I am baffled by the inactivity of workers in the Welfare to Work sector.
Weeks ago I predicted redundancies would fall into the thousands and that providers would try and rewrite the script regarding TUPE regulations and redundancy law. With just a week to go for the start of the new Work Programme my words have tragically become reality.
Many providers who were unsuccessful in securing prime or subcontract work for the new scheme have been forced to shed staff and workers who had previously been working on contracts such as Pathways to Work or NDDP have found themselves superfluous to requirements.
If that wasn’t bad enough, some companies have tried to avoid their responsibilities regarding redundancy pay, forcing some workers to seek legal advice from barristers. Understandably I have not named the company in question because I do not want them to have the chance of preparing a ‘defence’ for their immoral and apparently illegal actions. No doubt the imminent legal action will most probably yield some financial gain to those affected, but in the long term that will be cold comfort when the mortgage or rent needs paying, the kids need new clothes and the ordinary working people, who gave so much to this sector find themselves without jobs.
Other employers have blatantly lied to staff by suggesting they were ‘being auditioned’ by potential employers under TUPE regulations. Apparently no-one told the top management of the company that new providers cannot cherry pick their staff under TUPE rules.
So, workers in the sector, like frogs placed in a saucepan of cold water are sitting there, doing nothing whilst management systematically turn up the heat and boil them alive. The government has remained silent and has done nothing to protect jobs as Boards of Directors systematically culled hundreds and hundreds of jobs in the industry. No-one complained! No-one said this is wrong – in fact there were some in the industry who actually argued it was right that the sector should be streamlined.
It is a tragic state of affairs and it is unlikely to get any better. More redundancies will follow, more companies will either close or substantially downsize and more people will find themselves joining the unemployment queues after having given so many years to this industry. But however wrong it may be, it will not change until workers in the sector are willing to face facts and radicalize.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not talking about organizing some kind of revolution – it simply isn’t going to happen. No, this is far more fundamental and requires workers in the sector to recognize they are working for employers who don’t give a toss for their welfare and will dismiss them without a thought when times are hard. The only defence against such oppression is to combine and unite under the common banner of the trade union movement.
This isn’t about trying to take things back to the 1960s and ‘taking on’ the government. This is about bringing workers rights into the 21st century and showing employers that staff in this sector will not be bullied and abused. They will not accept illegal redundancies and they will not tolerate the misuse of TUPE regulations.
This is what the industry needs, but the danger is the water has already started to boil and the frog may be dead.
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Friday, 20 May 2011
Too many on the Left are continuing to promote Islamist extremists
This October will see the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street, when a coalition of local left-wing and anti-fascist groups prevented Oswald Mosley’s blackshirts from marching through the East End. Mosley has gone, but others have taken his place, tailoring their message to a modern audience.
A Searchlight report published in February this year revealed that 52 per cent of British people believe that Muslims “create problems in the UK”, and that around 60 per cent believe immigration has been generally bad for the country.
It should be no surprise then that, where Mosley’s British Union of Fascists were obsessed with Jews, their modern day equivalents in the BNP are more concerned with immigration and Muslims.
The result of modern fascists’ targeting of Muslims can be seen all around. Earlier this week, a man was convicted in Gainsborough of racially aggravated behaviour for harassing a group of Muslims meeting to plan the creation of a new mosque. Just a few weeks ago, vandals smashed up Muslim graves in High Wycombe.
It is to the Left’s credit, then, that it now stands against anti-Muslim hatred just as it has always stood against anti-Semitism, homophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry. However, some groups are exploiting the Left’s principled stance for their own ends.
This weekend, a group calling itself the ‘Enough Coalition‘ will hold a conference at the London Muslim Centre, adjacent to East London Mosque in Whitechapel, on ‘Confronting Anti-Muslim Hatred in Britain and Europe’. The event will be well attended by academics and left-leaning politicians and journalists such as Tony Benn and Mehdi Hasan.
But they will not be the only ones speaking. Joining them will be three individuals with whom they are likely to profoundly disagree with on a number of key issues.
Kamal el-Helbawy, Azad Ali and Daud Abdullah are all UK-based Islamists whose stated views are antithetical to much that the Left holds dear.
Kamal el-Helbawy is a prominent spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood; in the past, el-Helbawy came to prominence after justifying the killing of innocent Israeli children on the grounds that they are “future soldiers”.
More recently, he took part in a discussion on the website onislam.net about Osama bin Laden’s death. He called bin Laden “a great mujahid [one who fights jihad]” and said:
“First of All, I ask Allah to have mercy upon Osama Bin Laden, to treat him generously, to enlighten his grave, and to make him join the prophets, the martyrs, and the good people…
“We appreciate him as a rich man living in KSA who left this luxurious life and moved to a hard life in mountains and caves. He helped his Afghan brethrens and
participated in Afghan jihad effectively…
“I think that what the Americans claim about September 11th was a trick and a bait they accused Al-Qaeda of. All evidences and indications refer that the Americans are the ones who planned this matter, not the Afghans who have weak resources. The plot of 911 story was not tight. It should be reviewed closely and all parties should be listened to.”
The discussion is no longer online, but screenshots of it were saved by the blog Harry’s Place.
El-Helbawy is joined by Azad Ali, an activist with the group ‘Islamic Forum Europe’ and who has praised Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam. When the Mail on Sunday accused Ali of having endorsed the killing of British troops in Iraq, he tried to sue them for libel.
However, Justice Eady ruled that he:
“Was indeed… taking the position that the killing of American and British troops in Iraq would be justified.“
Eady declared that Ali’s case had about it “an absence of reality” and was bound to fail, so he threw it out.
Daud Abdullah came to prominence in 2009 after rowing with Hazel Blears, then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. During the Gaza crisis of that year, Abdullah signed a declaration endorsing violence against Israel and:
“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard everyone standing with the Zionist entity, whether countries, institutions or individuals, as providing a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity; the position towards him is the same as towards this usurping entity.
“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as in effect a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation, that must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”
Abdullah signed his support for this declaration after Gordon Brown had stated that British naval units might be sent to the Israel/Palestine coast.
Blears said that these articles justified attacks both on Jews around the world and on British troops. She announced that she would therefore not be treating Abdullah and any organisation he was part of as though it represented British Muslims. Abdullah’s subsequent threat to sue her has never materialised.
Of course, just like the BNP and EDL, these individuals have a right to their opinions within the law. However, before members of the Left ally with them to fight anti-Muslim bigotry, they should ask whether doing so might be counter-productive.
A key anti-Muslim trope is that Islam is inherently extreme and therefore all Muslims hold extreme views.
Sharing a platform with, and thereby helping to raise the profile of, the extremely small minority of Muslims who are 9/11 truthers, who eulogise Osama bin Laden and/or who support attacks on British troops is therefore badly counter-productive.
Of course, it would be a different matter if this were a debate and Mehdi Hasan had an opportunity to challenge el-Helbawy’s views (with which he does not agree). This does not look likely to happen given the advertised topic of the event.
There is, however, another dimension to the ‘Enough Coalition’ event. Robert Lambert, a former policeman who now works at the Islamist-funded ‘European Muslim Research Centre’ at Exeter University, will also be speaking. His latest report, ‘Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies’ does two main things.
On the one hand, it documents genuine and disturbing examples of anti-Muslim prejudice and violence. On the other, it uses allegations of Islamophobia to smear critics of Islamism.
For example, the report contains more references to Ed Husain, a prominent British Muslim critic of Islamism, than Nick Griffin. It even mentions another Islamist turned critic, Shiraz Maher significantly more than the noted anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders.
Lambert’s report previously contained one section about politics in East London which was so libellous about Jim Fitzpatrick MP and various Labour Tower Hamlets councillors that Exeter University had it removed and issued an apology to them. In this way, Islamists and their allies use the concept of Islamophobia to argue that Islamists must not be criticised because doing so feeds the anti-Muslim atmosphere in the UK.
By appearing at events with prominent left-wing journalists and politicians, Islamists can then present themselves as part of the mainstream, despite their publicly stated views. This then further reinforces the idea that their critics are motivated by hatred of all Muslims, not perfectly rational concerns about their publicly-stated views.
The Muslim Brotherhood (in Arabic, Ikhwan al-Muslimeen‘), the world’s largest and oldest Islamist group, has even launched a website called ‘Ikhwanophobia‘ which argues that the Brotherhood’s critics are inspired by bigotry, not by rational disagreements with the organisations goals and beliefs.
The Left must no longer allow our proud history of anti-fascism to be hijacked in this way. Alliances with Islamists do nothing to help genuine victims of bigotry. All they do is strengthen the hands of extremists on the Islamist and racist far-right.
A Searchlight report published in February this year revealed that 52 per cent of British people believe that Muslims “create problems in the UK”, and that around 60 per cent believe immigration has been generally bad for the country.
It should be no surprise then that, where Mosley’s British Union of Fascists were obsessed with Jews, their modern day equivalents in the BNP are more concerned with immigration and Muslims.
The result of modern fascists’ targeting of Muslims can be seen all around. Earlier this week, a man was convicted in Gainsborough of racially aggravated behaviour for harassing a group of Muslims meeting to plan the creation of a new mosque. Just a few weeks ago, vandals smashed up Muslim graves in High Wycombe.
It is to the Left’s credit, then, that it now stands against anti-Muslim hatred just as it has always stood against anti-Semitism, homophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry. However, some groups are exploiting the Left’s principled stance for their own ends.
This weekend, a group calling itself the ‘Enough Coalition‘ will hold a conference at the London Muslim Centre, adjacent to East London Mosque in Whitechapel, on ‘Confronting Anti-Muslim Hatred in Britain and Europe’. The event will be well attended by academics and left-leaning politicians and journalists such as Tony Benn and Mehdi Hasan.
But they will not be the only ones speaking. Joining them will be three individuals with whom they are likely to profoundly disagree with on a number of key issues.
Kamal el-Helbawy, Azad Ali and Daud Abdullah are all UK-based Islamists whose stated views are antithetical to much that the Left holds dear.
Kamal el-Helbawy is a prominent spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood; in the past, el-Helbawy came to prominence after justifying the killing of innocent Israeli children on the grounds that they are “future soldiers”.
More recently, he took part in a discussion on the website onislam.net about Osama bin Laden’s death. He called bin Laden “a great mujahid [one who fights jihad]” and said:
“First of All, I ask Allah to have mercy upon Osama Bin Laden, to treat him generously, to enlighten his grave, and to make him join the prophets, the martyrs, and the good people…
“We appreciate him as a rich man living in KSA who left this luxurious life and moved to a hard life in mountains and caves. He helped his Afghan brethrens and
participated in Afghan jihad effectively…
“I think that what the Americans claim about September 11th was a trick and a bait they accused Al-Qaeda of. All evidences and indications refer that the Americans are the ones who planned this matter, not the Afghans who have weak resources. The plot of 911 story was not tight. It should be reviewed closely and all parties should be listened to.”
The discussion is no longer online, but screenshots of it were saved by the blog Harry’s Place.
El-Helbawy is joined by Azad Ali, an activist with the group ‘Islamic Forum Europe’ and who has praised Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam. When the Mail on Sunday accused Ali of having endorsed the killing of British troops in Iraq, he tried to sue them for libel.
However, Justice Eady ruled that he:
“Was indeed… taking the position that the killing of American and British troops in Iraq would be justified.“
Eady declared that Ali’s case had about it “an absence of reality” and was bound to fail, so he threw it out.
Daud Abdullah came to prominence in 2009 after rowing with Hazel Blears, then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. During the Gaza crisis of that year, Abdullah signed a declaration endorsing violence against Israel and:
“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard everyone standing with the Zionist entity, whether countries, institutions or individuals, as providing a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity; the position towards him is the same as towards this usurping entity.
“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as in effect a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation, that must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”
Abdullah signed his support for this declaration after Gordon Brown had stated that British naval units might be sent to the Israel/Palestine coast.
Blears said that these articles justified attacks both on Jews around the world and on British troops. She announced that she would therefore not be treating Abdullah and any organisation he was part of as though it represented British Muslims. Abdullah’s subsequent threat to sue her has never materialised.
Of course, just like the BNP and EDL, these individuals have a right to their opinions within the law. However, before members of the Left ally with them to fight anti-Muslim bigotry, they should ask whether doing so might be counter-productive.
A key anti-Muslim trope is that Islam is inherently extreme and therefore all Muslims hold extreme views.
Sharing a platform with, and thereby helping to raise the profile of, the extremely small minority of Muslims who are 9/11 truthers, who eulogise Osama bin Laden and/or who support attacks on British troops is therefore badly counter-productive.
Of course, it would be a different matter if this were a debate and Mehdi Hasan had an opportunity to challenge el-Helbawy’s views (with which he does not agree). This does not look likely to happen given the advertised topic of the event.
There is, however, another dimension to the ‘Enough Coalition’ event. Robert Lambert, a former policeman who now works at the Islamist-funded ‘European Muslim Research Centre’ at Exeter University, will also be speaking. His latest report, ‘Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies’ does two main things.
On the one hand, it documents genuine and disturbing examples of anti-Muslim prejudice and violence. On the other, it uses allegations of Islamophobia to smear critics of Islamism.
For example, the report contains more references to Ed Husain, a prominent British Muslim critic of Islamism, than Nick Griffin. It even mentions another Islamist turned critic, Shiraz Maher significantly more than the noted anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders.
Lambert’s report previously contained one section about politics in East London which was so libellous about Jim Fitzpatrick MP and various Labour Tower Hamlets councillors that Exeter University had it removed and issued an apology to them. In this way, Islamists and their allies use the concept of Islamophobia to argue that Islamists must not be criticised because doing so feeds the anti-Muslim atmosphere in the UK.
By appearing at events with prominent left-wing journalists and politicians, Islamists can then present themselves as part of the mainstream, despite their publicly stated views. This then further reinforces the idea that their critics are motivated by hatred of all Muslims, not perfectly rational concerns about their publicly-stated views.
The Muslim Brotherhood (in Arabic, Ikhwan al-Muslimeen‘), the world’s largest and oldest Islamist group, has even launched a website called ‘Ikhwanophobia‘ which argues that the Brotherhood’s critics are inspired by bigotry, not by rational disagreements with the organisations goals and beliefs.
The Left must no longer allow our proud history of anti-fascism to be hijacked in this way. Alliances with Islamists do nothing to help genuine victims of bigotry. All they do is strengthen the hands of extremists on the Islamist and racist far-right.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
The Ultra-Blairites are calling for Labour to surrender
by Owen Jones
When I read an article by Labour’s former General Secretary, Peter Watt, calling on the party to accept the Tories’ cuts agenda wholesale, I was reminded about how much this has all been turned around. You could say: “The Tories move Britain towards more neo-liberalism, New Labour stands pat; and the next Tory Government moved the country a little further right. New Labour loosened the corset of neo-liberalism, they never removed it.” If the likes of Watt have their way, that is what will happen if Labour win the next election.
Watt is a curious individual. He was, frankly, a terrible General Secretary, but he was treated badly by Gordon Brown and his undoubtedly bullying henchmen. He was effectively made a fall-guy for Labour’s donors’ scandal, and that was wrong.
That did not in any way excuse his subsequent behaviour: right-wing Tory Iain Dale published Watt’s insider account in January 2010, full of all sorts of hugely damaging revelations about the behind-the-scenes workings of the Brown regime. Watt presumably felt he was entitled to get his revenge against his unscrupulous former employer: but all he did was feed the right-wing press (who were delighted) and contribute – in however small a way – to the defeat of Labour in May 2010. Why anyone in the Labour Party would have any dealings with such an individual ever again is completely beyond me.
Watt says a lot about the loyalty (or lack thereof) many Blairite ultras have towards the Labour Party. They led repeated attempted coups – based on personality, not policy – against Brown; which the left, so often accused of disloyalty, had nothing to do with. Indeed, I remember a debate at Poplar and Limehouse CLP in which Blairite rebel Charles Clarke (hic) suggested left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell leave the Labour Party because of his disloyalty. Clarke lost his seat in 2010; McDonnell increased Labour’s majority. Now Labour is out of office, the likes of John Hutton and Alan Milburn are working as advisors to the Tory-led Government.
The Blairite ultras were demoralised by the defeat of David Miliband in Labour’s leadership election: but don’t kid yourself, they’re still kicking about alright, and they’re waiting in the wings for Ed Miliband’s failure, which they both anticipate and desire. As far as they are concerned, only a pure Blairite formula can deliver electoral success, and they do not wish this narrative to be disproved.
Peter Watt is far from alone among Blairite ultras in calling for Labour to accept the Tories’ spending plans. The Great Leader himself, Tony Blair, effectively called for Labour to accept the Tories’ economic policies in his memoirs; he even advised Cameron to resist the Lib Dems’ ‘Old Labour’ tendencies. The likes of Dan Hodges – who edits the Labour Uncut website, and is a committed opponent of Ed Miliband – have similarly called for Labour to accept the Tories’ cuts agenda.
There are Blairite maneuverings against Ed Miliband at the top of the Party, too. Both Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy are positioning themselves behind the scenes. Miliband has few real allies in the Shadow Cabinet: they effectively boil down to Peter Hain, Hilary Benn, John Denham and Sadiq Khan. So much of the policy vacuum can be explained by the continued strength of the Blairite right, and the failure of countervailing pressure from the left that would provide a support base for a genuinely progressive agenda.
Have no doubt: Blairite ultras like Peter Watt want us to capitulate to the Tories. In his article, Watt says “the first thing that we should do is just accept the Tory spending plans as set out in the spending review”. It would, he believes, “be bold and brave and, at a stroke, we will give ourselves permission to be heard again on the economy.”
Why we would be heard on the economy if we’re just parroting the line of the Government is a bizarre stance. Labour might as well second its press officers to George Osborne.
Indeed, if Labour were to take Watt’s advice, it should just shut shop and be done with it. What would be the point of it if it was backing the centrepiece of the Tories’ domestic agenda, the most sweeping cuts for nearly a century? Our differences would purely managerial: over issues like competence. But, frankly, we could do that from within the confines of the Conservative Party.
Blairite ultras like Peter Watt put socialists like myself in a curious position, because they force us to defend New Labour’s economic record against, well, New Labour. Blairite ultras buy into the myth that the deficit was caused by Labour’s overspending, rather than by a financial crash which caused a collapse in tax revenues and increased benefit payments to those thrown out of work.
In doing so, they become useful idiots for the Tory party. As the Conservative Party press team gleefully tweeted: “Ex-Labour Gen Sec Peter Watt implores his party 2 ‘stop fighting the cuts’ + ‘start talking bout the future’…ouch” The Tories use the siren voices of ultra-Blairism to vindicate their ideological offensive against the welfare state: ‘even sane people in the Labour Party agree with us’, they say. And, above all, they are a block on Labour developing a genuine coherent alternative to the Tory cuts agenda.
I don’t know where the political journey of the Blairite ultras will take them. It’s worth looking at the history of the neo-conservatives in the US: they started out as Democrats. Even as they became disenchanted with the Democrats, they couldn’t bring themselves to join the Republicans for cultural reasons: many were from working-class backgrounds and had grown up regarding them as the political wing of the wealthy. They eventually got over it, though, and became the most ardent Republicans around.
I’m not that interested about whether some Blairite ultras end up jumping ship or not. But they are – inarguably – allied to the Tories’ economic agenda, and they are more committed to ensuring Ed Miliband fails than helping Labour to succeed. They must be defeated, and be seen to be defeated, if Labour is to offer a genuine alternative to this horrendous government.
When I read an article by Labour’s former General Secretary, Peter Watt, calling on the party to accept the Tories’ cuts agenda wholesale, I was reminded about how much this has all been turned around. You could say: “The Tories move Britain towards more neo-liberalism, New Labour stands pat; and the next Tory Government moved the country a little further right. New Labour loosened the corset of neo-liberalism, they never removed it.” If the likes of Watt have their way, that is what will happen if Labour win the next election.
Watt is a curious individual. He was, frankly, a terrible General Secretary, but he was treated badly by Gordon Brown and his undoubtedly bullying henchmen. He was effectively made a fall-guy for Labour’s donors’ scandal, and that was wrong.
That did not in any way excuse his subsequent behaviour: right-wing Tory Iain Dale published Watt’s insider account in January 2010, full of all sorts of hugely damaging revelations about the behind-the-scenes workings of the Brown regime. Watt presumably felt he was entitled to get his revenge against his unscrupulous former employer: but all he did was feed the right-wing press (who were delighted) and contribute – in however small a way – to the defeat of Labour in May 2010. Why anyone in the Labour Party would have any dealings with such an individual ever again is completely beyond me.
Watt says a lot about the loyalty (or lack thereof) many Blairite ultras have towards the Labour Party. They led repeated attempted coups – based on personality, not policy – against Brown; which the left, so often accused of disloyalty, had nothing to do with. Indeed, I remember a debate at Poplar and Limehouse CLP in which Blairite rebel Charles Clarke (hic) suggested left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell leave the Labour Party because of his disloyalty. Clarke lost his seat in 2010; McDonnell increased Labour’s majority. Now Labour is out of office, the likes of John Hutton and Alan Milburn are working as advisors to the Tory-led Government.
The Blairite ultras were demoralised by the defeat of David Miliband in Labour’s leadership election: but don’t kid yourself, they’re still kicking about alright, and they’re waiting in the wings for Ed Miliband’s failure, which they both anticipate and desire. As far as they are concerned, only a pure Blairite formula can deliver electoral success, and they do not wish this narrative to be disproved.
Peter Watt is far from alone among Blairite ultras in calling for Labour to accept the Tories’ spending plans. The Great Leader himself, Tony Blair, effectively called for Labour to accept the Tories’ economic policies in his memoirs; he even advised Cameron to resist the Lib Dems’ ‘Old Labour’ tendencies. The likes of Dan Hodges – who edits the Labour Uncut website, and is a committed opponent of Ed Miliband – have similarly called for Labour to accept the Tories’ cuts agenda.
There are Blairite maneuverings against Ed Miliband at the top of the Party, too. Both Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy are positioning themselves behind the scenes. Miliband has few real allies in the Shadow Cabinet: they effectively boil down to Peter Hain, Hilary Benn, John Denham and Sadiq Khan. So much of the policy vacuum can be explained by the continued strength of the Blairite right, and the failure of countervailing pressure from the left that would provide a support base for a genuinely progressive agenda.
Have no doubt: Blairite ultras like Peter Watt want us to capitulate to the Tories. In his article, Watt says “the first thing that we should do is just accept the Tory spending plans as set out in the spending review”. It would, he believes, “be bold and brave and, at a stroke, we will give ourselves permission to be heard again on the economy.”
Why we would be heard on the economy if we’re just parroting the line of the Government is a bizarre stance. Labour might as well second its press officers to George Osborne.
Indeed, if Labour were to take Watt’s advice, it should just shut shop and be done with it. What would be the point of it if it was backing the centrepiece of the Tories’ domestic agenda, the most sweeping cuts for nearly a century? Our differences would purely managerial: over issues like competence. But, frankly, we could do that from within the confines of the Conservative Party.
Blairite ultras like Peter Watt put socialists like myself in a curious position, because they force us to defend New Labour’s economic record against, well, New Labour. Blairite ultras buy into the myth that the deficit was caused by Labour’s overspending, rather than by a financial crash which caused a collapse in tax revenues and increased benefit payments to those thrown out of work.
In doing so, they become useful idiots for the Tory party. As the Conservative Party press team gleefully tweeted: “Ex-Labour Gen Sec Peter Watt implores his party 2 ‘stop fighting the cuts’ + ‘start talking bout the future’…ouch” The Tories use the siren voices of ultra-Blairism to vindicate their ideological offensive against the welfare state: ‘even sane people in the Labour Party agree with us’, they say. And, above all, they are a block on Labour developing a genuine coherent alternative to the Tory cuts agenda.
I don’t know where the political journey of the Blairite ultras will take them. It’s worth looking at the history of the neo-conservatives in the US: they started out as Democrats. Even as they became disenchanted with the Democrats, they couldn’t bring themselves to join the Republicans for cultural reasons: many were from working-class backgrounds and had grown up regarding them as the political wing of the wealthy. They eventually got over it, though, and became the most ardent Republicans around.
I’m not that interested about whether some Blairite ultras end up jumping ship or not. But they are – inarguably – allied to the Tories’ economic agenda, and they are more committed to ensuring Ed Miliband fails than helping Labour to succeed. They must be defeated, and be seen to be defeated, if Labour is to offer a genuine alternative to this horrendous government.
Graham Lloyd - Farewell comrade
It was with some considerable sadness that we learned of the tragic and untilely death of Graham Lloyd, who has blogged at Harry’s Place for a number of years. He passed away on Saturday after months of serious illness.
Throughout his illness, and punishing treatments, Graham remained mentally undiminished, and could still argue the case for Ken Livingstone with the best of them – even when seriously incapacitated. Those whose lives have been enriched by knowing Graham, will find the world a little more grey today.
In recent years, Graham undertook academic studies of the history of British Fascism at the University of Sheffield, and would often pop up with an arcane point of relevant information in discussions. All of Harry’s Place contributors will miss Graham.
Our thoughts are with Graham’s family and friends.
- – - –
An example of Graham’s writing is his review of Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda by Michael Burleigh. Heaven is a Place on Earth – Part I, Part II, and Part III.
Throughout his illness, and punishing treatments, Graham remained mentally undiminished, and could still argue the case for Ken Livingstone with the best of them – even when seriously incapacitated. Those whose lives have been enriched by knowing Graham, will find the world a little more grey today.
In recent years, Graham undertook academic studies of the history of British Fascism at the University of Sheffield, and would often pop up with an arcane point of relevant information in discussions. All of Harry’s Place contributors will miss Graham.
Our thoughts are with Graham’s family and friends.
- – - –
An example of Graham’s writing is his review of Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda by Michael Burleigh. Heaven is a Place on Earth – Part I, Part II, and Part III.
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Encouraging job figures – but not for women or the over 50s
The number of people in employment, 29.24 million, and the employment rate, 70.7 per cent, in January-March, were up from October-December, by 118,000 and 0.2 points respectively. This is the third successive quarter-on-quarter increase and employment is now 416,000 higher than it was twelve months ago; this is very similar to last month’s figure:
ILO unemployment in January-March stood at 2.455 million; this was down 37,000 from October–December and the unemployment rate was down 0.2 points, to 7.7 per cent. Youth unemployment was down, only by 1,000 for 16 and 17 year olds (well within the statistical margin of error), but by a more substantial 29,000 for 18–24 year olds.
Unemployment is 56,000 lower than in January–March 2010; this is not as impressive as the increase in employment and the current level is still 841,000 above the April 2008 figure – just before unemployment started rising:
In the past year, decent monthly employment figures have sometimes been the result of an increase in ‘atypical’ employment – part-time and temporary jobs and self-employment. But this month the number of employees working full-time grew by 146,000 – more than the total increase in employment.
The number of self-employed people actually fell and the increase in the number of full-time workers was almost four times as great as the increase for those working part-time:
There was, however, an increase in the number of temporary workers of 48,000 and the proportion of workers who are in temporary jobs also rose – from 6.2 to 6.3 per cent. On the other hand, involuntary atypical work declined – the proportion of temporary workers who are in these jobs because they couldn’t find permanent work fell from 37.6 to 36.0 per cent and the proportion of part-time workers in the same position also fell slightly, from 15.3 to 15.2 per cent.
Another cause for concern in the past year is what’s been happening to women’s employment. In recent months, good overall results have sometimes disguised the fact that what has happened to men and women have been very different stories; in particular, women’s unemployment has risen while men’s has fallen. That is less true this month, though there are still worrying differences between what is happening to men and women.
The increase in women’s employment is very welcome, but the fall in unemployment is quite anaemic and it is still true that, despite overall declines in joblessness, women’s unemployment is 57,000 (0.3 percentage points) higher than it was a year ago.
The claimant count measure of unemployment did not move in a positive direction. For the second month running, this measure – the number claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) – rose while the ILO measure fell. This probably has a great deal to do with the increasing numbers of lone parents having to switch from Income Support to Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Lone parents whose youngest child is aged over 7 have had no benefit alternative to JSA since October last year; previously the age limit was 10. The number of lone parents on the claimant count whose youngest child is over 7 and under 10 has risen in that period from 2,570 to 39,055.
The number of women on the claimant count rose by 9,300 – three times the increase for men and the claimant count for women is at its highest level for 15 years.
The policy of progressively moving lone parents onto JSA began under the Labour government. Whatever the merits this policy may originally have had, it was designed in response to debates that were current before the global financial crisis, the rise in unemployment and the spectre of public sector job cuts.
There must be a question mark about its relevance to a situation where women’s unemployment is still high and the forthcoming cuts will hit employment opportunities for women especially hard.
There are other aspects of today’s figures that suggest we are not out of the woods yet.
While youth unemployment came down, the number of unemployed people aged over 50 to 64 rose by 14,000. This is rather worrying, as older workers have not previously been as hard hit in this recession. In previous recessions, older workers were more likely to be made redundant and then found it harder to get back into employment, it would be very worrying if that were to happen again.
Long-term unemployment continues to rise – the number of people unemployed over 12 months rose by 20,000 and the number unemployed over 24 months by 47,000.
And there are still major unemployment blackspots where there are 20 or more unemployed people chasing every job vacancy. Anjum Klair has produced a list of the ten worst in this month’s figures – more than two thousand unemployed people and just 63 job vacancies in Merthyr Tydfil!
Probably the most worrying item in today’s figures is the falling number of job vacancies: the provisional figure for January–April is just 469,000, a decline of 30,000 from the November-January figures. Although the overall picture today is quite encouraging this is a worrying marker for the future.
Most major recent reports suggest large-scale public sector job losses are in prospect:
• The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development’s Labour Market Outlook (pdf) reports that “near-term and medium-term employment prospects remain uncertain and subdued compared with pre-recession levels” and “together with the onset of public sector cutbacks, the risk of an employment slowdown appears finely balanced”.
• The Bank of England’s Agents’ summary report (pdf) describes “steady” employment growth in manufacturing and “gradual” growth in business services, but elsewhere, a great deal of uncertainty related to the prospects for household incomes and public sector cuts.
• Markit’s Report on Jobs is probably the most positive, but even they describe a “two-speed jobs market”, and are unable to say “whether the private sector can create enough jobs to offset the expected job losses in the public sector”.
Previously, I have suggested that last month’s overall good results were a blip. It’s still a finely-balanced question.
ILO unemployment in January-March stood at 2.455 million; this was down 37,000 from October–December and the unemployment rate was down 0.2 points, to 7.7 per cent. Youth unemployment was down, only by 1,000 for 16 and 17 year olds (well within the statistical margin of error), but by a more substantial 29,000 for 18–24 year olds.Unemployment is 56,000 lower than in January–March 2010; this is not as impressive as the increase in employment and the current level is still 841,000 above the April 2008 figure – just before unemployment started rising:
In the past year, decent monthly employment figures have sometimes been the result of an increase in ‘atypical’ employment – part-time and temporary jobs and self-employment. But this month the number of employees working full-time grew by 146,000 – more than the total increase in employment.The number of self-employed people actually fell and the increase in the number of full-time workers was almost four times as great as the increase for those working part-time:
There was, however, an increase in the number of temporary workers of 48,000 and the proportion of workers who are in temporary jobs also rose – from 6.2 to 6.3 per cent. On the other hand, involuntary atypical work declined – the proportion of temporary workers who are in these jobs because they couldn’t find permanent work fell from 37.6 to 36.0 per cent and the proportion of part-time workers in the same position also fell slightly, from 15.3 to 15.2 per cent.
Another cause for concern in the past year is what’s been happening to women’s employment. In recent months, good overall results have sometimes disguised the fact that what has happened to men and women have been very different stories; in particular, women’s unemployment has risen while men’s has fallen. That is less true this month, though there are still worrying differences between what is happening to men and women.
The increase in women’s employment is very welcome, but the fall in unemployment is quite anaemic and it is still true that, despite overall declines in joblessness, women’s unemployment is 57,000 (0.3 percentage points) higher than it was a year ago.
The claimant count measure of unemployment did not move in a positive direction. For the second month running, this measure – the number claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) – rose while the ILO measure fell. This probably has a great deal to do with the increasing numbers of lone parents having to switch from Income Support to Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Lone parents whose youngest child is aged over 7 have had no benefit alternative to JSA since October last year; previously the age limit was 10. The number of lone parents on the claimant count whose youngest child is over 7 and under 10 has risen in that period from 2,570 to 39,055.
The number of women on the claimant count rose by 9,300 – three times the increase for men and the claimant count for women is at its highest level for 15 years.
The policy of progressively moving lone parents onto JSA began under the Labour government. Whatever the merits this policy may originally have had, it was designed in response to debates that were current before the global financial crisis, the rise in unemployment and the spectre of public sector job cuts.
There must be a question mark about its relevance to a situation where women’s unemployment is still high and the forthcoming cuts will hit employment opportunities for women especially hard.
There are other aspects of today’s figures that suggest we are not out of the woods yet.
While youth unemployment came down, the number of unemployed people aged over 50 to 64 rose by 14,000. This is rather worrying, as older workers have not previously been as hard hit in this recession. In previous recessions, older workers were more likely to be made redundant and then found it harder to get back into employment, it would be very worrying if that were to happen again.
Long-term unemployment continues to rise – the number of people unemployed over 12 months rose by 20,000 and the number unemployed over 24 months by 47,000.
And there are still major unemployment blackspots where there are 20 or more unemployed people chasing every job vacancy. Anjum Klair has produced a list of the ten worst in this month’s figures – more than two thousand unemployed people and just 63 job vacancies in Merthyr Tydfil!
Probably the most worrying item in today’s figures is the falling number of job vacancies: the provisional figure for January–April is just 469,000, a decline of 30,000 from the November-January figures. Although the overall picture today is quite encouraging this is a worrying marker for the future.
Most major recent reports suggest large-scale public sector job losses are in prospect:
• The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development’s Labour Market Outlook (pdf) reports that “near-term and medium-term employment prospects remain uncertain and subdued compared with pre-recession levels” and “together with the onset of public sector cutbacks, the risk of an employment slowdown appears finely balanced”.
• The Bank of England’s Agents’ summary report (pdf) describes “steady” employment growth in manufacturing and “gradual” growth in business services, but elsewhere, a great deal of uncertainty related to the prospects for household incomes and public sector cuts.
• Markit’s Report on Jobs is probably the most positive, but even they describe a “two-speed jobs market”, and are unable to say “whether the private sector can create enough jobs to offset the expected job losses in the public sector”.
Previously, I have suggested that last month’s overall good results were a blip. It’s still a finely-balanced question.
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
WCA is simply not fit for purpose
A major component of the ‘New Labour’ government and the current coalition government’s radical welfare reforms has been the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) for disabled people. But the assessment has been made much more stringent, with people with often multiple impairments being found ‘fit to work’ through the test. This has led to much debate about the efficacy of the WCA and today the Work and Pensions Select Committee will hear evidence from Atos Origin on the very subject. Members of the Select Committee might like to take a moment and read this short article before the cross examine their witness.
From now until Spring 2014 all those who are receiving Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support paid on the grounds of illness or disability will be assessed for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), undergoing a stringent Work Capability Assessment (WCA) carried out by the French Company Atos who are contracted by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
First introduced in 2008, the much criticised WCA has become even more punitive since changes in the 2011 edition of the training manual for assessors. Pilots in Aberdeen and Burnley have raised more criticisms of the process adding to the raft of criticisms from the British Medical Association, GPs, Citizens Advice Bureaus (CABs), Members of Parliament and disability organisations.
Those going through the test can be put into one of three groups: ESA Support Group not required to undertake work-related activity – but will be reassessed continuously; ESA Work Related Activity Group, for those deemed fit for work with support and preparation. It will be limited to just 12 months before ESA is stopped, and also may be subject to reassessment in the 12 month period; or Fit for Work, not entitled to ESA but transferred to a lower amount on Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Case studies have repeatedly shown the inhumanity of a system based on government targets and the pain and misery of the increasing stringency of these tests. One example from the 2010 Citizens Advice Bureau’s report on ESA and WCA testing procedures highlights the experiences that someone considered ‘fit for work’ through WCA might endure:
She was in a great deal of pain in her muscles and joints and had extreme fatigue. At times her balance was affected and she could not walk without someone to support her. Sometimes she lost sensation in her legs, and on her worst days she could not walk at all. Any exertion such as walking 40 or 50 metres led to days in bed. She had had a bad reaction to some of the treatment and an ECG showed her heart muscle had been damaged. Her husband had to come home from work each lunchtime to help her. Her immune system was weakened, so she had to be careful when mixing with others.
She claimed ESA but was given six points in the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and found capable of work. Her doctor supported her claim and she is currently appealing, but under Incapacity Benefit she would probably have been exempt and would have avoided this process.
There are many other stories like this. There are also increasing stories of suicides committed by people left without any means of income fighting and winning appeals, only to find they are called for WCA reassessments shortly after. As part of the recognition of the increasing trend of those going through assessments to take their own lives Job Centre Plus staff have been issued with guidelines on how to deal with people who they think might be suicidal because of the WCA testing.
One estimate claims that up to 500,000 people have been wrongly denied Incapacity status. In the Guardian, Amelia Gentlemen reminds us that since its rollout people with terminal illness have been found ‘fit for work’, those with mental health issues have said the system cannot appreciate complexities of mental health, and others that the tick box system is unable to cope with any nuances of long term impairments or illness.
Citizens Advice Scotland reported that under incapacity benefits, 37 per cent were found ‘fit for work’. Under Work Capacity Assessment, the figure had soared to 66 per cent. In 2008 The DWP and Atos were severely criticised by Robert Martin, the President of the Appeals Tribunal Panel, a position now abolished:
Criticism was made of ATOS Healthcare medical practitioners who did not appear to pay sufficient attention to the appellant at the medical examination and who produced findings in medical reports based on observations that were inconsistent, or recorded in the medical report findings that were contradictory
In a later 2010 independent review of the WCA tests Professor Harrington concluded:
There is strong evidence that the system can be impersonal and mechanistic, that the process lacks transparency and that a lack of communication between the various parties involved contributes to poor decision making and a high rate of appeals.” and that “evidence has consistently and regularly highlighted problems with each stage of the WCA process, which limit both the assessment’s fairness and effectiveness.
Moreover Atos’s own staff have said the assessments are too harsh. Prospect, the trade union who represent 135 Atos doctors, has also stated that the target of seeing ten or more people a day is unrealistic and will lead to wrong assessments, especially in complex cases.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that WCA was not working, Atos were awarded a further 3 year contract by the DWP at the end of 2010, with a contract for £300 million based the perceived expertise of a software system LiMA, which comprises the central part of the WCA testing.
There has been a 56 per cent increase in ESA appeals with figures up from 25,700 in the second quarter of 2009/2010 to 52,000 in the same quarter of 2010/2011. Almost half of cases are overturned at appeal. Paul Hoggarth of Burnley Citizens Advice said that as many as 80 per cent of those supported in their claims to overturn a ‘fit for work’ decision win. Figures from the DWP show that of those declared ‘fit for work’ by the WCA system, just 13 per cent are in employment. The ‘fit for work’ myth does not convert into any form of reality.
A representative survey carried out by Ipsos MORI and reported in ‘Employment and Support Allowance: findings from a face to face Survey’ commissioned by the DWP, found that nearly a third of those going through the WCA process were described as having ‘literacy problems’. A further six per cent ‘problems speaking English’ and 11 per cent had ‘numeracy problems’. Twenty two percent were described as in one or more disadvantaged groups including those with mental health issues, ex-offenders, and those with perceived learning difficulties.
An overwhelming 69 per cent of those going through the WCA process had ‘multiple health conditions’, with 81 per cent of people receiving medical treatment for their condition and 38 per cent waiting for treatment or additional treatment in all ESA groups. These statistics do not present us with a set of fraudsters pretending to be sick or disabled, nor a set of individuals who have been languishing on incapacity benefits for years; in fact 71 per cent of applicants to ESA were new claimants making their first ever claim.
The WCA is not really about assessing fitness for work, nor supporting people into work. The ‘capability’ tests were always part of a mutual interdependence between successive Governments’ need to reduce social claims on the state and business identifying financial benefit in such a process. The misery it causes is deemed irrelevant by all parties.
The 2011 manual issued by the DWP to Atos provided new regulations including:
…infrequent loss of consciousness would not substantially impact on a person’s ability to work and therefore only those experiencing weekly or monthly episodes of loss of consciousness will be awarded scoring descriptors.
Thus if you spontaneously lose consciousness once every five weeks, you will be assessed as ‘fit for work’. This is one example of the non reality of new WCA ‘fit for work’ standards. It undermines the logic, and the economic and social realities of any reasonable employment criteria. The WCA is presented under the guise of state and market efficiency. It serves neither criterion.
From now until Spring 2014 all those who are receiving Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support paid on the grounds of illness or disability will be assessed for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), undergoing a stringent Work Capability Assessment (WCA) carried out by the French Company Atos who are contracted by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
First introduced in 2008, the much criticised WCA has become even more punitive since changes in the 2011 edition of the training manual for assessors. Pilots in Aberdeen and Burnley have raised more criticisms of the process adding to the raft of criticisms from the British Medical Association, GPs, Citizens Advice Bureaus (CABs), Members of Parliament and disability organisations.
Those going through the test can be put into one of three groups: ESA Support Group not required to undertake work-related activity – but will be reassessed continuously; ESA Work Related Activity Group, for those deemed fit for work with support and preparation. It will be limited to just 12 months before ESA is stopped, and also may be subject to reassessment in the 12 month period; or Fit for Work, not entitled to ESA but transferred to a lower amount on Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Case studies have repeatedly shown the inhumanity of a system based on government targets and the pain and misery of the increasing stringency of these tests. One example from the 2010 Citizens Advice Bureau’s report on ESA and WCA testing procedures highlights the experiences that someone considered ‘fit for work’ through WCA might endure:
She was in a great deal of pain in her muscles and joints and had extreme fatigue. At times her balance was affected and she could not walk without someone to support her. Sometimes she lost sensation in her legs, and on her worst days she could not walk at all. Any exertion such as walking 40 or 50 metres led to days in bed. She had had a bad reaction to some of the treatment and an ECG showed her heart muscle had been damaged. Her husband had to come home from work each lunchtime to help her. Her immune system was weakened, so she had to be careful when mixing with others.
She claimed ESA but was given six points in the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and found capable of work. Her doctor supported her claim and she is currently appealing, but under Incapacity Benefit she would probably have been exempt and would have avoided this process.
There are many other stories like this. There are also increasing stories of suicides committed by people left without any means of income fighting and winning appeals, only to find they are called for WCA reassessments shortly after. As part of the recognition of the increasing trend of those going through assessments to take their own lives Job Centre Plus staff have been issued with guidelines on how to deal with people who they think might be suicidal because of the WCA testing.
One estimate claims that up to 500,000 people have been wrongly denied Incapacity status. In the Guardian, Amelia Gentlemen reminds us that since its rollout people with terminal illness have been found ‘fit for work’, those with mental health issues have said the system cannot appreciate complexities of mental health, and others that the tick box system is unable to cope with any nuances of long term impairments or illness.
Citizens Advice Scotland reported that under incapacity benefits, 37 per cent were found ‘fit for work’. Under Work Capacity Assessment, the figure had soared to 66 per cent. In 2008 The DWP and Atos were severely criticised by Robert Martin, the President of the Appeals Tribunal Panel, a position now abolished:
Criticism was made of ATOS Healthcare medical practitioners who did not appear to pay sufficient attention to the appellant at the medical examination and who produced findings in medical reports based on observations that were inconsistent, or recorded in the medical report findings that were contradictory
In a later 2010 independent review of the WCA tests Professor Harrington concluded:
There is strong evidence that the system can be impersonal and mechanistic, that the process lacks transparency and that a lack of communication between the various parties involved contributes to poor decision making and a high rate of appeals.” and that “evidence has consistently and regularly highlighted problems with each stage of the WCA process, which limit both the assessment’s fairness and effectiveness.
Moreover Atos’s own staff have said the assessments are too harsh. Prospect, the trade union who represent 135 Atos doctors, has also stated that the target of seeing ten or more people a day is unrealistic and will lead to wrong assessments, especially in complex cases.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that WCA was not working, Atos were awarded a further 3 year contract by the DWP at the end of 2010, with a contract for £300 million based the perceived expertise of a software system LiMA, which comprises the central part of the WCA testing.
There has been a 56 per cent increase in ESA appeals with figures up from 25,700 in the second quarter of 2009/2010 to 52,000 in the same quarter of 2010/2011. Almost half of cases are overturned at appeal. Paul Hoggarth of Burnley Citizens Advice said that as many as 80 per cent of those supported in their claims to overturn a ‘fit for work’ decision win. Figures from the DWP show that of those declared ‘fit for work’ by the WCA system, just 13 per cent are in employment. The ‘fit for work’ myth does not convert into any form of reality.
A representative survey carried out by Ipsos MORI and reported in ‘Employment and Support Allowance: findings from a face to face Survey’ commissioned by the DWP, found that nearly a third of those going through the WCA process were described as having ‘literacy problems’. A further six per cent ‘problems speaking English’ and 11 per cent had ‘numeracy problems’. Twenty two percent were described as in one or more disadvantaged groups including those with mental health issues, ex-offenders, and those with perceived learning difficulties.
An overwhelming 69 per cent of those going through the WCA process had ‘multiple health conditions’, with 81 per cent of people receiving medical treatment for their condition and 38 per cent waiting for treatment or additional treatment in all ESA groups. These statistics do not present us with a set of fraudsters pretending to be sick or disabled, nor a set of individuals who have been languishing on incapacity benefits for years; in fact 71 per cent of applicants to ESA were new claimants making their first ever claim.
The WCA is not really about assessing fitness for work, nor supporting people into work. The ‘capability’ tests were always part of a mutual interdependence between successive Governments’ need to reduce social claims on the state and business identifying financial benefit in such a process. The misery it causes is deemed irrelevant by all parties.
The 2011 manual issued by the DWP to Atos provided new regulations including:
…infrequent loss of consciousness would not substantially impact on a person’s ability to work and therefore only those experiencing weekly or monthly episodes of loss of consciousness will be awarded scoring descriptors.
Thus if you spontaneously lose consciousness once every five weeks, you will be assessed as ‘fit for work’. This is one example of the non reality of new WCA ‘fit for work’ standards. It undermines the logic, and the economic and social realities of any reasonable employment criteria. The WCA is presented under the guise of state and market efficiency. It serves neither criterion.
Royal shame in Ireland
This afternoon the United Kingdom will enter a new dimension of shame and disgrace when Mrs Windsor inflicts herself on the Irish people and lays a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance - a quiet place for people to reflect on those Republican martyrs who gave their lives fighting centuries of British oppression.
Royalists in favour of the visit have argued the Queen’s arrival on Irish soil will underline the peace process. Rather sad then that Mrs Windsor will arrive at Casemont Aerodrome – an airfield named after Sir Roger Casemont, an Irish Republican who was hung for treason for trying to bring the Germans alongside the rebel movement in 1916.
Tomorrow, the Royals will visit Croke Park, the place where British machine guns opened fire on innocent Irish sports fans, killing 14 as they fired indiscriminately into the unarmed crowd. Their ‘crime’ was simple – they were Irish! After the visit, the Queen will attend Dublin Castle, the infamous seat from where Britain ruled Ireland for over 800 years. There she will enjoy Irish hospitality at a banquet in her honour.
Is it any wonder dissident Republicans want to blow the old battleaxe to pieces?
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not in favour of any kind of violent act against the old bat. The hard reality is that any act of violence against any human being is an atrocity against us all and should be condemned by any right thinking person. But I do understand the anger these dissidents feel when they look over the border at the Six Counties and ask the question – What do we have to do to reunite our country? How much more pain do we have to suffer before we can be free of the yoke of British rule?
Besides, blowing up the old thing won’t do any good. Sure you can get rid of one Royal, but they breed like gerbils and as fast as you get rid of one, six more come in behind. Charlie, Will, Harry … the list is endless.
On top of that, public reaction would harden against the Republican cause and even some of those inclined towards a free Ireland would be likely to swing the other way if you kill off the regal pensioner.
No, the way forward must be for democrats to expose the dishonesty of the British regime and show the world how two-faced British ‘diplomacy’ has been over the years. When Michael Collins came with his team to negotiate a settlement the option of a free Ireland was never on the cards and since those days the option of reuniting the Six Counties has never been on the agenda.
With the Royal visit taking place and members of the UDA being invited to the sticky bun fight we see again how Britain continues to turn its back on the legitimate rights of all Irish people. Rather than endorsing Protestant terrorists, the Queen should have been apologizing for the atrocities committed by the black and tans back in 1916, or by the ‘paras’ during the Troubles.
The Queen should be going to Ireland and mourning the deaths of the men and women who went on hunger strike or ‘on the blanket’ and died for Irish freedom.
Bobby Sands
Terence MacSwiney
Conor McElvaney
John and Peter Crowley
Thomas Donovan
Michael Burke
Michael O'Reilly
Christopher Upton
John Power
Joseph Kenny
Seán Hennessy
Just a few of the many names who gave their lives fighting British oppression.
James Connolly once said: If you strike at, imprison, or kill us, out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you, and perhaps, raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!”
Well, the British military and Westminster combined did just that, but despite all their best efforts they could not suppress the legitimate rights of a people. As the Queen, the head of British government sets foot on Irish soil later today, she will do well to remember that.
Let us leave the final word of this entry to the great James Connolly. His words endure and have as much meaning today as they did when he first spoke them. May his memory endure and his words carried as a battle cry by all socialists.
“Ireland, as distinct from her people, is nothing to me; and the man who is bubbling over with love and enthusiasm for "Ireland," and can yet pass unmoved through our streets and witness all the wrong and the suffering, the shame and the degradation wrought upon the people of Ireland—yea, wrought by Irishmen upon Irish men and women, without burning to end it, is, in my opinion, a fraud and a liar in his heart, no matter how he loves that combination of chemical elements he is pleased to call Ireland.”
Royalists in favour of the visit have argued the Queen’s arrival on Irish soil will underline the peace process. Rather sad then that Mrs Windsor will arrive at Casemont Aerodrome – an airfield named after Sir Roger Casemont, an Irish Republican who was hung for treason for trying to bring the Germans alongside the rebel movement in 1916.
Tomorrow, the Royals will visit Croke Park, the place where British machine guns opened fire on innocent Irish sports fans, killing 14 as they fired indiscriminately into the unarmed crowd. Their ‘crime’ was simple – they were Irish! After the visit, the Queen will attend Dublin Castle, the infamous seat from where Britain ruled Ireland for over 800 years. There she will enjoy Irish hospitality at a banquet in her honour.
Is it any wonder dissident Republicans want to blow the old battleaxe to pieces?
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not in favour of any kind of violent act against the old bat. The hard reality is that any act of violence against any human being is an atrocity against us all and should be condemned by any right thinking person. But I do understand the anger these dissidents feel when they look over the border at the Six Counties and ask the question – What do we have to do to reunite our country? How much more pain do we have to suffer before we can be free of the yoke of British rule?
Besides, blowing up the old thing won’t do any good. Sure you can get rid of one Royal, but they breed like gerbils and as fast as you get rid of one, six more come in behind. Charlie, Will, Harry … the list is endless.
On top of that, public reaction would harden against the Republican cause and even some of those inclined towards a free Ireland would be likely to swing the other way if you kill off the regal pensioner.
No, the way forward must be for democrats to expose the dishonesty of the British regime and show the world how two-faced British ‘diplomacy’ has been over the years. When Michael Collins came with his team to negotiate a settlement the option of a free Ireland was never on the cards and since those days the option of reuniting the Six Counties has never been on the agenda.
With the Royal visit taking place and members of the UDA being invited to the sticky bun fight we see again how Britain continues to turn its back on the legitimate rights of all Irish people. Rather than endorsing Protestant terrorists, the Queen should have been apologizing for the atrocities committed by the black and tans back in 1916, or by the ‘paras’ during the Troubles.
The Queen should be going to Ireland and mourning the deaths of the men and women who went on hunger strike or ‘on the blanket’ and died for Irish freedom.
Bobby Sands
Terence MacSwiney
Conor McElvaney
John and Peter Crowley
Thomas Donovan
Michael Burke
Michael O'Reilly
Christopher Upton
John Power
Joseph Kenny
Seán Hennessy
Just a few of the many names who gave their lives fighting British oppression.
James Connolly once said: If you strike at, imprison, or kill us, out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you, and perhaps, raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!”
Well, the British military and Westminster combined did just that, but despite all their best efforts they could not suppress the legitimate rights of a people. As the Queen, the head of British government sets foot on Irish soil later today, she will do well to remember that.
Let us leave the final word of this entry to the great James Connolly. His words endure and have as much meaning today as they did when he first spoke them. May his memory endure and his words carried as a battle cry by all socialists.
“Ireland, as distinct from her people, is nothing to me; and the man who is bubbling over with love and enthusiasm for "Ireland," and can yet pass unmoved through our streets and witness all the wrong and the suffering, the shame and the degradation wrought upon the people of Ireland—yea, wrought by Irishmen upon Irish men and women, without burning to end it, is, in my opinion, a fraud and a liar in his heart, no matter how he loves that combination of chemical elements he is pleased to call Ireland.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
