilant media Butler and Barnbrook found a small room in the same building as the count and began to plot. The splits began almost immediately.

2010 ended for Griffin with his daughter fleeing Belfast and the BNP shut out of their office by Dowson. Their former staff there are currently part of a class action, together with other former employees and creditors, to obtain monies owed to them. The current coterie surrounding Griffin is a collection of people with dubious personal characteristics and political baggage as is always the way. It consists of disgraced former school teachers, alleged drug dealers, pornographers and swingers. At their head is the returned Patrick Harrington, as unpopular as ever and not even a party member. Harrington is alleged by BNP rebels to be an IRA supporting sadomasochism fan.

Griffin and Harrington have responded to the resignations and turmoil with legal letters, expulsions and a further purging of members who refuse to toe the Griffin line. Dowson credits Harrington with driving him out of the party. Harrington responds to most criticisms by issuing legal letters.

Griffin is facing a further election meltdown this May. Defending 11 council seats, he finds himself with more BNP stalwarts without membership than with. The dissenters are advising people not to stand for the party and are now calling on those who left the party as far back as in the 1990s to join them in reconciliation.

The mood in the party is black. Stalinesque summonses to appear before disciplinary committees arrive randomly and unrelentingly in party organisers’ post. Members are banned even from reading anti-Griffin websites or being in the same room as rebels. Two large meetings in the past month in Yorkshire and the North East have ended with paid-up members publicly calling for Griffin to stand down. In response, those individuals receive summonses to attend further disciplinary meetings. Former high flyers such as Nick Cass and Chris Beverley are the latest to have been suspended; others follow daily.

Last week, the first manifestation of the long list of Griffin and BNP debts turned up on the Griffin family’s door. Four large men from Belfast arrived demanding monies from Griffin’s parents. Some people will not be so easily brushed away.

TUC - Job vacancies twice as sparse in Labour held constituencies

There are almost ten dole claimants for every job vacancy in Labour held constituencies, more than double the rate in Conservative seats, according to a TUC analysis published last week, just ahead of the latest unemployment statistics.
The TUC analysis finds that there are 9.8 Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) claimants per vacancy in Labour held constituencies, compared to a ratio of 6.1 in Liberal Democrat seats and 4.5 in seats with a Conservative MP.

Across the UK, there are 6.3 dole claimants per job vacancy.

Of the 50 constituencies with the toughest job prospects - the highest number of dole claimants per job vacancy - 43 are Labour, four are Liberal Democrat, two are Conservative and one is held by the Scottish National Party (SNP). Forty one of the 50 constituencies with the most buoyant job prospects - the lowest number of claimants per vacancy - are Conservative held.

Now, call me cynical if you will, but doesn't this sound like a strategy to run down Labour constituency and cream all the pickings so they go to Tory ones? Nah - the Tories would never be so low as to just look after their own .... would they?

Why are our buses so bad?

I admit it – I am feeling really grumpy this morning.

I came into work today by bus and, as usual, it was packed to the hilt with people standing and swaying in the aisles. Never mind the safety aspects here, it makes for an uncomfortable ride for all the passengers. It’s not even as if it’s cheap – the ticket costs over £5 to get into the centre of town and it only runs every hour.

You see, I live in a rural area and like many people who live away from town centres, we have a lousy bus service. There is no bus on a Sunday and if I want to get into town after 5.30pm I have had it, unless I am prepared to walk 1.5 miles to the next village and catch a different service.

Similarly, I can’t work overtime because my last bus leaves the centre of town at 5.50pm, so if I choose to work late it means a 40 minute walk home.

This morning I got on the bus and it was already packed. There was no point in waiting for a later one, because that comes after 9am – and I am already supposed to be in work. So I, like many commuters have to act like a sardine, sat alongside a crowd of students with knapsacks and bags. None of us enjoy the experience, but no-one says anything.

Like many people I don't drive. In my case it is a blend of reasons - partly financial, because running a car is so expensive these days. But also for health reasons as I had a small stroke a couple of years ago and it has affected my reaction times - so, although DVLA say I can continue to drive, I have chosen to remove myself from the roads, because I do not feel I am a good driver any longer. In my eyes, this seems a logical and rational decision.

It’s not as if the bus company is doing badly either, as the figures below show:

RESULTS

Year to31 Dec 0931 Dec 08Change
Item£000£000%
Turnover3,147,8003,042,200+3.5%
Operating Costs3,034,3002,870,400+5.7%
Operating Profit/ (Loss)113,500171,800-3.9%
Pre-Tax profit/ (Loss)74,900150,000-50.1%


Now, although the figures aren't fantastic, they aren't bad either and with these sorts of figures coming out, is it not a simple act to simply put one extra bus on at peak times to make sure grumpy old folk like me can sit in comfort on their way to work.

Or is that simply asking too much?

Monday 21 March 2011

We need to take the abuse out of politics

When I was about 13 or 14-years old I was an anarchist. Oh, I don’t mean the bomb-throwing bearded type with a cloak and a suspicious look type, or even the crazy, violent ‘I want to break up the G20 talks’ type. No, I was more the ‘I want to shock my parents’ type. You see, my parents were both lifelong Conservatives, with very traditional values and beliefs, so my radicalism came as quite a shock to both of them.

Nonetheless, and to their eternal credit, they never prevented me from exploring anarchist values and beliefs, or reading Proudhon and Kropotkin – as a far as a 13-year old is able to understand them anyway.

I vividly recall one night my mother raising the subject of my political beliefs and discussing the comparison between anarchism and ‘traditional’ political beliefs. That night we argued and tussled over key philosophical and political points until about 3 am. By the time I went to bed she had given me one of the greatest gifts of my life – and it is one I still cherish today – the ability to recognise the merits in another person’s argument.

You see, I cannot understand this 21st century notion of ‘trashing’ people – it just seems rude and uncaring to me. Why do we do it? Well, I am sure dome do it because it makes them feel good, while others do it because they feel if they win they feel stronger – a kind of return to the caveman mentality.

Why am I talking about this today? Well I have been reading through a lot of the left-wing press lately and some of the comments being made about David Cameron and George Osborne … and they disturb me.

You see, as regular readers will know, I am no fan of either of these two men. I find their political values and beliefs totally contradict everything I believe in. However, I am convinced they believe in their brand of Conservativism equally as strongly as I believe in socialism. I would argue whilst I think he is wrong, Cameron truly believes his ‘austerity measures’ will make Britain a safer, stronger, better place. And when he talks about the Big Society, he truly believes a politics based on the acts of individuals working together in local communities is far better than state intervention and public ownership of the means of production.

It is my opinion David Cameron is totally of the opinion anyone can achieve success, if they are willing to work and sacrifice. It is his view in such instances, the state should not intervene and ought to offer support to help the little man or woman become bigger.

He holds there will always be those who are advantaged and there is nothing wrong with acquiring money and property, as long as it is done legally and morally. If this results in some people being disadvantaged, then this is just the nature of capitalism. If they become poor, the state should prop them up for a time, but there must be an underlying principle of having to earn the support of the state.

He does not believe these things out of some malevolent belief demanding he protects his own self-interest although, as a human being, I am sure he includes himself in the pack of those whom he wants to help. There is nothing evil about any of the Conservative leadership – they are dedicated people, committed to their own personal values – and it may surprise some readers, but I do totally respect all of them, some more than others.

This does not mean I agree with anything they say, far from it, I think their views are dangerous, divisive and cruel. I hold modern Conservativism as practiced by this government will destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people and reduce this country of a society of “them” and “us”.

But I do respect Cameron – he has a brain and a good one, he is a highly competent politician and daily demonstrates he is a master of his craft and he is an idealist. I have always been drawn to idealists, perhaps because I am one myself. We each want different things for this country, but we have a vision of how this country should be.

It is wrong to ridicule the Tory leadership; it will do nothing to forward the socialist cause and makes a mockery of the left argument. Instead, socialists need to recognise that in Cameron we have the most dangerous of enemies – a thinker with a philosophical path for the future for this country. This makes him the most dangerous kind of Conservative – and he should be treated accordingly.

Socialists need to review their arguments – remove the personality politics and keep attacking the issues. On blogs lately I notice how more right-wingers continue to attack me personally – even though I am careful to refrain from personal abuse. The right are starting to worry, because they know they are losing the argument – and like every kind of frightened animal, when it is in a corner it will use any means of attack before it gives in.

The left can and will win – we just need to keep up the pressure

Sunday 20 March 2011

The Doublespeak of Tory Economic Policy

George Osborne has said it would be "a huge mistake" for the government to water down its spending cuts as he prepares to deliver his second Budget. This is despite evidence last week that UK unemployment rose by 27,000 in the three months to the end of January to 2.53 million, the highest since 1994.

Despite Tory protestations that things are getting better, public sector employment fell by 45,000 in the final quarter of 2010 to 6.2 million, even before the full impact of the government's spending cuts started to take effect. At the same time, local government employment fell by 24,000, central government by 9,000 and Civil Service by 8,000, while employment in private firms increased by 77,000 to almost 23 million.

Far from getting better, things are going to get worse. Even David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, has started to see the light and has argued things will not improve. He said: "We reiterate our forecast that total unemployment is likely to increase to 2.65 million over the next 12-15 months before it starts declining,"

Further evidence of things not going so well economically were revealed in a report last week from IPPR, who indicated England is facing a "growing housing crisis". The report estimated a shortfall of 750,000 homes by 2025. On a regional basis the biggest effect would be in London, with a housing gap of 325,000 homes, followed by Yorkshire and Humberside with 151,000 homes too few.

Economic growth has failed to expand at the level Osborne has hoped and, he certainly did not anticipate the current level of inflation. Indeed, with it now running at twice the Bank of England's 2% target, many economists say a rate rise soon is highly likely. Another report out last week gave little to amuse the Chancellor either. Accountants BDO said that growth would remain sluggish and any imminent rate rise could prolong the weakness. It said confidence in the manufacturing sector had risen to a seven-month high during February, with the BDO Optimism Index reaching 95.5. But despite the rise, BDO said medium-term prospects still looked bleak, with the index failing to reach the 100 mark, which signals sustainable economic growth.

Now, courtesy of Citizen Dave’s little foray into the deserts of Libya, Brent crude rose as much as $2.26 to $116.19 a barrel, while US light crude rose as much as $2.12 to $103.19.

Now yesterday, on the Andrew Marr show, Osborne said Chancellor George Osborne said he was "looking very carefully" at freezing the duty in Wednesday's Budget. In the interview he argued he understood the pressure motorists were under from record-high petrol prices.

Well George, I have some bad news for you – you may understand motorist’s anger, but there is very little you can do to assuage it. With oil running at that price, there is little likelihood of any sizable decrease in the price at the fuel pumps for a while. And, even if he succeeded in bringing down taxes, he is doing so at the price of cutting revenue. Heads he loses, tails he doesn’t win.

Finally, a report out today from the Bank of England has shown nearly two-thirds of people expect the rate of inflation to rise in the next 12 months. The poll, conducted in February, showed that 62% of those asked were expecting a rise, up from 52% in November. And a report by Nationwide shows consumer confidence fell to a record low in February, surpassing levels seen during the recession.

All in all, the current situation is far from good. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to become too hopeful that this week Osborne will do anything to stimulate growth and/ or reduce the number unemployed.

Instead we can look forward to harsher times, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. When Osborne stands up this week and delivers his Budget, he had better remember the working class have long memories. On Saturday 26th March the mobilisation will begin and thousands will converge on London to join brothers and sisters in the trade union movement to oppose Tory cuts.

To quote Citizen Dave himself, in a comment during Comic Relief: “ Be afraid, be very afraid.”

Well Dave, I hope you are …. Because we are coming to get you.

A time to weep for Libya

Well it’s started and I am sure the xenophobes will be delighted. British aircraft are attacking Gaddafi’s forces in Libya and already (according to reports from the BBC) 110 missiles have been fired.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am no apologist for Gaddafi – the man is a tyrant and so far removed from socialism it is untrue. Even worse, it is a disgrace that internationally, supposedly socialist states like Venezuela have continued to support his regime.

The rebels in Benghazi have legitimate claims and should be supported and encouraged – but not through gunship diplomacy. Far better that we had sent them humanitarian aid – doctors, nurses and medical supplies. Instead, the United Nations has determined we should intervene in the internal affairs of another country.

US President Barack Obama revealed the doubled standards of American foreign policy when speaking during a visit to Brazil. He said the US was taking "limited military action" as part of a "broad coalition … We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

Oddly enough, the US, or the UK didn’t feel the same when Pinochet was massacring thousands in Chile, and they have remained silent about genocide in Uganda, Rwanda Zimbabwe, Darfur, or the Sudan. No offers here of sending in military support to protect civilians from the acts of oppression by a tyrant.

So, is this really about preserving a budding democracy? Of course not, it’s about two things. Firstly, it is about oil. In 2007, BP and its Libyan partner, the Libya Investment Corporation (LIC) signed a major exploration and production agreement with Libya's National Oil Company (NOC). The initial exploration commitment was set at a minimum of $900million, with significant additional appraisal and development expenditures upon exploration success.

Similarly, Royal Dutch Shell has an exploration programme in the country, started after sanctions were lifted in 2004.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said last week that Libya's oil output had slumped to a "trickle" and this had helped to drive up the price of Brent crude by 20pc this year. The IEA also said exports from Libya, which are light, "sweet" oils favoured by refiners, may take "many months" to return to normal. International capitalism cannot afford to see these supplies dry up and if rebel forces continue to fight unopposed, Gaddafi will carry on his resistance. Fighting could go on for weeks, or even months before he could be finally able to reunite the country. Even then the marks of division will be transparent and ruling the country would become virtually impossible.

Military intervention will effectively end Gaddafi’s attacks on the rebels and international governments can reasonably assume that once the resistance has taken control of the country, they will be ‘friendly’ to Western pressure to resume oil supplies.

Secondly, Cameron recognises his position as prime minister is insecure. Opposition to his policies is running high and he is expecting matters to get worse. A similar situation occurred under the Thatcher regime – until she sent the warships in to support the Falkland Islands. Suddenly opinion polls started to swing the other ways and Maggie found herself running on the crest of a wave.

It was a strategy John Major tried with some considerable success in 1991 and kept him in power for another six years. His approach was repeated by Tony Blair in the second Iraq War, but this time the British people were less enthused as they watched the dead returning from the battle front.

Now Cameron is repeating the same mistakes – using military forces to stimulate our own xenophobia and prop up his government. The trouble is that Gaddafi is not like Hussein. He will not walk away quietly, or hide in a bunker. He will arm civilians … and that will stimulate a bloody civil war between pro- and anti-government forces.

In sending in fighter planes and warships, the West has effectively guaranteed that the military action in this sad country will increase and as a result thousands will die as brother and sister fight each other. As the “Stop the War” Coalition has argued – this is not our war. If the rebels fail, it is sad and they will have to fight another day.

CND stated it far more clearly than I and I reproduce it in full.

“CND regrets the British government’s decision to pursue military intervention in Libya and opposes the current attacks taking place on Libya. CND urges a political and diplomatic response to the Libyan regime's ceasefire declaration.

Intervention is difficult and dangerous and runs the risk not only of major civilian casualties - and some have already been reported - but also escalation into a major war in Libya and even further afield. The lessons of the last decade’s interventionist wars have not been learnt: military intervention is not the answer to the just demands of the Libyan people for freedom and democracy.

CND urges political solutions including increased sanctions on the Libyan regime and calls on the British government to guarantee that civilian life will be protected and depleted uranium munitions will not be used in any attacks.”


If we are to avoid a repeat of the Afghanistan problem, we must stand down from all future military engagements in Libya.

Friday 18 March 2011

Who cares about AV

Now I confess I have a very low boredom threshold. I seldom watch TV and last night, whilst millions enjoyed watching Comic Relief, I read, listened to music, played a little myself and painted. Not that I am anti the idea of giving money to charity, I’m not. I just don’t see why I have to endure the idea of watching people who aren’t funny and endure them making fools of themselves for hours .
I admit it, as the years go on, I have become a grumpy old man. One of my pet hates on the blogosphere at the moment is all the fuss being made about AV. Those who are ‘for’ it keep trying to tell me it will save the planet, restore justice to the oppressed, feed the hungry and bring a new level of democracy to our voting system.

On the other hand, the “no” lobby insist any change from FPTP will bring instability, economic and political chaos and the emergence of Beelzebub and the Hordes of the Night.

Call me cynical, but I don’t think either side is really telling me the way it is. In fact, the way I see it is that if we had been allowed to vote AV in the last election, we would have still had a Tory/ Lib Dem coalition, except the Conservatives would have had a few less seats. As for previous elections, well the evidence from what I have read has tended to lean a little more favourably towards Labour, but not by any huge amount.

So, it seems they want us to vote on an election system where one option (FPTP) will result in the election of Candidate A and the other system (AV) will bring the election of Candidate A. If that’s the case,, why bother to change it?

The whole thing just seems like one big joke – with no real choice being offered in the first place. It’s not even as if the population are chomping at the bit and saying they want change. Sure, the Lib Dems have been spouting on about it for years, but until they came to power, they were all in favour of AV. Since Citizen Dave gave a couple of them seats around the Cabinet table they have watered down their views so much, its hard to spot which one of them isn’t a Tory. Gone are all the ideals of true electoral reform and instead they call for a wishy washy voting system that marginally favours their own politics.

The pro-lobby are probably hoping that holding the referendum on May 5th will help their cause, because people will be voting in local council elections at the same time. But let’s not forget that, on average, only about 40% of voters turn out on Election Day. So, whatever the result, it isn’t going to offer a true representation of the “people’s will” anyway.

Not that this will stop either side when the result is declared. If the “Yes” lobby win they will hail it as a positive result for democracy and if “No’s” succeed, they will argue their campaign has been vindicated – this is even though as many as two-thirds of the electorate may not vote.

The whole thing is boring and let’s faces it, pretty meaningless. The end product will largely be the same whatever the result and will put back the real opportunity for true electoral for a generation. Courtesy of Clegg selling out the people will not have the opportunity to consider the Single Transferrable Vote – the one option that could have changed the face of British politics.As it is, Clegg wants us to keep the same corrupt system, or replace it with a mechanism that will guarantee votes for extreme parties will be far more status than they deserve.

No wonder Cameron gets on so well with him.

So, on referendum day which way will I vote? Well in an ideal world, I wouldn’t, but the facts of the matter are that I will go to the polling station to vote against my local Tory councillors. As a result the election officials will almost certainly give me a voting slip for the referendum. Now, I have never spoiled a ballot paper in my life – it always seems a total waste of time. So, I will have to choose – and neither of them appeal to me.

I guess in the end I will probably go along with AV, but not because I like it. I don’t, but I like FPTP even less. I have spent large chunks of my life calling for electoral reform and have been an advocate of STV for over 40 years. To have it taken away from me by a fellow supporter of the system (Nick Clegg) is an unforgivable act of treachery.

I hope history rewards him appropriately with the argument that he was probably one of the weakest leaders the Liberal/ Social Democratic movement have seen since the days of the Whigs.

If the Lib Dems have any sense of self-respect they will dump him and the other quislings in the Tory Cabinet at the earliest opportunity

Wanted: a political programme for the anti-cuts movement

One of the things that the anti-cuts movement is conspicuous in lacking currently is a political programme. An economic programme it has some suggestions of, but a political one, it totally lacks. This may seem insignificant but it is actually far from it.

For example, one of the reasons we have struggled to win any support for our call for Labour councils to refuse to implement the cuts is the legal situation that local councils find themselves in. It’s all very well calling for councils to set illegal budgets, but doing so does nothing to address the democratic deficit that is inherent in the position that local councils face, which is very real and tangible.

Democratically speaking, is it right that if elected local representatives vote to implement a budget that is not defined as ‘legal’ by the central authority then central government has the power set and impose a ‘legal’ budget of its own choosing through the Council’s Chief Executive? Of course it isn’t but where and when have you seen a demand from the anti-cuts movement that this power be removed from the arsenal of central government? Nowhere is my guess.

This is because the leadership of the anti-cuts movement wants a movement that is ‘broad’ and has determined, as the left usually does, that broadness requires unity at the lowest common denominator. Political demands, like a programme for local democracy and to end the situation described above, are therefore deemed as inappropriate because they carry within them the risk that they will ‘divide’ the movement because obviously they are harder to agree. Although this approach may partially succeed in establishing a ‘broad’ base of unity, that unity will always be shallow and brittle. Besides, in the case above, we can see where it is actually exclusionary because it offers no solace to Labour councillors who would face fines and losing a job they probably love if they acceded to the demands of the anti-cuts movement.

Another more sinister reason exists for this self-limitation. It allows the left-wing corpuscles that predominate within these movements to establish a division of labour where they are the ones that ‘do’ the politics while the movement is what essentially provides a pool of possible recruits. People who enter into it and become newly politicised are of course likely to be impressed with people who provide answers to political questions, and therefore a gravitation in the general direction of these groups is to be expected. The united front long ceased to be a serious political strategy, and is most definitely now a serious recruitment strategy, maybe this is why it’s often deemed to be of such a ‘special kind’?

When it comes to the achieving actual victory though this somewhat self-interested approach is less than helpful. It disarms the movement and sends it into numerous cul de sacs where the void is filled with a odd brand of zealotry hyperactivity. At a meeting of the Leeds Labour Representation Committee one comrade opined that they felt they were becoming ‘professional demonstrators’. I can see why. Not a day goes by without a demonstration being called and slowly but surely the numbers are cut to the bone and even the faithful eventually no longer attend. Of course, demonstrations have their place but they cannot be a substitute for a strong political campaign which pursues other avenues of exerting pressure. However, this necessitates having a political programme and as we have already established this is something the anti-cuts movement is solely lacking.

Westminster massages housing figures; unemployed go to the bottom of list

Westminster City Council has found new ways of reducing the numbers of people in Westminster it is required to house and has announced changes to its Housing Allocation policy. These are just a few:

1. People who are unemployed will be put to the bottom of the housing lists – this includes families.

2. The local connection rule will now include those who work in Westminster.

3. The Family Quota system will be ended. This is where children of Westminster families would be re-housed locally as they became adults.

4. Families with children will be given priority over families with young adults.

5. Time limits will be imposed on families living in temporary accommodation to accept alternative housing.

Councillor Guthrie McKie, Westminster’s Labour Housing Spokesperson said: “Not only is the Council abandoning hundreds of families in housing need, it is in the process of reshaping our communities. They have failed to deal with poverty and deprivation, so they will just ship in people on middle incomes to take up housing in the City. The centre of London will become like Paris and New York where ghettos are created for the poor.

“It is no coincidence that these measures come in as the Council is putting more funding into ‘intermediate’ housing via Westminster Community Homes, the unaccountable charity set up by the Council. This higher rented housing will be out of the reach of most people in housing need.”

Thursday 17 March 2011

Clare Solomon, SWP Reject, Rejected Again

(This is a reprint of an article that first appeared on the website, Harry's Place."
Written by Alan A, March 17th 2011

Clare Solomon spent four years in the Socialist Workers Party until she was expelled last year. She is a 37 year old mature student and was, until today, the President of the University of London Union: a post which she succeeded to after the person who came first was disqualified.

You will be delighted to hear that she has been defeated, again, in the election for the ULU President. Let’s hope this is the last we hear of her.

Solomon is also a disgusting racist, who got into trouble last year when she posted antisemitic comments about Jews on her Facebook page.

It therefore is unsurprising to find that Counterfire, the useless vanity project for Germaine Lindsay and John Rees – who were expelled and resigned from the Socialist Workers Party – had invested strongly in Clare Solomon’s campaign.

Very nice to see them disappointed too.

Wednesday 16 March 2011

Why the "New Labour" project failed

Since Ed Miliband’s election as leader of the Labour Party, I have been reflecting on why the membership has so readily walked away from the “New Labour” project and why the electorate failed to support Gordon Brown last May.

Both Blair and Brown tried to present a model of politics they described as being both left and liberal in its leaning, but in reality, it was neither. In 1997, Tony Blair presented Labour’s election programme and put forward the ideals of equal opportunity, social justice and national renewal.

After a long period of Tory government, led first by Thatcher and then John Major, these felt like a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, by 2010 the mood had changed and the New Labour approach appeared technocratic and uninspiring. Indeed, when Gordon Brown stood on the platform during the leadership debates, he sounded like a man bereft of original ideas.

The facts are that New Labour’s social policies stemmed from their economic model for moving Britain forward. Blair, and later Brown believed incentives, accurate and well-planned commissioning and effective communication exchange could bring about a social revolution in this country. As part of this, Brown, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer held that finance capital and the banks were the key, because they were the best-informed agents for supplying ‘stability with growth’ for the national economy.

This meant that the substance of public policies were based on these economic principles. Thus, plans for modernization and expansion of public services collapsed when the banking crisis emerged, alongside a broad public lack of confidence in Blair’s passion for target-setting and clear regulations.

As Professor Bill Jordan has argued, the same theory which prescribed a “light touch and a limited touch” for the oversight of the banks had also laid down the detailed structures – the NHS trusts, strategic authorities, inspection bodies, outcome measures, standards and funding principles – for the public sector. As a result, central government amassed the information, designed the incentives and sanctions and defined the contracts under which its policies were planned in order to produce socially desirable results.

As a system that operated impersonally through abstract economic forces, it neither required, nor sought the involvement, or loyalty of staff and service users. The notion put forward by New Labour under their Patient’s/ Citizen’s/ Parent’s Charter that service users should be engaged in delivery was only true to a point – their input was only of merit if it confirmed the planning and strategic aims of the existing structures, where it differed, it became a nuisance. As a result, even New Labour’s achievements often went unappreciated, whilst its mechanistic processes were broadly rejected and its failings deplored.

It was only a matter of time before this weakness in the New Labour project would be exploited. The heavy swing to Labour in 1997 crumbled almost as soon as it achieved power and continued through the 2001 and 2005 elections. By 2010, defeat was inevitable, but was enhanced by the Tories ability to identify New Labour’s shortcomings and offer an attractive alternative. This, coupled with a charismatic leader with the ability to ‘work the media’, meant the Tories were riding high on a wave of success. Their proposal to take power away from the state and switch it to the individual and communities achieved mass support in an electorate tired of hearing the ‘newspeak’ of performance standards and fed up of living in a climate where policies emerged out of needs assessments and risk analyses. When the Tories spoke of the “bonfire of the quangos”, they reached the hearts and minds of the electorate.

Even public servants working in the system were unconvinced by the arguments put forward by New Labour strategists like David Miliband, Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. Most felt disconnected from the human nature of their services. Scandals such as the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Hospital Trust that led to unnecessary deaths and poor standards of care, showed that ordinary compassion and basic professional standards had been sacrificed for the attainment of lucrative Foundation status, and inspections (despite having clearly defined guidelines) failed to identify lapses in patient care.

In the end, the New Labour project showed little or no sensitivity to the moral and ethical features that sustain good practice, focusing instead on implementing “evidence-based methods through electronic record-keeping and assessing “quality standards” against official checklists. The result was that a party once dedicated to the social welfare of the working class was now governing a society where empathy, creativity and imagination were attitudes of the past.

Cameron cleverly recognized this and promised public servants that, if elected, he would give them more autonomy and the discretion to ‘use their judgment’. It proved popular. He then told the electorate he wanted to see a culture where public servants would be more accountable to service users. In advocating the creation of the Big Society, Cameron was calling for new and existing community organizations to assist in the formation of groups to support people at a local level. As part of this, he extended New Labour’s “Rights and Responsibilities” agenda by arguing that if we were to repair Broken Britain, it would need a new volunteer army who accepted that as citizens they would need to take responsibility for rebuilding local communities.

Under New Labour, citizenship had been viewed quite differently and had been defined as a contract between the individual and the state and sustained through the former’s independence and self-responsibility. In this analysis, ethical goals such as distributive equity (including the redistribution of wealth), social well-being and sustainable lifestyles were not the responsibility of each individual, but the state and it was the duty of government to manipulate the framework to bring about the best outcomes.

New Labour by the end was blinkered and unwilling to hear any opposition. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggesting the electorate saw UK society as too individualistic was largely ignored. Instead, the government breached some of the most sacred cows of modern socialism and imposed greater levels of surveillance, more sanctions and restrictions of civil rights and attacks on the most disadvantaged members of society.

In the end, New Labour was consigned to the garbage bin of history and Cameron and the Tories were elected. Significantly, the Tories failed to deliver on almost all of their election pledges – replacing them with some of the most austere measures this country has seen for a generation. A mass movement is building that is angry and determined to stand against the Tories and their allies, the Lib Dems. Most of this opposition is coming from people with little or no allegiance to the Labour Party. Indeed, the majority have, for reasons mentioned above, good reason not to trust the Labour Party – some will feel let down, others will have no history of associating the party with radicalism and militancy.

The coming months will be critical - Labour could easily opt for continuing along the social democratic path laid out by Blair, Mandelson, Miliband and the rest of the ‘old school’. If they choose this route there is a probability Labour will not be in power for years. The bitterness it will leave amongst activists, coupled with the lack of trust for the leadership will guarantee the party remains on the opposition benches.

Alternatively, the Party can look inside itself and rediscover its socialist roots. It will require rigorous honesty and a willingness to accept the New Labour project was, in many respects, a mistake. More importantly, it will mean redefining the goals and philosophy that will drive the party forward. In this respect, the Labour Representation Committee will have a critical role in rebuilding the party. However, it will mean forming alliances with other socialist groups – something the hard left has historically been poor at. It will also mean developing a far more media friendly face to attract new supporters. In both thee areas the hard left has a long way to go.

It’s all very well marching alongside comrades at demonstrations, or applauding loudly at left-wing conferences, but we have to take things to a whole new level. We have to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of party members and extend it to establish a major political force amongst the electorate.

No-one ever said the path to socialism would be easy.
Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics