Why we celebrate Worker's Day

Today we celebrate a holiday that is under threat from the Tories. They share this passion for its abolition along with the past fascist governments of Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal. In an attempt to take control of the worker’s holiday, in 1955, the Roman Catholic Church dedicated May 1 to "Saint Joseph the Worker". The Catholic Church considers Saint Joseph the patron saint of (among others) workers, craftsmen, immigrants and "people fighting communism". Needless to say they did not succeed.

Readers of this blog will be aware of the fact that I hold that for centuries the working class of this country have been down-trodden and oppressed. They will also know how strongly I hold that the principles of socialism need to be carried forward until the scourge of capitalism is removed from this country and every other nation.

The working class have a long international tradition for fighting this oppression and history shows how, in every instance, capitalism and the ‘state’ moved against ordinary people to maintain the status quo.

In 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labour Unions passed a resolution stating that eight hours would constitute a legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886. The resolution called for a general strike to achieve the goal, since legislative methods had already failed. With workers being forced to work ten, twelve, and fourteen hours a day, rank-and-file support for the eight-hour movement grew rapidly, despite the indifference and hostility of many union leaders. By April 1886, 250,000 workers were involved in the May Day movement.

Working classes have existed since the development of agriculture, about ten thousand years ago. Serfs, slaves, tradespeople and others were forced to turn over the fruits of their labour to an exploiting class. But the modern working class - the class of "free labour," whose exploitation is hidden by the wage system - is only several hundred years old. Although its exploitation is masked, it is no less brutal. Men, women and children are forced to work long hours in miserable conditions just to eke out a bare subsistence.

Ultimately, this led the International Socialist Conference meeting in 1904 to call on "all Social Democratic Party organizations and trade unions of all countries to demonstrate energetically on May First for the legal establishment of the 8-hour day, for the class demands of the proletariat, and for universal peace." The congress made it "mandatory upon the proletarian organizations of all countries to stop work on May 1, wherever it is possible without injury to the workers."

Today we honour the decisions made at that meeting and take a few moments to remember those working class martyrs who fought selflessly for our rights, without any care for their own personal safety. Their names will not be forgotten:

Peterloo Massacre
John Ashton
John Ashworth
William Bradshaw
Thomas Buckley
Robert Campbell
James Crompton
Edmund Dawson
William Dawson
Margaret Downes
William Evans
William Fildes
Mary Heys
Sarah Jones
John Lees
Arthur Neil
Martha Partington
John Rhodes
Joshua Whitworth

Llanelli Rail Strike

Leonard Worsell
John 'Jac' John

Stirling Martyrs

John Baird
Andrew Hardie

The list is endless and sadly, rarely includes the names of thousands of unsung warriors who worked throughout their life for all we have today.

Most readers of this blog will not be marching under union banners today. Instead we will enjoy a day of well-earned rest with our families. So, when you light your barbeque this afternoon, or go for a drink in your favourite watering hole, remember those martyrs who gave their lives so you could enjoy your day of peace.

They must never be forgotten and the Tories must never be allowed to desecrate on e of the most important days in the calendar for working class people. On this we refuse to lie down and like the socialists who fought for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War the cry must go out …..

Non Pasaran!

Why the Coalition is safe - A response to Sunny Hundal

Over the last couple of weeks we have started to see signs that all is not well in the Coalition between the Lib Dems and the Tories – or is it? Nick Clegg says he is angry with David Cameron and the Tories over the issue of social mobility and Chris Huhne has been blowing off steam about the way his Tory friends in the “No to AV” campaign have lied about the referendum.

Even the media have been caught by this apparent ‘new’ hostility between the partners and led Jackie Ashley at the Guardian and Tim Montgomerie at ConHome to speculate there may be an early election. According to Sunny Hundal over at ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ this is highly unlikely but it could have other consequences.

In Hundal's analysis the honeymoon is over and a degree of Coalition trust has been broken. They’ve also called each other ‘liars’ at the highest level – so the bar has been set higher. Also he argues the Tory betrayal over electoral reform may push more die-hard Libdems into the arms of Labour if they keep that promise in their manifesto.

But there isn’t going to be an election and this apparent war between the Lib Dems and the Tories is an entirely cosmetic exercise to make us ‘see’ there are differences between the two parties. Why? Because in case we have all missed it there are local government elections on May 5th and the Lib Dems are scared stiff they are going to get massacred.

This scares the pants off Clegg but doesn’t really affect Citizen Dave because he is hoping the Lib Dems loss could be his gain – and if he can show on May 7th that his party has held its own then it will silence a number of critics. Is this price the Lib Dems will have to pay for lying down with a snake, sooner or later you get bitten.

On top of this the Tories may have signed a Coalition Agreement, but they will still try and wreck anything they don’t like with complete shamelessness. So far this has included education and local cuts. In the future this is also likely to include the NHS (where they will press ahead and ignore the Lib Dems), the environment (despite Chris Huhne’s best efforts) and of course electoral reform.

But have no fear because all these splits will not be enough to break the coalition and on May 7th we can expect Clegg and Cameron to walk hand in hand back into the Cabinet Room to plan more anti-working class measures.

Sunny Hundal believes the Coalition will become “paralysed by civil war.”, he is wrong. Once the AV referendum and the local council elections are over the supposed rifts will suddenly heal and we will once again see the two parties united.

It is easy to see why. The Lib Dems are nothing more than the left wing of the Tory party. They sit comfortably on the same benches and can fairly comfortably nod in agreement over most policies. Essentially there is very little to pick and choose between them. This is the very reason why they must be annihilated on May 5th.
Working people have the chance to voice their full opposition to both the Lib Dems and Tory policies by voting conclusively for Labour candidates. In some wards the incumbent has been an independent, but look carefully at their voting record and in most cases you will see a Tory in disguise. It is time to push them aside and built a firm and effective opposition to this Tory led government. If Labour can dominate local elections this year and the County elections next then it could substantially slow down Tory cuts to local services.

We have a wonderful opportunity to stop this government in its tracks – I hope we use the chance wisely.

"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.

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.

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.

IDS - a very dangerous Tory

Next week, the Welfare Reform Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Commons. However, within its content there are significant problems. Already a number of charities and social care organisations have spoken against aspects of the Bill and, more recently, the Child Poverty Action Group has launched a legal challenge against the government’s plans to cap housing benefit from 1 April.

They told the Guardian newspaper it has "issued urgent proceedings for judicial review” on grounds that large areas of the south-east will no longer be affordable to the poor, with lone parents and ethnic minorities "disproportionately affected".

From April, weekly housing benefit payments cannot exceed £250 for a one bedroom flat, with a maximum £400 for a four bedroom house. Any excess in rent payments will have to be met by claimants via other means. The campaigners argue these changes will begin a forced migration of thousands of families – particularly in central London but soon after in the wider south. Only 7% of central London would be available for benefit tenants after the changes come in to force on 1 April – down from 52% the day before.

But these are far from the only problems in the Bill. Even the Church of England has voiced some concerns over its content. Speaking to the Guardian on the 22nd October, 2010, the Bishop of Blackburn said:

“The government has said that there will be personalised back-to-work support for those with the greatest barriers to employment. However, among this group are those people who are chronically sick and disabled. Sometimes it may seem that they have a remission of their illness sufficient to enable them to do some kind of work and at other times their illness makes this impossible. The prospects for this group are bleak under the new allowance arrangement. At the end of a year receiving the employment and support allowance, they will be "means tested" for future benefits or be faced with finding a job which they can fit around their unpredictable condition."

The Bishop is not alone in his fears. The charity, Family Action, which provides support to socially disadvantaged families, has argued:

“But perhaps most worryingly of all, the Universal Credit Impact Assessment admits that questions around childcare remain unresolved. Under some of the proposals for childcare costs hinted at in the white paper, some parents could end up paying ten times more towards their childcare costs from their own pockets than they do at present (a reduction from 97% to 70%). Parents who would otherwise be better off under the Universal Credit could end up considerably worse off as a result of these proposals if they have high childcare costs. In some circumstances they could pay to take on extra working hours, if this means that they have to pay for additional hours of childcare.”

So why are the Tories proceeding so heartlessly without taking into account the views of so many people? The answer is not so simple.

There are three key players moving the Bill through its stages in the House of Commons – Chris Grayling, Steve Bell and, of course the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith,

Grayling is an old style Tory with traditional values. He is steeped in the traditions associated with Conservativism, including the ‘value and need to work’ and personal responsibility.
He has previously held high office, but after a rather unpleasant homophobic incident was pushed down a level in Citizen Dave’s selection of Government ministers. Make no mistake, he wants Iain Duncan Smith’s job and will do anything to get it. He lacks the intellectual capacity of IDS, but is nobody’s fool and whilst it suits him, he will campaign vociferously for the Bill.

Steve Webb is rather different. A Liberal democrat who has sat rather comfortably around Tory circles since last May. He was the Lib Dem spokesperson for Work and Pensions in the past, though tended to shine more as an expert on pensions, rather than welfare benefits.

Ideologically, Webb leans more to the left and as wants a fairer welfare system. It has long been his contention that Universal Credits will ’level the playing field’ and. He has yet to comment on the many arguments against aspects of the Bill and will want to be seen as being loyal to Clegg and the Cabinet – partly because he has some idea of seeking the leadership himself at some future stage in his career and does not want to do anything to blot his copy book..

Iain Duncan Smith is different. He was thrown out of office as leader of the Conservative Party and spent many years in the political wilderness He wasn’t wasting his time. At the bequest of Citizen Dave, he set up the Centre for Social Justice, a right-wing think-tank dedicated to offering a more traditional view on social issues. His position as Chair and Founder of the Centre allowed him to meet the charismatic figure of Debbie Scott, the Chief Executive of welfare to work charity, Tomorrow’s People. Here he discovered a whole arena of social problems relating to unemployment and his mission became to talk to large numbers of those affected by poverty.
It led Peter Watt, the past Secretary of the Labour Party to say of him:

“Take the example of welfare policy. Listen to Labour and the assumption is that IDS wants to punish the poor, somehow that he gets off on increasing vulnerable people's suffering. What we don't think is that he wants to improve the lives of the poor but just doesn't think that the current incarnation of the welfare state is the best way to achieve this.”

It is a realistic analysis. IDS is not ‘your typical Tory’ - he doesn’t want to smash the poor, or create a divided Britain. He genuinely believes the existing welfare system is broken and his reforms will bring about greater opportunity for all. He genuinely feels many people on incapacity benefit have been sidelined and need help back into work and he truly thinks Flexible New Deal was a disaster and his new Work Programme will be the solution.

Of course, the evidence says he is wrong and many readers of this blog will know I have outlined many of my concerns on previous pages. But we should not batch IDS into the same pot as Citizen Dave or any of his toff friends. Certainly IDS comes from a privileged background and has never experienced poverty, but do not fall into the mistaken assumption he doesn’t care – he does – unfortunately, his values and beliefs have directed him to conclusions that will continue to divide this country.

Make no mistake – Citizen Dave and his Tory cronies are a nasty smear on British politics, but their political naïveté will ultimately be their own downfall. Iain Duncan Smith is ideologically driven and has a very clear mind of the society he wants to bring about – and that makes him the most dangerous kind of Tory. We have yet to see the worst of IDS. Watch this space.

Disabled people thrown out of work by Remploy

Historically welfare to work policies have concentrated on job placement, however, recent UK government policy, as seen in the recent round of bidding for the Work Programme, has seen a shifting of focus towards sustainable job outcomes where sustainability may only be recognised two years after being placed in work.

In order to be seen as a leading player in this new policy, Remploy have commissioned Inclusion to produce an independent research report into career advancement to be published on Monday 7th March. They will be hosting a series of roundtable discussions later in March, to share the findings of this research more widely and discuss how career advancement can aid sustainability in today’s welfare to work arena.

I am sure news that Remploy are working hard to stay ahead in the field will bring much comfort to the 1,500 employees, most of whom are disabled workers who were earlier this month given notice of pending redundancy. Remploy is a government-funded body that has its own businesses providing jobs for 3,000 disabled people, including 227 in Greater Manchester, as well as an employment agency that find them posts with private employers.

Bosses at the firm say the business has suffered because of the difficult economic climate, with many factories operating at less than 50 per cent capacity. If this be the case, it begs the question of why are they spending money they clearly don’t have to commission research – particularly as Remploy is not fulfilling its mission to provide sustainable employment opportunities for disabled people.

A spokesperson was reported as saying:

“This scheme is voluntary and every employee will be able to choose if they want to apply for the severance package.

Oh, that’s OK then – in that case everyone can stay. Or maybe not.

“We will ensure that any employee who decides to leave and wants to continue working, will have guaranteed support from our employment services to find another job.”

Well that will make all those newly unemployed people a whole lot better won’t it. And does anyone else see a possible irony here? They make people redundant and then they find disabled people work – probably through one of their government-funded schemes. So, in effect, they are creating their own customers. How callous is that?

Bishop Auckland MP Helen Goodman, who chaired a cross-party back bench inquiry into planned closures at Remploy in 2009, said: “The overwhelming priority is that there should be work opportunities for people with disabilities, and the Government, in taking its decision, must not salami slice and undermine Remploy because it is so important.”

Unite. the union in defending the workers being made redundant, blamed "poor management" for the announcement and leader, Len McCluskey said: "What these employees face is a nightmare scenario of struggling to find new jobs in the toughest jobs market since the early 1990s, when we all know that disabled people are always at the back of the jobs queue.

“Ultimately, there is the prospect that some of these factories could close.
“We will be campaigning against this voluntary redundancy programme during the 90-day consultation period.”

A Department of Work and Pensions spokesman said: "Remploy has had £555m government funding but unfortunately the factory arm of their business has not been able to successfully compete.”

Meanwhile, GMB members who now face redundancy have been given authority by the union central executive council for industrial action ballot over redundancies. The Committee have been advised that GMB members in Remploy have already voted in a consultative ballot by a majority of 5 to 1 to take strike action.
Let me be quite clear - The Big Society, if its exists, must mean finding work for disabled workers and a strike to stop the deliberate run down of Remploy shows disabled workers are fed up of being lectured on the big society by those in high society
Unfortunately, it is expected that preparing for the ballot will take at least six weeks and will be conducted by the Electoral Reform Services (ERS). This may be too late for many of the affected staff at the firm. Remploy last month told GMB that proposals for voluntary redundancy were being rolled out across the company from Monday 31st January 2011. This was just 7 days after the legal consultation period of 90 days commenced on the 24th January 2011.
What is known about previous redundancies made by Remploy in 2008 is that the vast majority of workers (85%) are still unemployed and on benefits with no prospects of finding work. The GMB CEC were also told that Remploy management has made little, or no progress, in finding work for the remaining Remploy factories in spite of the fact that EU rules allow public bodies to place orders with sheltered workshop outside of normal procurement arrangements.

The unions affected have placed an alternate plan before government to save jobs at the factories. Part of the plan is to reverse the rise in the number of managers which has increased despite reductions in the number of factories and shop floor workers. In total the Remploy unions have put forward a plan to cut £30million from costs while making Remploy viable.

Meanwhile, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith personally asked Remploy to show restraint in the distribution of a bonus windfall to its top-tier management. However, directors went ahead with 288 bonuses and then embarked on their redundancy programme.
The payouts, which are subsidised by the taxpayer, saw directors handed bonuses of up to £15,000 each and include benefits that amount to more than the annual salaries earned by some of the workers. Certainly more than the average worker now facing a future of joblessness.
There is nothing new in these outrageous bonuses - the company paid its management team £1.5m in bonuses and benefits last year. Its accounts show that chief executive Tim Matthews, 59, who once listed drinking champagne among his interests in Who's Who, took home a record total package of £180,000. He also claimed thousands of pounds more in expenses for hotel stays and meals.
Remploy finance director Nigel Hopkins received a £140,000 package, including a £15,000 bonus. Further figures show that in the past three years consultants working with Remploy on the redundancy and other 'modernisation programmes' have been paid more than £6m.

A further example of the “them” and “us” culture under the Tories, but here we have a firm, supposedly dedicated to supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society, ruthlessly taking away their livelihoods whilst feeding the riches bosses of another welfare to work company.

And it’s all being done with our money!!!

What happened to civility?

I find there is an increasingly regrettable trend in political debate in this country. It is a trend that frequently causes distress and unhappiness rather than stimulating intellectual debate. I refer to the tendency to hurl abuse, ridicule or intimidate during an argument.

Take a recent email I received> I hade in an earlier correspondence commented that I found his personal attacks on me abusive. I stated:

“In future, if you have anything to say to me, kindly keep the matter to political issue and omit the personal abuse. It is uncalled for and unappreciated.”

To which he replied:
“I have not given you any personal abuse, if you want to deem that I have that is your choice. You do not know me so do not tell me what i should or should not do … Trust me I have no qualms about putting my point of view forward publicly ….”.

These are not isolated comments. I have experienced them via emails, on discussion forms and in meetings. I am sufficiently old-fashioned to believe they are uncalled for.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting we should all sit down over a coffee and all agree with Tacitus. Indeed, it would be a tragic would if that ever happened. Far from having all the answers, I sometimes wonder if I even know the questions. No, we should cherish a diversity of opinion and listen and welcome it when it is offered.

Our modern culture seems to enjoy humiliating and abusing people publicly – even our TV encourages it. Millions savour the nightly (or is it weekly, I don’t know) gladiatorial display of people being forced to make fools of themselves in some public baptism. Programmes like “Big Brother” or “I’m a celebrity …” have a lot to answer for, but so too do our modern youth. They even have a word now to describe the act of ‘one-upping’ and making someone look foolish – they call it ‘pwned’.

No, it is fundamentally disrespectful and we should not tolerate it. As readers will know, I am a hard-line leftwinger, but I am also a realist and accept that many do not agree with my views. Democracy allows me the right to express my opinion – and, in turn I MUST allow others the right to disagree, sometimes forcefully. But let’s make sure in our debates that we keep to the topic in hand.

In our arguments we have no need to imply directly or indirectly that someone is foolish for holding a view. What is wrong with accepting that if you really, really listen to what the other person is saying – if you totally accept their right to disagree the, sometimes, just sometimes they, for their part and often prepared to start listening to you.

I can think of no finer moments than spending an hour arguing passionately with political opponents and then going to a local coffee shop and enjoying their very pleasant company. God forbid, they were Tories – but since when should that stop us being friends?