United LEFT

**working for unity in action of all the LEFT in the UK** (previously known as the RESPECT SUPPORTERS BLOG)

Monday, April 26, 2010

Respect Party launch election manifesto - video

Respect Party launch election manifesto - video. Picture Richard Searle .

To see the video click on picture above or
HERE.

National Chair Dr Kay Phillips has outlined her party's pledges as part of its election manifesto.

She said the Respect Party wanted to bring home troops from Afghanistan and opposed "the racism of the BNP".

Labels:

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Dave Nellist on the Trade Unionist & Socialist Coalition

Dave Nellist on the Trade Unionist & Socialist Coalition - on Daily Politics show BBC.

Dave Nellist explains the campaign battle of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, an alliance between the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers' Party and some trade unions, formed at the start of this year.

It is jointly led by Mr Nellist - a former Labour MP from Coventry - now with the Socialist Party, and RMT General Secretary Bob Crow.

Click picture above or link HERE

More: BBC News - Dave Nellist on the Trade Unionist & Socialist Coalition

Link: TUSC Facebook site

Labels:

Friday, April 16, 2010

People power - the Tory way

People power - the Tory way. Solomon Hughes in the Morning Star.

The Conservative Manifesto promises "people power," the chance to "be your own boss," and to mobilise the "Big Society."

There is a small example of what this means in the Tory approach to libraries. Cameron talked about libraries in a speech he gave about the "post-bureaucratic age." This is apparently "something very exciting," with the "potential for transforming our lives."

Cameron said that the "old, top-down, big-government solutions aren't working" and placed special focus on libraries, saying that, "today, all people can do is rage when a far-off bureaucrat decided to close a well-loved library because it wasn't making enough money."

This is very odd, because public libraries don't make money at all. They are not shops. Video rentals and fines can offset some small proportion of costs, but no-one who believes in public libraries talks about them making money. They are there to make us better read, not to make us cash.

In fact it turns out that the bureaucrats who are closing well-loved public libraries are Tories. In Southampton the council is slashing library budgets and closing a library in Millbrook, one of the city's poorer areas. Local parents and other readers have done what Cameron suggested and marched to the town hall to express their disapproval.

And the Tory council has ignored them, claiming that the library closure is part of a "regeneration" improving the estates.

The Conservative council overlooked the protest and said that locals did not view libraries as "a priority." It said that getting rid of books would make the council "leaner and meaner and more efficient than ever."

What happens next in the "post-bureaucratic age?"

According to Cameron, "whenever a publicly or commercially owned community building or amenity faces closure ... from libraries to parks, post offices or pubs ... local people will get the first option to buy it, protect it, run it, own it and keep it open."

So that's the people power answer - the government will close down services and give us the chance to pay for them with a whip-round.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Beneath the veneer of the Conservatives' people power - Seumas Milne

"Mother and son"

Beneath the veneer of the Conservatives' people power - Seumas Milne in The Guardian
.
What these slick PR operators are really offering is deep cuts, lower taxes for the rich and sweeping Thatcherite privatisation.

David Cameron's Conservatives are nothing if not accomplished PR professionals. And the Big Society theme running through today's manifesto launch is a brilliant presentational sleight of hand, which takes their political cross-dressing to new heights.

To hear Cameron and Hague carrying on this morning about people taking "collective" control of their own lives, the right to recall MPs, set up their own schools, elect police commissioners and create co-ops in the public sector, you could almost imagine the Tories had leap-frogged over Labour into Hugo Chavez land.

By any measure, it's a clever political branding exercise, which recognises the progressive political climate and gives a "people power" veneer to what — once you strip away the rhetoric and mood music — is in reality a classic Thatcherite anti-state programme for sweeping privatisation.

Who, after all, isn't frustrated by the corporate managerialism of public services and wouldn't be attracted by greater democratic involvement in how they're delivered (even if some balk, Oscar Wilde-style, at the committee meetings)? It's a seam Labour could have successfully mined for its own campaign if it had been a bit braver.

But look at the small print and the prospect of popular control turns out to be a mirage. Take "free" schools. It's not just that they'll be a marginal gimmick for better-off parents with sharp elbows to snaffle shrinking resources.

Through joint ventures and corporate chain sponsorship, they are also clearly intended to be part of a much wider privatisation of education — for profit, as Michael Gove made clear over the weekend. That will mean less control of schools and the curriculum for most parents than they have now.

Something similar applies to public sector co-ops – not a proposal the Tories are making for the private sector, of course, where they would have a hugely positive impact. And when it comes to MPs' recall, it turns out to be restricted to cases of "proven wrongdoing", rather than when electors simply demand a new representative.

For the rest, there were no significant new pledges today, no clarity on the cuts Cameron and George Osborne have already made clear will be faster and deeper than Labour's. Instead, the phoney war on national insurance was at full tilt and the commitment to concentrate the biggest tax giveaways (through raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1m) on the richest families in the country unswerving.

As in 1979, the 2010 Conservative manifesto has left out the most far-reaching changes a Tory government is likely to make. From what we know so far, those look to be the deepest spending cuts since the 1930s, lower taxes on the wealthy and the mass privatisation of public services.

Labels: ,

The left lacuna - Mike Marqusee

The left lacuna - Mike Marqusee in Red Pepper.

Before even a vote is cast, the left’s failure in the coming election is an established fact. Elections aren’t everything, but they do matter and we should start working now to ensure that there is a meaningful left alternative at the one after next, writes Mike Marqusee


While the outcome of the general election may be in doubt, the insubstantial nature of the political frenzy preceding it is entirely predictable. The ping-pong of buzzwords and soundbites, the hunt for gaffes, the formulaic promises to ‘listen’, the gurgle of briefings and punditry: the dismal spectacle has become familiar.

For all its democratic claims, the election campaign serves mainly to obscure the truths about our unequal, unsustainable society. Its salient feature is the absence of real choice. Everything else flows from that.

On perpetuating the war in Afghanistan and the need for cuts in public spending – arguably the two major issues facing the country – the major parties are as one. And whatever the election’s outcome, the next government, like the last one, will pursue a foreign policy of junior partnership with the US, with its concomitant support for Israel and belligerence towards Iran.

It will intensify attempts to discipline the poor (through welfare ‘reform’) and undermine rights at work. It will extend privatisation. It will do nothing for people in social housing. It will not make a significant investment in green jobs. It will bring no relief to asylum seekers and immigrants and do nothing to stem the Islamophobic tide.

Labour’s principal appeal is the promise that it will cut less savagely than the Tories. That may prove to be the case, but at this juncture no one can say for sure precisely how Labour cuts would differ from Tory cuts. Both parties are committed to reducing the fiscal deficit by the same total over four years. Both parties pledge to protect the NHS, but the NHS is already feeling the squeeze. Cuts are underway and private sector intrusions grow by the week.

The menace of lesser evilism

It’s not that there is no difference between Labour and the Tories. But is there enough of a difference? The lesser evil does have a claim, but lesser evilism is itself a subtle and insidious menace. A lesser evil remains an evil. And in practise lesser evilism moves the centre of gravity ever further to the right. It ends up reinforcing the consensus that denies meaning to the election.

The generation-long transformation of the Labour Party has resulted, as Tony Benn warned it would, in a ‘crisis of representation’. Labour’s ideology and policies are now significantly to the right of most centre-left parties in Europe. More importantly, its structures and social composition have changed radically, as has the nature of its link with Labour voters.

Similar shifts have been seen in social democratic, socialist and communist parties elsewhere, so the problem goes way beyond Blair and his legacy. Labour campaigners can take all the lessons from Obama’s people they like, but they will not and cannot replicate his central appeal – that he offered Americans a major change in governmental direction.

Whatever happens in the coming weeks the left’s failure in this election is already an established fact. Although there will be left candidates and groups on the ballot in many constituencies, there will be no single, widely-recognised, nationwide, left alternative. That is a tragedy from which no one can take comfort.

Electoral politics is not an end in itself; to the true democrat it’s only part of a larger, multi-faceted process. But it remains an indispensable exercise. In the long run, abstaining from the electoral arena is not an option for anyone serious about effecting radical change. Is it imaginable we’ll ever get even close to such change in Britain without the left at some stage demonstrating its strength at the ballot box?

Even in the short run, the left misses out by not being a player. For better or worse, general elections are among the few occasions that large numbers of people consider their political choices. To the extent that a left-wing alternative is not visible and credible, it’s omitted from the ensuing discussion. In addition, we miss out on the discipline of door-to-door canvassing, a healthy reality check for any political campaigner.

Here you’re confronted with popular political consciousness in all its diversity and contradiction. For many years I went out canvassing for the Labour party, and always returned with reasons to hope as well as to despair.

Door-to-door canvassing is increasingly a thing of the past. In the postmodern politics of the era of globalisation, parties are no longer vehicles for participation, electorates are atomised and every part of the process is media-saturated. Increasingly the election becomes about itself. Democracy is hollowed out, and the power of the rich enhanced.

Little case for Labour

There’s a case for voting Labour in constituencies where there is a strong left-wing MP or a tight contest between Labour and Tory. But there’s little case for voting Labour in constituencies where it is either sure to win or sure to lose, or where there is a significant left-wing alternative. Victories for Salma Yaqoob in Birmingham and Caroline Lucas in Brighton would be invaluable breakthroughs. Besides providing two new radical voices in Parliament, such victories would make the left appear a more credible alternative in future elections.

Programmatically, the Green Party is far superior to its mainstream rivals. But its record in office, and its nature as a party, is mixed. In Leeds its councillors sustained a Tory-Lib Dem coalition – and gave no support to last year’s successful bin workers’ strike. On the London Assembly, the Greens’ Jenny Jones has acted as an apologist for the Metropolitan Police. The party failed to take a leading role in the anti-war movement and seems to have little interest in mass campaigning of any kind.

Many Green cadres are hostile to the left and the unions, and wedded to their own form of middle-class managerialism. I’ve seen Green Party leaflets that in their soft soap and political evasiveness are indistinguishable from New Labour’s. For this I don’t need to turn to a minor party.

The left lacuna in British politics is not mirrored elsewhere in western Europe. In Germany, Portugal, France, Spain, Italy and Ireland the left is a real electoral presence. This is thanks partly to proportional representation and partly to the depth of local socialist and communist traditions. But we have failed where they have succeeded largely because of mistakes of our own. As the experience in Scotland showed, the problem is not just the absence of PR.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. With a few important exceptions, trade union leaders prefer the safety of the threadbare Labour link to the risks of a new political initiative. The few serious attempts to build a new electoral vehicle, including the Socialist Alliance in 2000-2003, have been sabotaged by sectarianism. The legacy of distrust is one of the biggest obstacles we now have to overcome.

So is our short-termism: the electoral struggle is an uphill one; it rarely yields quick results. It requires a long-range commitment and a strategy to match. Under any electoral system, in order to progress the left will have to show much greater unity, imagination and determination than it has hitherto.

The post-election landscape, even at this stage, is remarkably clear. There will be struggles against public sector cuts, increasing industrial action, renewed conflict over war and civil liberties. In that context, we will have to engage in a sober assessment of both our weaknesses and strengths, and work to ensure that at the general election after this one, there is a meaningful choice.

‘Contending for the Living’ is Mike Marqusee’s regular column in Red Pepper. For more see www.mikemarqusee.com

Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Far from a classic affair - Morning Star

Far from a classic affair - Morning Star

Despite the efforts of Labour supporters in the trade union movement to play up the party's general election manifesto as a social justice classic, the facts indicate otherwise.

New Labour remains committed to big business and the banks and to making working people continue to bear a disproportionate burden of taxation.

The main case to vote Labour remains the negative realisation that the Tories would, difficult though it may be for some to credit it, be far worse than Gordon Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling.

Though Darling has boasted that he will cut public spending even more deeply than Margaret Thatcher in her Tory government heyday, George Osborne has outdone him, insisting that he will cut more quickly and more savagely.

The implosion of the banking system just over a year ago was prevented by the government setting aside £1.3 trillion to bail out the banks, driving up the national debt to do so.

The Bank of England has made state finance - our money - available to the banks at 0.5 per cent, but, despite this, the finance sector has refused to lend sympathetically to small businesses and home-buyers, preferring to drive up their own profits by imposing swingeing interest rates on loans.

The Treasury has effectively allowed the banks to transform public money into private profits through methods that reek of usury.

When the government boasts in Labour's manifesto that it will realise stakes in publicly controlled banks, it means that the banks will repay some of what was invested by government in the banks without any share of the profits windfall.

The banks will return to business as usual, ripping off personal customers and small businesses and lecturing ministers on the need to slash government debt even though it was their own greed and recklessness that drove up public borrowing in the first place.

Brown has made much of his determination to continue the Blairite "reform" agenda for public services.

This involves facilitating private contractors to loot the public purse through PFI contracts and taking over supposedly "failed" state schools and hospitals in England, where new Labour's obsession with foundation trusts and city academies blazes undimmed.

Given the scale of the finance-sector meltdown and government investment that was needed to counter it, there was an excellent case to be made for the public sector to take over the banks and run them in the interests of the people not the shareholders and directors.

Brown pledges to reduce the public debt caused by the banks, not by taxing those whose conduct created the crisis - the banking speculators and super-rich - but by raising £11 billion through public-sector efficiency savings, £4 billion by trimming public-sector pay and pensions and £5 billion from what he calls non-priority public-sector areas.

In other words, public services and their staff, which bear no responsibility for the crisis, will be clobbered to allow the banks to carry on ripping us off.

Even the much-vaunted "Robin Hood" tax on financial transaction will be dependent on global agreement, which effectively punts it into the long grass.

Labour's manifesto is marginally less toxic than what the Tories have in store, but it indicates that, whichever party wins the election, working people will still have to fight on a number of fronts to defend their jobs, pay, conditions and our public services.

Labels: ,

Thursday, April 01, 2010

TUSC campaign launched at national rally

The TUSC national rally in London (Pic: Bettina Trabant)

TUSC campaign launched at national rally: Socialist Worker report

Around 250 people packed into the launch rally for TUSC in central London last week.

Many candidates spoke about why they were standing and their experiences of campaigning.

They included Onay Kasab, a Unison branch secretary standing in Greenwich & Woolwich in London, Jenny Sutton, a college lecturer standing in Tottenham, and Dave Nellist, a longstanding socialist councillor standing for TUSC in Coventry North East.

“We have a record of fighting for our class,” Onay told the meeting. “I will lobby not for business but for workers, young people, pensioners and parents fighting to save their schools.

“I say to New Labour: you look after the rich, but we will look after the workers.”

Dave Nellist added, “The only real difference between Labour and the Tories is, when Labour proposes cuts, the Tories say they’ll do it quicker.

“We need to reorganise society’s wealth. If there are cuts to be made, let’s stop the payments to the privatisers and renationalise services.

“This coalition will stand full square behind the demand to bring the troops home and end the war in Afghanistan.”

Trade unionists came to the meeting to express their support for candidates who stand up for workers’ rights.

Steve Hedley, London regional organiser for the RMT union, addressed the meeting hours after the union had announced a four-day strike on Network Rail.

“The RMT isn’t affiliated to Labour,” he said. “We were thrown out for sponsoring socialist candidates.

“We do sponsor Labour MPs like John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, in the Labour Party. But they are the last of the Mohicans!

“The bosses’ cuts threaten safety on London Underground.

“We will fight them tooth and nail.”

The following should be read alongside this article:
» Socialist election campaign is an alternative to Labour

» Pictures from the TUSC campaign trail



© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.

Labels: