An ex-liberal democrat intent on cutting £32million from Bristol may be the new mayor, but we can still look back on what was an excellent anti-austerity campaign from the Trade Unionists & Socialists Coalition - here is one of the highlights.
Showing posts with label Campaign for a New Workers Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaign for a New Workers Party. Show all posts
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Thursday, 15 November 2012
Sunday, 11 November 2012
Tom Baldwin for Mayor! - Eve of Poll Rally this Wed 14th
Trade Unionist & Socialist Against Cuts
Eve of Poll Rally
Bristol Council House, College Green
Wednesday 14th 2012
7.30pm
Speakers:
Dave Nellist - former Socialist Party councillor in Coventry
John McInally - PCS NEC, personal capacity
Tom Baldwin TUSC mayoral candidate
Thursday, 8 November 2012
Nadine Dorries in I'm a Celebrity row - Dave Nellist talks about his time as an MP on a workers wage
Following the example of all genuine workers representatives, Tom Baldwin, Mayoral candidate in Bristol for the Trade Unionists & Socialists Coalition has pledged to repudiate the huge salary and only except the average wage of a worker in Bristol.
See this from Coventry Socialist Party: http://www.coventrysocialists.co.uk/latestnews_82404.html
Rightwing Tory MP Nadine Dorries decision to take part in reality TV show ‘I’m a celebrity...Get me out of here’, which could see her being away from her job in the Commons for up to a month, has sparked controversy across the establishment media and within the Tory Party itself. It raises once again the role and duties of an sitting MP.
We have re-posted beblow an interview with Coventry Socialist Party member Dave Nellist. Dave was a ‘Militant’ supporting Labour MP in Coventry from 1983-92, who chose only to take a skilled factory workers wage, and a Socialist Party Councillor in Coventry from 1998-2012.
Dave Nellist Interview In Red Pepper
The recent scandal over MPs’ expenses and second jobs only seems to have confirmed the suspicion that ‘they’re all at it’. But when Dave Nellist was elected as Labour MP for Coventry South East he made a point of only taking the wage of an average worker. Now a Coventry city councillor and leading member of the Socialist Party, he spoke to Red Pepper about his experience in Westminster
You took the average worker’s wage as an MP – how much would that have been, roughly, in today’s terms?
It was an average skilled worker’s wage, which was always less than half an MP’s salary. For example, in 1989 MPs received £24,107 and the average skilled worker’s wage that year, calculated from figures from the engineering union’s Coventry district office, was £11,180 – so that was 46 per cent. An MP today is on £64,766 – 46 per cent of that would be £29,792. But the amount I would take today if re-elected would depend not on a percentage, but the actual average wages received by the people I represented.
What were your personal circumstances at the time? Were you married? Did you have kids? Were you conscious of making sacrifices?
My wife Jane and I were married in August 1984, during the miners’ strike. We held a social as part of the wedding celebration and charged an entry fee, which raised quite a bit for the local miners’ support fund!
For the first year we were married Jane still had her job in a department store in Sutton Coldfield. But a year later the first of our three children arrived and for the rest of my time as an MP we only had the one worker’s wage for myself, Jane and our family to live on.
I’d been unemployed before being elected in 1983, so living on a skilled worker’s wage was not a ‘sacrifice’. We had a holiday every year in Scotland or Wales, and we could manage a night out for a meal or to the theatre or the cinema in exactly the same way as any other couple with young children could. But we felt the same pressures with bills and other living expenses as the people I represented.
So I would say taking the ‘worker’s wage’ wasn’t so much making a sacrifice. If I had taken the full MP’s wage we would have been insulated against those day-to-day problems and the pressures that most people in Coventry felt.
How did you divide your time between your constituency and Westminster?Did you need to keep up two houses? Did you take much in the way of expenses above and beyond your ‘worker’s wage’?
I usually dealt with constituency business on Monday morning, went to London Monday lunchtime, tried to come back Tuesday evening (late), more constituency business/meetings on Wednesday morning, then back to London at lunchtime, coming back to Coventry late Thursday night – unless there was any pressing business on Friday. Friday and the weekend would be spent on casework/meetings in the constituency or addressing public meetings elsewhere.
Although I managed to have a voting record usually in the top ten of Labour MPs, I addressed about 1,500 meetings over the nine years I was an MP. In the 1980s parliament often sat late into the night (or even through the night), so I rented a furnished flat in London. No moat or oak beams! Nor any claims for food!
I claimed the full ‘office costs’ allowance to employ research and secretarial assistance in the Commons and in the constituency. I also rented an office in Coventry to work from. I was receiving on average 200 letters a week. We had wards with 50 per cent male unemployment, and a huge amount of constituency casework. None of the office costs money came to me personally – it was used to pay wages, and for rent and equipment.
What did you think of your fellow MPs? Were they clearly ‘on the take’ in your day? Did having a comfortable salary make them out of touch?
A number of MPs had outside jobs – mainly, in those days, Tory MPs with directorships. One I remember, Geoffrey Rippon, who had been a minister in previous Tory governments, was the King of Company Directors. When I was there he was an MP, a QC, and the chairman or director of four dozen different companies. He had 50 jobs!
It always seemed to me to be the real reason why parliament sat in the afternoon and evening, so Tory MPs could make their real money in the mornings – or as Geoffrey Rippon apparently put it, ‘to earn a crust and go on drinking decent claret’. These days, of course, it’s ex-Labour ministers who are earning tens of thousands of pounds a year moonlighting. In my book it’s an even bigger crime than playing the expenses system to be an ex-‘Labour’ minister advising private companies on how to win contracts taking public services away, and getting paid perhaps two or three times an MP’s salary – on top of an MP’s salary!
(Terry Fields MP & Dave Nellist MP at Eric Heffers funeral. Photo Dave Sinclair)
How did other MPs react to the example set by yourself (and fellow left MPs Pat Wall and Terry Fields), proving that the job could (and perhaps should) be done on the average worker’s wage?
Although there were a number of honourable exceptions (Dennis Skinner’s and other Campaign Group MPs’ generous donations during the miners’ strike, for example), for many Labour MPs it wasn’t the socialist ideas we tried to champion in parliament that upset them the most, but the threat to them receiving their ‘due reward’.
Perhaps the most vivid example was the debate on MPs’ salaries and allowances shortly after the 1987 general election (MPs’ wage increases were never announced before elections, when they might upset voters). The debate started at 9pm and went on until past midnight, and yet every seat in the House was taken! The motion was for a 21.9 per cent rise in MPs’ salaries from £356 a week to £434 a week. That £80 a week rise was £3 more than the then take-home pay for a whole week for civil servants, upon whom the government had just imposed a 4.25 per cent pay award.
See this from Coventry Socialist Party: http://www.coventrysocialists.co.uk/latestnews_82404.html
Rightwing Tory MP Nadine Dorries decision to take part in reality TV show ‘I’m a celebrity...Get me out of here’, which could see her being away from her job in the Commons for up to a month, has sparked controversy across the establishment media and within the Tory Party itself. It raises once again the role and duties of an sitting MP.
We have re-posted beblow an interview with Coventry Socialist Party member Dave Nellist. Dave was a ‘Militant’ supporting Labour MP in Coventry from 1983-92, who chose only to take a skilled factory workers wage, and a Socialist Party Councillor in Coventry from 1998-2012.
Dave Nellist Interview In Red Pepper
The recent scandal over MPs’ expenses and second jobs only seems to have confirmed the suspicion that ‘they’re all at it’. But when Dave Nellist was elected as Labour MP for Coventry South East he made a point of only taking the wage of an average worker. Now a Coventry city councillor and leading member of the Socialist Party, he spoke to Red Pepper about his experience in Westminster
You took the average worker’s wage as an MP – how much would that have been, roughly, in today’s terms?
It was an average skilled worker’s wage, which was always less than half an MP’s salary. For example, in 1989 MPs received £24,107 and the average skilled worker’s wage that year, calculated from figures from the engineering union’s Coventry district office, was £11,180 – so that was 46 per cent. An MP today is on £64,766 – 46 per cent of that would be £29,792. But the amount I would take today if re-elected would depend not on a percentage, but the actual average wages received by the people I represented.
What were your personal circumstances at the time? Were you married? Did you have kids? Were you conscious of making sacrifices?
My wife Jane and I were married in August 1984, during the miners’ strike. We held a social as part of the wedding celebration and charged an entry fee, which raised quite a bit for the local miners’ support fund!
For the first year we were married Jane still had her job in a department store in Sutton Coldfield. But a year later the first of our three children arrived and for the rest of my time as an MP we only had the one worker’s wage for myself, Jane and our family to live on.
I’d been unemployed before being elected in 1983, so living on a skilled worker’s wage was not a ‘sacrifice’. We had a holiday every year in Scotland or Wales, and we could manage a night out for a meal or to the theatre or the cinema in exactly the same way as any other couple with young children could. But we felt the same pressures with bills and other living expenses as the people I represented.
So I would say taking the ‘worker’s wage’ wasn’t so much making a sacrifice. If I had taken the full MP’s wage we would have been insulated against those day-to-day problems and the pressures that most people in Coventry felt.
How did you divide your time between your constituency and Westminster?Did you need to keep up two houses? Did you take much in the way of expenses above and beyond your ‘worker’s wage’?
I usually dealt with constituency business on Monday morning, went to London Monday lunchtime, tried to come back Tuesday evening (late), more constituency business/meetings on Wednesday morning, then back to London at lunchtime, coming back to Coventry late Thursday night – unless there was any pressing business on Friday. Friday and the weekend would be spent on casework/meetings in the constituency or addressing public meetings elsewhere.
Although I managed to have a voting record usually in the top ten of Labour MPs, I addressed about 1,500 meetings over the nine years I was an MP. In the 1980s parliament often sat late into the night (or even through the night), so I rented a furnished flat in London. No moat or oak beams! Nor any claims for food!
I claimed the full ‘office costs’ allowance to employ research and secretarial assistance in the Commons and in the constituency. I also rented an office in Coventry to work from. I was receiving on average 200 letters a week. We had wards with 50 per cent male unemployment, and a huge amount of constituency casework. None of the office costs money came to me personally – it was used to pay wages, and for rent and equipment.
What did you think of your fellow MPs? Were they clearly ‘on the take’ in your day? Did having a comfortable salary make them out of touch?
A number of MPs had outside jobs – mainly, in those days, Tory MPs with directorships. One I remember, Geoffrey Rippon, who had been a minister in previous Tory governments, was the King of Company Directors. When I was there he was an MP, a QC, and the chairman or director of four dozen different companies. He had 50 jobs!
It always seemed to me to be the real reason why parliament sat in the afternoon and evening, so Tory MPs could make their real money in the mornings – or as Geoffrey Rippon apparently put it, ‘to earn a crust and go on drinking decent claret’. These days, of course, it’s ex-Labour ministers who are earning tens of thousands of pounds a year moonlighting. In my book it’s an even bigger crime than playing the expenses system to be an ex-‘Labour’ minister advising private companies on how to win contracts taking public services away, and getting paid perhaps two or three times an MP’s salary – on top of an MP’s salary!
(Terry Fields MP & Dave Nellist MP at Eric Heffers funeral. Photo Dave Sinclair)
How did other MPs react to the example set by yourself (and fellow left MPs Pat Wall and Terry Fields), proving that the job could (and perhaps should) be done on the average worker’s wage?
Although there were a number of honourable exceptions (Dennis Skinner’s and other Campaign Group MPs’ generous donations during the miners’ strike, for example), for many Labour MPs it wasn’t the socialist ideas we tried to champion in parliament that upset them the most, but the threat to them receiving their ‘due reward’.
Perhaps the most vivid example was the debate on MPs’ salaries and allowances shortly after the 1987 general election (MPs’ wage increases were never announced before elections, when they might upset voters). The debate started at 9pm and went on until past midnight, and yet every seat in the House was taken! The motion was for a 21.9 per cent rise in MPs’ salaries from £356 a week to £434 a week. That £80 a week rise was £3 more than the then take-home pay for a whole week for civil servants, upon whom the government had just imposed a 4.25 per cent pay award.
I organised the vote against. I prepared a speech, which I reckoned would take me 10-15 minutes to deliver. Because of interruptions, it actually took 38 minutes. I asked MPs to vote against the rise; but that if it were passed I asked Labour MPs to give at least 5 per cent of their new salaries to the Labour Party to prevent the proposed 40 redundancies that were due to take place at Labour headquarters.
Immediately after me, David Blunkett spoke and complained about me ‘lecturing colleagues on how much to give of their pay’. He said he tried ‘to do a good job, to learn how to do it better and to try to earn the rewards that I am paid’. The motion to increase MPs’ wages by 22 per cent went through by an 11 to one majority.
David Blunkett now apparently gets three times his MP’s salary (on top of his MP’s salary) in outside earnings from firms including A4e, which describes itself as ‘a leader in global public service reform’.
I rest my case.
Dave Nellist was MP for Coventry South East from 1983 until 1992
US Elections: Socialist wins historic 27% against WA House Speaker
From Socialist Alternative (CWI USA) - http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6028
Kshama Sawant, the Occupy-inspired Socialist Alternative (CWI supporters in the USA) candidate for Washington State House, scored 27% against Democratic incumbent Speaker Frank Chopp. With half the votes yet to be counted, Sawant is predicted to win over 20,000 votes - the highest vote for an openly Socialist candidate in Washington in decades, and Frank Chopp’s strongest challenge during his entire 18 years in office. This follows the historic lawsuit by Sawant that compelled the Washington Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and King County to print her party preference, Socialist Alternative, on the ballot.
“We achieved this election result as an openly Socialist campaign that was largely ignored by the corporate media, with no corporate donations, on a shoe string budget,” explained Sawant. "Occupy gave a voice to working people’s rage at Wall Street, and our campaign gave voice to mass anger at the corporate politicians. It shows the potential to build a powerful left electoral challenge to the two corporate parties.”
“This vote sends a clear message to Frank Chopp and the political establishment – we are coming after you. We are reaching out to other progressive forces to form a united left slate of independent working-class candidates to run a vigorous campaign for Mayor and every open City Council position in 2013,” Sawant stated. “Wall Street has two parties - working people need a party of our own.”
The Democrats who control the state government are likely to implement further budget cuts to social services next year while they allow corporations such as Boeing and Microsoft to get away without paying barely any taxes. Sawant, a professor of economics at Seattle Central Community College and union activist, commented: "Alongside left electoral challenges, public sector unions like mine need to prepare for strike action against cuts. Ordinary people need to be ready to occupy City Hall and the Olympia state capitol building against attacks on our living standards.”Election night saw mass celebrations erupt in the streets of Seattle after the passage of Referendum 74 upholding marriage rights for same-sex couples. Speaking from atop a make-shift sound truck, Sawant addressed a crowd of over 2,000 people: “If you think that the Democratic Party politicians did this for you, let me tell you it was us that won this! The fight for LGBT rights has just begun, we still need to fight poverty, homelessness, and workplace discrimination.”
Kshama Sawant, the Occupy-inspired Socialist Alternative (CWI supporters in the USA) candidate for Washington State House, scored 27% against Democratic incumbent Speaker Frank Chopp. With half the votes yet to be counted, Sawant is predicted to win over 20,000 votes - the highest vote for an openly Socialist candidate in Washington in decades, and Frank Chopp’s strongest challenge during his entire 18 years in office. This follows the historic lawsuit by Sawant that compelled the Washington Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and King County to print her party preference, Socialist Alternative, on the ballot.
“We achieved this election result as an openly Socialist campaign that was largely ignored by the corporate media, with no corporate donations, on a shoe string budget,” explained Sawant. "Occupy gave a voice to working people’s rage at Wall Street, and our campaign gave voice to mass anger at the corporate politicians. It shows the potential to build a powerful left electoral challenge to the two corporate parties.”
“This vote sends a clear message to Frank Chopp and the political establishment – we are coming after you. We are reaching out to other progressive forces to form a united left slate of independent working-class candidates to run a vigorous campaign for Mayor and every open City Council position in 2013,” Sawant stated. “Wall Street has two parties - working people need a party of our own.”
The Democrats who control the state government are likely to implement further budget cuts to social services next year while they allow corporations such as Boeing and Microsoft to get away without paying barely any taxes. Sawant, a professor of economics at Seattle Central Community College and union activist, commented: "Alongside left electoral challenges, public sector unions like mine need to prepare for strike action against cuts. Ordinary people need to be ready to occupy City Hall and the Olympia state capitol building against attacks on our living standards.”Election night saw mass celebrations erupt in the streets of Seattle after the passage of Referendum 74 upholding marriage rights for same-sex couples. Speaking from atop a make-shift sound truck, Sawant addressed a crowd of over 2,000 people: “If you think that the Democratic Party politicians did this for you, let me tell you it was us that won this! The fight for LGBT rights has just begun, we still need to fight poverty, homelessness, and workplace discrimination.”
Friday, 3 August 2012
Southampton Labour councillors vote against cuts
By Southampton Socialist Party members
The stand taken by Coxford councillors Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to vote against the Labour council budget cuts and proposal to close Oaklands swimming pool has received enormous support from the local community and across the city. Importantly they have received the backing of local council trade unions.
It is now essential that this support is mobilised to maximize the pressure on the council, to reverse the cuts and save the pool. The council has reserves and borrowing power to raise the finance, after all millions were found to build the new Titanic museum!
No privatisation of Oaklands pool
It has been suggested that if the council hasn't got the money, the pool should be handed over to the community to run or a private provider found.
But then where would the money come from? The risk would be passed to the community and inevitably would mean going to the private sector that would end up running the pool for profit.
Private companies offer to run services not for the community but for profit. They do this by running down services, putting up charges and cutting staff and their pay and conditions.
Oaklands pool was built and paid for with public money and is an asset that should not be given away.Privatisation is no solution.
No need for cuts
The future of Oaklands pool is under threat because of the government cuts to council funding. The Con-Dems are cutting 25% of the money Southampton receives up to 2014, with further cuts promised.
But it is becoming clearer to everyone that the Con-Dem cuts are for the benefit of the super-rich, whose profits soar and who evade their taxes to the tune of over £120 billion.
Unite against all cuts
Everyone is being hit by cuts. Jobs, pay, pensions, benefits, schools, hospitals and social services.
A united campaign of the community, council workers and the trade unions must be built to oppose all cuts, redundancies and privatisation, to reverse the cuts and restore council workers' pay.
Such a mass campaign could put huge pressure on the majority Labour group not to implement cuts and to fight central government for the funding this city needs.
Support rebel councillors
Keith and Don now face disciplinary measures by Labour officials who want councillors to make cuts. Council trade unions must call on all councillors to join Keith and Don and oppose cuts.
Mass lobby against cuts
The next council meeting is on Wednesday 12 September. This will be an opportunity to mobilise mass support for the stand of the Coxford councillors and opposition to all cuts.
The Socialist Party gives full support to Keith and Don and will give support to any other Labour councillor who is prepared to join them.
The impact of their stand fully vindicates the election campaign of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) in opposing cuts. We must now ensure this campaign grows in support.
The stand taken by Coxford councillors Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to vote against the Labour council budget cuts and proposal to close Oaklands swimming pool has received enormous support from the local community and across the city. Importantly they have received the backing of local council trade unions.
It is now essential that this support is mobilised to maximize the pressure on the council, to reverse the cuts and save the pool. The council has reserves and borrowing power to raise the finance, after all millions were found to build the new Titanic museum!
No privatisation of Oaklands pool
It has been suggested that if the council hasn't got the money, the pool should be handed over to the community to run or a private provider found.
But then where would the money come from? The risk would be passed to the community and inevitably would mean going to the private sector that would end up running the pool for profit.
Private companies offer to run services not for the community but for profit. They do this by running down services, putting up charges and cutting staff and their pay and conditions.
Oaklands pool was built and paid for with public money and is an asset that should not be given away.Privatisation is no solution.
No need for cuts
The future of Oaklands pool is under threat because of the government cuts to council funding. The Con-Dems are cutting 25% of the money Southampton receives up to 2014, with further cuts promised.
But it is becoming clearer to everyone that the Con-Dem cuts are for the benefit of the super-rich, whose profits soar and who evade their taxes to the tune of over £120 billion.
Unite against all cuts
Everyone is being hit by cuts. Jobs, pay, pensions, benefits, schools, hospitals and social services.
A united campaign of the community, council workers and the trade unions must be built to oppose all cuts, redundancies and privatisation, to reverse the cuts and restore council workers' pay.
Such a mass campaign could put huge pressure on the majority Labour group not to implement cuts and to fight central government for the funding this city needs.
Support rebel councillors
Keith and Don now face disciplinary measures by Labour officials who want councillors to make cuts. Council trade unions must call on all councillors to join Keith and Don and oppose cuts.
Mass lobby against cuts
The next council meeting is on Wednesday 12 September. This will be an opportunity to mobilise mass support for the stand of the Coxford councillors and opposition to all cuts.
The Socialist Party gives full support to Keith and Don and will give support to any other Labour councillor who is prepared to join them.
The impact of their stand fully vindicates the election campaign of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) in opposing cuts. We must now ensure this campaign grows in support.
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
PCS: Historic vote for union to support election candidates
This was reported on by the Independent yesterday, here, and is warmly welcomed by the Socialist Party and the Trade Uninoist and Socialist Coalition, which will be contesting the upcoming mayoral election in Bristol. PCS press release is reproduced here:
Members of the Public and Commercial Services unionhave voted overwhelmingly to strengthen their campaigning against cuts and for the alternative to austerity with an historic decision to back election candidates.
In what is a first for a union not affiliated to the Labour party, PCS members have voted to expand the union's political remit beyond just asking would-be politicians what they stand for.
The 78.9% vote in favour comes as public sector workers face unprecedented cuts to their jobs, pay and pensions to pay for economic problems caused by the greed and recklessness of bankers and financial traders and a lack of political will to rein them in.
While trade unions have funded political candidates and parties for more than a hundred years, the union says this result shows a clear desire for a political alternative to a consensus that means any opposition too often fails to properly challenge these cuts, or is relegated to being "a critical friend" of ministers' plans to slash £28 billion in welfare support to the unemployed, sick and disabled.
With the government making our economic situation worse and causing misery in our communities, the union will now press candidates even harder to make a stand against cuts.
Where they do not, and it helps campaigns to defend jobs and public services, the union will consider supporting candidates or working with others to stand a candidate in national elections.
Examples might be backing an anti-cuts candidate in a parliamentary by-election where none of the main parties are opposing closures of local public services, or targeting prominent government ministers whose mainstream opponents are refusing to campaign against the cuts the minister is responsible for making.
PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: "This is an historic vote giving us another weapon in our fight against cuts and for the alternative to austerity.
"It will allow us to directly challenge the Westminster cuts consensus that is making scapegoats of public sector workers, the unemployed, pensioners and students, and destroying our communities.
"We know austerity isn't working and we know there is an alternative based on investment in decent public services, tackling the tax dodgers and redistributing our nation's wealth to the millions instead of the millionaires."
Timescale and background:
Members of the Public and Commercial Services unionhave voted overwhelmingly to strengthen their campaigning against cuts and for the alternative to austerity with an historic decision to back election candidates.
In what is a first for a union not affiliated to the Labour party, PCS members have voted to expand the union's political remit beyond just asking would-be politicians what they stand for.
The 78.9% vote in favour comes as public sector workers face unprecedented cuts to their jobs, pay and pensions to pay for economic problems caused by the greed and recklessness of bankers and financial traders and a lack of political will to rein them in.
While trade unions have funded political candidates and parties for more than a hundred years, the union says this result shows a clear desire for a political alternative to a consensus that means any opposition too often fails to properly challenge these cuts, or is relegated to being "a critical friend" of ministers' plans to slash £28 billion in welfare support to the unemployed, sick and disabled.
With the government making our economic situation worse and causing misery in our communities, the union will now press candidates even harder to make a stand against cuts.
Where they do not, and it helps campaigns to defend jobs and public services, the union will consider supporting candidates or working with others to stand a candidate in national elections.
Examples might be backing an anti-cuts candidate in a parliamentary by-election where none of the main parties are opposing closures of local public services, or targeting prominent government ministers whose mainstream opponents are refusing to campaign against the cuts the minister is responsible for making.
PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: "This is an historic vote giving us another weapon in our fight against cuts and for the alternative to austerity.
"It will allow us to directly challenge the Westminster cuts consensus that is making scapegoats of public sector workers, the unemployed, pensioners and students, and destroying our communities.
"We know austerity isn't working and we know there is an alternative based on investment in decent public services, tackling the tax dodgers and redistributing our nation's wealth to the millions instead of the millionaires."
Timescale and background:
- PCS members voted in 2005 to set up a political fund for campaigning during election times
- In 2007 PCS ran its first Make Your Vote Count campaign, asking local election candidates where they stood on key issues and publishing responses to members in advance of polling day.
- Since then the union has organised MYVC campaigns during all types of elections - general, local, Scottish parliamentary, Welsh and Northern Ireland assembly, and European
- Following a decision at the union's annual conference in 2009 branches were consulted on the principle of supporting election candidates, and a majority backed the idea. A number of questions were raised about how it would work in practice, so following a decision at 2010's annual conference a second consultation was held
- The results of this were reported to conference in 2011 and a motion passed endorsing the plan and calling for a full membership ballot
- For information and interview requests contact PCS national press officer Richard Simcox on 020 7801 2747 or 07833 978216
- The Public and Commercial Services union represents civil and public servants in central government. It has around 290,000 members in over 200 departments and agencies, and in parts of government transferred to the private sector. PCS is the UK's sixth largest union and is affiliated to the TUC. The general secretary is Mark Serwotka and the president is Janice Godrich - on Twitter @janicegodrich
- Follow PCS on Twitter @pcs_union
Monday, 14 May 2012
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
France: Presidential elections shows deep anger at Sarkozy
By Dave Carr -
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5722
In the first round of the French presidential elections, held on 22 April, François Hollande (28.6% vote) of the social democratic Socialist Party (PS) narrowly headed incumbent president Nicolas Sarkozy (27.1%) of the right wing Union for a Popular Movement (UMP). Both candidates face a run-off second ballot on 6 May in which Hollande is predicted to beat the much despised Sarkozy.
Most commentators emphasised the success of the far-right, xenophobic National Front (FN) candidate Marine Le Pen - who gained 17.9%, a high waterline for the FN. However, the most positive result, from a socialist standpoint, was the rapid rise in working class support for the Left Front (FDG) candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The FDG secured 11.1% (nearly four million votes) on a left reformist platform of opposing the austerity cuts to pay for the capitalists’ economic crisis.
As expected, the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA), whose popularity and membership have fallen dramatically because of its unclear programme and the false methods of its leadership, took a disappointing 1.15% (411,000 votes).
Mélenchon’s virtual overnight success came about because his skilful rhetoric tapped into a mood of burning anger among the working class against the rich elite and the capitalist policies pursued by the establishment parties.
Far right
Some of this mood was undoubtedly channelled by Le Pen, who capitalised both on people’s anger and uncertainties over the deepening euro crisis and the recent murders in Toulouse by a right-wing Islamist terrorist.
Nearly 80% voted in the first round. Le Pen has called for her supporters to abstain rather than support Sarkozy in the run-off, while Mélenchon has called for a vote for Hollande.
Despite the limitations of the Left Front programme (which essentially argues for reforming capitalist institutions instead of meaningful socialist change), Mélenchon’s successes – the tens of thousands who attended his rallies and four million votes - shows the potential for renewing the debate for building a new mass party to the left of the PS that can challenge capitalism.
Further analysis of the elections to come from Gauche Revolutionnaire (CWI in France) in the coming days.
In the first round of the French presidential elections, held on 22 April, François Hollande (28.6% vote) of the social democratic Socialist Party (PS) narrowly headed incumbent president Nicolas Sarkozy (27.1%) of the right wing Union for a Popular Movement (UMP). Both candidates face a run-off second ballot on 6 May in which Hollande is predicted to beat the much despised Sarkozy.
Most commentators emphasised the success of the far-right, xenophobic National Front (FN) candidate Marine Le Pen - who gained 17.9%, a high waterline for the FN. However, the most positive result, from a socialist standpoint, was the rapid rise in working class support for the Left Front (FDG) candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The FDG secured 11.1% (nearly four million votes) on a left reformist platform of opposing the austerity cuts to pay for the capitalists’ economic crisis.
As expected, the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA), whose popularity and membership have fallen dramatically because of its unclear programme and the false methods of its leadership, took a disappointing 1.15% (411,000 votes).
Mélenchon’s virtual overnight success came about because his skilful rhetoric tapped into a mood of burning anger among the working class against the rich elite and the capitalist policies pursued by the establishment parties.
Far right
Some of this mood was undoubtedly channelled by Le Pen, who capitalised both on people’s anger and uncertainties over the deepening euro crisis and the recent murders in Toulouse by a right-wing Islamist terrorist.
Nearly 80% voted in the first round. Le Pen has called for her supporters to abstain rather than support Sarkozy in the run-off, while Mélenchon has called for a vote for Hollande.
Despite the limitations of the Left Front programme (which essentially argues for reforming capitalist institutions instead of meaningful socialist change), Mélenchon’s successes – the tens of thousands who attended his rallies and four million votes - shows the potential for renewing the debate for building a new mass party to the left of the PS that can challenge capitalism.
Further analysis of the elections to come from Gauche Revolutionnaire (CWI in France) in the coming days.
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Add your name to the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition petition....
As the leaders of the big Labour-supporting trade unions warn Labour of the risk of losing trade union support, an electoral challenge in the Greater London Assembly elections involving leading trade unionists is being prepared.
A Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) list will be presented which can articulate the enormous anger at the horrific cuts to jobs, pay and services, and at the rich who wallow in increasing wealth.
The TUSC list will involve leading trade unionists in a personal capacity, each of whom represents thousands of members.
An appeal from Steve Hedley and John Reid, London Transport RMT, Ian Leahair, FBU national executive member for London, and Ben Sprung, FBU London organiser, has now been signed by hundreds of trade unionists.
Add your name to the supporting petition: http://www.tusc.org.uk/supportGLA.php
A Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) list will be presented which can articulate the enormous anger at the horrific cuts to jobs, pay and services, and at the rich who wallow in increasing wealth.
The TUSC list will involve leading trade unionists in a personal capacity, each of whom represents thousands of members.
An appeal from Steve Hedley and John Reid, London Transport RMT, Ian Leahair, FBU national executive member for London, and Ben Sprung, FBU London organiser, has now been signed by hundreds of trade unionists.
Add your name to the supporting petition: http://www.tusc.org.uk/supportGLA.php
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
PCS: 'Unacceptable bullying' will not deter union's members
From: http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/C795C969-BCC9-413C-9AB18DC6FF43E84D
Speaking after today's statement in parliament by Danny Alexander, PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said the government's "unacceptable bullying" will not deter the union's members from standing up for what is right.
In singling out the union for criticism the chief secretary to the Treasury mislead MPs by saying PCS had "walked away from talks".
The truth is, the Cabinet Office unilaterally announced yesterday PCS would no longer be invited to negotiations over pensions, even though the union believes the government has a legal obligation to do so.
In a letter to Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude yesterday, Mark Serwotka wrote: "As the union representing the overwhelming majority of civil servants we want to reach an agreement, but we could not accept that the government's proposals are an unalterable framework within which any discussions have to take place. PCS would expect to be involved in any further discussions which take place in relation to the government’s proposals."
Letter to Francis Maude 19 Dec 2011
The union has reiterated its commitment to negotiating but ministers have refused to negotiate on the three core issues of forcing public servants to pay hundreds of pounds more each year in pensions contributions, work for up to eight years longer and receive much less in retirement - in many cases, tens of thousands of pounds.
Of all the proposed changes, these will have the biggest impact on the pensions of millions of public servants. Not a single penny of the extra contributions will go to make pensions any more affordable - because this is not required - the money will go to the Treasury to pay off the budget deficit caused by the recession and bailing out the banks.
While talks with Cabinet Office officials have been held in recent weeks on aspects of the civil service scheme, there have been no central negotiations with ministers on these key issues since 2 November.
At a meeting of the TUC's public sector liaison group yesterday evening, Mark Serwotka reported the union's view that nothing had changed since the public sector strike on 30 November, that the offer on the table in the civil service was not good enough, and that further industrial action will be necessary in the new year if the government's continues to refuse to negotiate on the main issues.
Mark Serwotka said: "It is extraordinary how PCS members have been treated by this government, simply for saying they will not accept being made to pay more and work longer for tens of thousands of pounds less in their retirement.
"This kind of unacceptable bullying will not deter union members from standing up for what is right, and opposing the government's attempts to make them pay the price for a recession they did not cause. We remain committed to negotiating with ministers, but they continue to refuse even though we believe they have a legal obligation to do so."
Speaking after today's statement in parliament by Danny Alexander, PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said the government's "unacceptable bullying" will not deter the union's members from standing up for what is right.
In singling out the union for criticism the chief secretary to the Treasury mislead MPs by saying PCS had "walked away from talks".
The truth is, the Cabinet Office unilaterally announced yesterday PCS would no longer be invited to negotiations over pensions, even though the union believes the government has a legal obligation to do so.
In a letter to Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude yesterday, Mark Serwotka wrote: "As the union representing the overwhelming majority of civil servants we want to reach an agreement, but we could not accept that the government's proposals are an unalterable framework within which any discussions have to take place. PCS would expect to be involved in any further discussions which take place in relation to the government’s proposals."
Letter to Francis Maude 19 Dec 2011
The union has reiterated its commitment to negotiating but ministers have refused to negotiate on the three core issues of forcing public servants to pay hundreds of pounds more each year in pensions contributions, work for up to eight years longer and receive much less in retirement - in many cases, tens of thousands of pounds.
Of all the proposed changes, these will have the biggest impact on the pensions of millions of public servants. Not a single penny of the extra contributions will go to make pensions any more affordable - because this is not required - the money will go to the Treasury to pay off the budget deficit caused by the recession and bailing out the banks.
While talks with Cabinet Office officials have been held in recent weeks on aspects of the civil service scheme, there have been no central negotiations with ministers on these key issues since 2 November.
At a meeting of the TUC's public sector liaison group yesterday evening, Mark Serwotka reported the union's view that nothing had changed since the public sector strike on 30 November, that the offer on the table in the civil service was not good enough, and that further industrial action will be necessary in the new year if the government's continues to refuse to negotiate on the main issues.
Mark Serwotka said: "It is extraordinary how PCS members have been treated by this government, simply for saying they will not accept being made to pay more and work longer for tens of thousands of pounds less in their retirement.
"This kind of unacceptable bullying will not deter union members from standing up for what is right, and opposing the government's attempts to make them pay the price for a recession they did not cause. We remain committed to negotiating with ministers, but they continue to refuse even though we believe they have a legal obligation to do so."
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
Scottish Anti Cuts Coalition to stand in 2012 Elections
From: http://www.socialistpartyscotland.org.uk/news-a-analysis/scottish-politics/358-scottish-anti-cuts-coalition-to-stand-in-2012
Over 70 trade unionists, community campaigners and socialists gathered for a conference in Glasgow on December 10, to launch the Scottish Anti Cuts Coalition. The coalition will stand candidates across Scotland in the May 2012 council elections.
From the chair, PCS national executive member Cheryl Gedling - who along with other leading public sector trade unionists has played a central role in the formation of SACC - introduced the discussion explaining that the conference had taken on further importance after the mass public sector strike on November 30.
Cheryl highlighted the colossal impact of the strike that had cost the economy £500 million and had shaken the ConDem government. Tory Chancellor Osborne’s provocative autumn statement unleashing further austerity on the poorest in society and the continuing loss of thousands of jobs a week in the public sector show the need for an anti-cuts electoral challenge.
Brian Smith, Branch Secretary of Glasgow City Unison and a member of Socialist Party Scotland underlined the anger of workers in response to SNP government ministers crossing picket lines and Labour’s inconsistent attitude towards the strike. Labour leader Ed Miliband refused to back the strikes and while Scottish Labour supported it, their MSPs had crossed picket lines on the previous strike on June 30.
Brian stressed the need to expose and oppose SNP and Labour politicians implementing the ConDem’s cuts in council chambers not just through general anti cuts campaigning but also a political challenge to the cuts agenda. Anti-cuts activists have an opportunity with all of Scotland’s councillors up for election in May under a proportional representation system to raise principled opposition to all cuts to a wide audience.
5 key principles
Brian urged support for a resolution to create a coalition of anti-cuts candidates based around five key points: Opposition to all cuts, Candidates if elected would put forward needs budgets protecting services, jobs and communities and build a mass campaign to demand a return of the money stolen by the Con Dems from public services, Opposition to privatisation, Full support to workers taking industrial action and communities, young people fighting the cuts, Taxation of the rich and Public Ownership allowing investment in jobs and services.
Brian outlined the basis for a voluntary coalition. That all candidates would sign up to the five pledges and can add to them with further political and local demands. Socialist Party Scotland members who are candidates for example will also raise wider socialist demands alongside the 5 key pledges.
The coalition will aim to stand credible candidates in as many areas as is practically possible, bearing in mind the importance of standing candidates with a good record of fighting cuts, local campaigning etc. Where, therefore, other Left candidates are standing who have a principled record of defending the interests of local communities and opposition to cuts, the coalition will not stand against them. Provided they clearly come out against all cuts.
The name “Scottish Anti Cuts Coalition” would be registered. Candidates who are members of already registered political parties can use their party name if they wish. He also noted the calling of a political conference by the United Left (broad left in the Unite trade union) on 14 January and said he hoped this would be step towards trade union’s taking part in building political representation for workers and that the coalition set up at this conference would attend and participate.
Rab Patterson, chair of Midlothian Trades Council and a member of Midlothian Against the Cuts gave a flavour of the frustration of working class communities at Labour councils carrying out cuts. In his community, Labour councillors had carried out a large scale cuts program and failed to take up the privatisation scandal at a local Southern Cross hospital, instead they had spent millions on legal fees trying to stop the council’s workforce enforcing their rights under equal pay legislation.
Dundee Unison Chairperson and Socialist Party Scotland member Jim McFarlane gave a picture of the scale of the N30 strike pointing to the magnificent 10,000 strong demonstration in Dundee, a city of 140,000. Jim said the mood of workers reflected a political turning point which anti cuts activists had to respond too. He recounted that the loudest cheers at the Dundee rally, were for speakers who denounced the politicians for not supporting the strike but also for those who pointed to the cuts policies of the SNP and Labour in power. Jim argued that the SNP and Labour had had every chance and opportunity to defend communities against cuts but have shown which side they are on. These political representatives who have betrayed workers should stand aside or be forced out by a principled anti cuts challenge.
These points were echoed by young people at the meeting. Youth Fight for Jobs activists, Ryan Stuart and Wayne Scott explained the disenfranchisement of young people who are consigned to unemployment or low paid work and are being hammered by education cuts.
Unison activists and Socialist Party Scotland members Diane Harvey and Ian Leech highlighted the role of Glasgow’s Labour council in attacking workers conditions and attacking community services. Ian raised the need for the anti-cuts movement to have political leadership that challenged Labour’s argument for cuts at a slower pace.
Diane pointed to the government’s strategy of trying to divide public and private sector workers and argued that the disputes of the electricians and the Unilever workers were undermining this. She explained that workers who took part in N30 were asking who to vote for.
Gordon Morgan gave support for the motion on behalf of Solidarity Scotland’s Socialist Movement and said he hoped an anti-cuts electoral challenge would be a catalyst for strengthing and building community anti cuts campaigns.
Labour and SNP
The Socialist Workers Party supported the motion but raised differences about the approach of the coalition towards Labour and the SNP. In several contributions they raised some doubts about the impact of an anti-cuts electoral challenge and how widely it should be standing candidates.
SWP members for example argued that Labour councillors, activists and MSP’s had played a positive role in the campaign against the Edinburgh SNP/Liberal coalition’s privatisation program and that raising the question of standing against them may be divisive.
They urged unity with Labour representatives against the “common class enemy, the ConDem’s”. This was answered in the debate by Socialist Party Scotland members who explained that Labour, if they win control of Edinburgh council, will implement a cuts program.
The International Socialist Group, a recent split from the SWP, expressed a change of attitude towards the idea of the coalition from their position at the 22 October meeting. In October, the ISG had opposed the initiative, saying it did not go far enough and called for the immediate creation of a new united left. At the conference the ISG made a similar argument but supported the resolution to set up a broad coalition.
Kevin McVey, Scottish Socialist Party National Secretary reported on discussion in the SSP about the coalition and declared that the SSP members present would abstain on the vote for the resolution. The SSP had concerns that no new forces were involved in the setting up of the coalition and that its constituent parts did not represent anything significant. He also made it clear that the SSP had begun selecting candidates for the elections.
This was replied to by Alan Brown, a leading PCS member speaking in a personal capacity, who highlighted the social and political weight of the trade unionists attending the conference and the wider support for the idea of standing anti cuts candidates amongst trade union members and the wider working class.
Brian Smith concluded the discussion by raising the need to organise meetings in local areas in the New Year to bring together activists, discuss candidates and seats and raise the profile of the coalition. He reported that he had been involved in discussions with community campaigners and trade unionists and was encouraging them to stand.
Socialist Party Scotland members played a key role in driving forward the initiative for a coalition and will be standing candidates in the elections in May. The launch of the Scottish Anti-Cuts Coalition marks an important step forward. It will now be taken out among trade unionists, communities and the wider working class to build the challenge in May 2012 for a principled anti-cuts alternative.
Over 70 trade unionists, community campaigners and socialists gathered for a conference in Glasgow on December 10, to launch the Scottish Anti Cuts Coalition. The coalition will stand candidates across Scotland in the May 2012 council elections.
From the chair, PCS national executive member Cheryl Gedling - who along with other leading public sector trade unionists has played a central role in the formation of SACC - introduced the discussion explaining that the conference had taken on further importance after the mass public sector strike on November 30.
Cheryl highlighted the colossal impact of the strike that had cost the economy £500 million and had shaken the ConDem government. Tory Chancellor Osborne’s provocative autumn statement unleashing further austerity on the poorest in society and the continuing loss of thousands of jobs a week in the public sector show the need for an anti-cuts electoral challenge.
Brian Smith, Branch Secretary of Glasgow City Unison and a member of Socialist Party Scotland underlined the anger of workers in response to SNP government ministers crossing picket lines and Labour’s inconsistent attitude towards the strike. Labour leader Ed Miliband refused to back the strikes and while Scottish Labour supported it, their MSPs had crossed picket lines on the previous strike on June 30.
Brian stressed the need to expose and oppose SNP and Labour politicians implementing the ConDem’s cuts in council chambers not just through general anti cuts campaigning but also a political challenge to the cuts agenda. Anti-cuts activists have an opportunity with all of Scotland’s councillors up for election in May under a proportional representation system to raise principled opposition to all cuts to a wide audience.
5 key principles
Brian urged support for a resolution to create a coalition of anti-cuts candidates based around five key points: Opposition to all cuts, Candidates if elected would put forward needs budgets protecting services, jobs and communities and build a mass campaign to demand a return of the money stolen by the Con Dems from public services, Opposition to privatisation, Full support to workers taking industrial action and communities, young people fighting the cuts, Taxation of the rich and Public Ownership allowing investment in jobs and services.
Brian outlined the basis for a voluntary coalition. That all candidates would sign up to the five pledges and can add to them with further political and local demands. Socialist Party Scotland members who are candidates for example will also raise wider socialist demands alongside the 5 key pledges.
The coalition will aim to stand credible candidates in as many areas as is practically possible, bearing in mind the importance of standing candidates with a good record of fighting cuts, local campaigning etc. Where, therefore, other Left candidates are standing who have a principled record of defending the interests of local communities and opposition to cuts, the coalition will not stand against them. Provided they clearly come out against all cuts.
The name “Scottish Anti Cuts Coalition” would be registered. Candidates who are members of already registered political parties can use their party name if they wish. He also noted the calling of a political conference by the United Left (broad left in the Unite trade union) on 14 January and said he hoped this would be step towards trade union’s taking part in building political representation for workers and that the coalition set up at this conference would attend and participate.
Rab Patterson, chair of Midlothian Trades Council and a member of Midlothian Against the Cuts gave a flavour of the frustration of working class communities at Labour councils carrying out cuts. In his community, Labour councillors had carried out a large scale cuts program and failed to take up the privatisation scandal at a local Southern Cross hospital, instead they had spent millions on legal fees trying to stop the council’s workforce enforcing their rights under equal pay legislation.
Dundee Unison Chairperson and Socialist Party Scotland member Jim McFarlane gave a picture of the scale of the N30 strike pointing to the magnificent 10,000 strong demonstration in Dundee, a city of 140,000. Jim said the mood of workers reflected a political turning point which anti cuts activists had to respond too. He recounted that the loudest cheers at the Dundee rally, were for speakers who denounced the politicians for not supporting the strike but also for those who pointed to the cuts policies of the SNP and Labour in power. Jim argued that the SNP and Labour had had every chance and opportunity to defend communities against cuts but have shown which side they are on. These political representatives who have betrayed workers should stand aside or be forced out by a principled anti cuts challenge.
These points were echoed by young people at the meeting. Youth Fight for Jobs activists, Ryan Stuart and Wayne Scott explained the disenfranchisement of young people who are consigned to unemployment or low paid work and are being hammered by education cuts.
Unison activists and Socialist Party Scotland members Diane Harvey and Ian Leech highlighted the role of Glasgow’s Labour council in attacking workers conditions and attacking community services. Ian raised the need for the anti-cuts movement to have political leadership that challenged Labour’s argument for cuts at a slower pace.
Diane pointed to the government’s strategy of trying to divide public and private sector workers and argued that the disputes of the electricians and the Unilever workers were undermining this. She explained that workers who took part in N30 were asking who to vote for.
Gordon Morgan gave support for the motion on behalf of Solidarity Scotland’s Socialist Movement and said he hoped an anti-cuts electoral challenge would be a catalyst for strengthing and building community anti cuts campaigns.
Labour and SNP
The Socialist Workers Party supported the motion but raised differences about the approach of the coalition towards Labour and the SNP. In several contributions they raised some doubts about the impact of an anti-cuts electoral challenge and how widely it should be standing candidates.
SWP members for example argued that Labour councillors, activists and MSP’s had played a positive role in the campaign against the Edinburgh SNP/Liberal coalition’s privatisation program and that raising the question of standing against them may be divisive.
They urged unity with Labour representatives against the “common class enemy, the ConDem’s”. This was answered in the debate by Socialist Party Scotland members who explained that Labour, if they win control of Edinburgh council, will implement a cuts program.
The International Socialist Group, a recent split from the SWP, expressed a change of attitude towards the idea of the coalition from their position at the 22 October meeting. In October, the ISG had opposed the initiative, saying it did not go far enough and called for the immediate creation of a new united left. At the conference the ISG made a similar argument but supported the resolution to set up a broad coalition.
Kevin McVey, Scottish Socialist Party National Secretary reported on discussion in the SSP about the coalition and declared that the SSP members present would abstain on the vote for the resolution. The SSP had concerns that no new forces were involved in the setting up of the coalition and that its constituent parts did not represent anything significant. He also made it clear that the SSP had begun selecting candidates for the elections.
This was replied to by Alan Brown, a leading PCS member speaking in a personal capacity, who highlighted the social and political weight of the trade unionists attending the conference and the wider support for the idea of standing anti cuts candidates amongst trade union members and the wider working class.
Brian Smith concluded the discussion by raising the need to organise meetings in local areas in the New Year to bring together activists, discuss candidates and seats and raise the profile of the coalition. He reported that he had been involved in discussions with community campaigners and trade unionists and was encouraging them to stand.
Socialist Party Scotland members played a key role in driving forward the initiative for a coalition and will be standing candidates in the elections in May. The launch of the Scottish Anti-Cuts Coalition marks an important step forward. It will now be taken out among trade unionists, communities and the wider working class to build the challenge in May 2012 for a principled anti-cuts alternative.
Friday, 8 July 2011
Labour Party- condemned for condemning strike
"The Labour Party died on Thursday." This was how one letter to the Guardian on 1 July, the day after the biggest strike action in decades, summed up the feelings of millions about Labour leader Ed Miliband's condemnation of the strikes.
To add insult to injury Miliband, having condemned thestrike, was then photographed in parliament laughing over a cup of tea with Cameron and Clegg, while the pickets stood outside.
In reality, the Labour Party, as a vehicle for the interests of the working class, died long ago. Under Blair the party was transformed from a capitalist workers' party - with a capitalist leadership but a working class base that could influence the party via its democratic structures - into a capitalist party.
However, Miliband's statement has brought the pro-capitalist reality of New Labour home to millions. Another letter to the Guardian on 1 July drew the conclusion that many others will also be pondering: "Surely it is time for a new party to represent workers and hold true to the values many of us thought Labour was supposed to represent."
The death of political parties is being widely predicted by capitalist commentators. The real reason for their shrinking membership, however, was mentioned as an aside by Anthony King in the Financial Times (2 July): "differences among the main parties have narrowed, sometimes to vanishing point. Few socialist parties exist any longer, and only the tiniest fringe parties talk the language of political struggle."
King went on to say that the continued decline of party memberships is inevitable. In the past, he states, politics was a matter of "warfare... between classes, nations, races and religious denominations" but in Europe today, he says, this is no longer true.
If King was to ask any public sector worker in Britain, or benefit claimant, or library user, or student if political "warfare" was a thing of the past they would be able to tell him about the vicious class war being conducted by this government against them.
King concludes: "Who in 2011 would dream of christening... a party 'the Labour Party'? The very idea is anachronistic". Given the recent history of the Labour Party in cutting and privatising services and opposing strikes it is very unlikely anyone would give a new workers' party that name, but a mass party that stood for the majority - for the working class, the poor, the young - would, far from being "anachronistic", be enormously popular.
The Socialist Party participates in the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC www.tusc.org.uk) an electoral alliance involving leading militant trade unionists from the RMT, PCS and NUT.
TUSC plays an important role, enabling trade unionists, community campaigners and socialists to stand candidates against the pro-austerity consensus of the capitalist parties.
For the Socialist Party TUSC is also part of a campaign, which we have waged for well over a decade, for the trade unions to stop funding Labour and to begin to build a new party that stands in the interests of working class people. Both the objective need and potential for such a party has never been greater than it is today.
At the 30 June London strike rally Mary Bousted, the general secretary of the ATL, the most 'moderate' union to take part in the strike, attacked the Labour leadership which is "laughingly called an opposition". She called on trade unionists to 'do it for themselves' (see pages 8 and 9), receiving the biggest cheer of the whole rally.
If any platform speaker had argued for trade unionists to do it for themselves - by striking but also by standing in elections on a clear anti-cuts programme, it would have had a huge response.
If that ballot is passed it will be a major step forward for the trade union movement and would open the possibility of a trade union based electoral alternative on a wider scale.
It is true that the leaders of some of the Labour-affiliated trade unions, particularly Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, have argued for a major campaign to reclaim the Labour Party, rather than founding a new party.
Mistakenly there were hopes that Ed Miliband's leadership would represent a step in this direction. On the contrary, as we warned, Miliband's leadership is a continuation of New Labour.
For the trade unions to reclaim Labour would require a mass influx of trade unionists into the party. We don't think that this can be achieved: the main response of trade unionists to Miliband's condemnation of the strike is not to join the Labour Party to change it but to turn away from the Labour Party in disgust. We argue for Unite to stop funding New Labour and to begin to build a new party.
Such a campaign would have to demand that Labour adopts a socialist programme. Key demands would include the repeal of all the anti-trade union laws and opposition to all cuts in public services, not just in words but in action.
It would be necessary to demand that Labour councils stop wielding the axe and instead 'take the Liverpool road', that is to follow the example of Liverpool City Council in the 1980s; refusing to implement cuts and mobilising the workforce and population in a mass campaign in their support.
It would also be necessary to demand that the pro-capitalist leaders be expelled from the party. Linked to this would be the rebuilding of democracy within the Labour Party, which is currently non-existent at national level.
The trade unions, the main funders of New Labour, no longer even have the right to move motions at the toothless annual conference. Yet Miliband is threatening to get rid of even the few tiny remnants of workers' democracy that still exist, including the election of the shadow cabinet.
We do not think that a campaign to reclaim New Labour could succeed. However, we are not inflexible; were it to be effective we would turn towards such a development.
Equally, if we are proved correct, the affiliated trade unions would need to draw the conclusion that New Labour could not be reclaimed and join with those workers who are fighting for the formation of a new party.
Such a party, in contrast to the shrinking membership of all the capitalist parties, would grow rapidly.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/12340/06-07-2011/labour-condemned-for-condemning-strike
To add insult to injury Miliband, having condemned thestrike, was then photographed in parliament laughing over a cup of tea with Cameron and Clegg, while the pickets stood outside.
In reality, the Labour Party, as a vehicle for the interests of the working class, died long ago. Under Blair the party was transformed from a capitalist workers' party - with a capitalist leadership but a working class base that could influence the party via its democratic structures - into a capitalist party.
However, Miliband's statement has brought the pro-capitalist reality of New Labour home to millions. Another letter to the Guardian on 1 July drew the conclusion that many others will also be pondering: "Surely it is time for a new party to represent workers and hold true to the values many of us thought Labour was supposed to represent."
The death of political parties is being widely predicted by capitalist commentators. The real reason for their shrinking membership, however, was mentioned as an aside by Anthony King in the Financial Times (2 July): "differences among the main parties have narrowed, sometimes to vanishing point. Few socialist parties exist any longer, and only the tiniest fringe parties talk the language of political struggle."
King went on to say that the continued decline of party memberships is inevitable. In the past, he states, politics was a matter of "warfare... between classes, nations, races and religious denominations" but in Europe today, he says, this is no longer true.
Class war
It is true that the differences between the establishment political parties has narrowed to vanishing point, but the gap between them and the views of the majority of the population has never been wider.If King was to ask any public sector worker in Britain, or benefit claimant, or library user, or student if political "warfare" was a thing of the past they would be able to tell him about the vicious class war being conducted by this government against them.
King concludes: "Who in 2011 would dream of christening... a party 'the Labour Party'? The very idea is anachronistic". Given the recent history of the Labour Party in cutting and privatising services and opposing strikes it is very unlikely anyone would give a new workers' party that name, but a mass party that stood for the majority - for the working class, the poor, the young - would, far from being "anachronistic", be enormously popular.
The Socialist Party participates in the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC www.tusc.org.uk) an electoral alliance involving leading militant trade unionists from the RMT, PCS and NUT.
TUSC plays an important role, enabling trade unionists, community campaigners and socialists to stand candidates against the pro-austerity consensus of the capitalist parties.
For the Socialist Party TUSC is also part of a campaign, which we have waged for well over a decade, for the trade unions to stop funding Labour and to begin to build a new party that stands in the interests of working class people. Both the objective need and potential for such a party has never been greater than it is today.
At the 30 June London strike rally Mary Bousted, the general secretary of the ATL, the most 'moderate' union to take part in the strike, attacked the Labour leadership which is "laughingly called an opposition". She called on trade unionists to 'do it for themselves' (see pages 8 and 9), receiving the biggest cheer of the whole rally.
If any platform speaker had argued for trade unionists to do it for themselves - by striking but also by standing in elections on a clear anti-cuts programme, it would have had a huge response.
Break the Link
None of the unions that went on strike on 30 June are affiliated to the Labour Party. This year's PCS conference agreed that, within the next twelve months, a full membership ballot would be held "to decide whether the union could stand or support candidates in national elections".If that ballot is passed it will be a major step forward for the trade union movement and would open the possibility of a trade union based electoral alternative on a wider scale.
It is true that the leaders of some of the Labour-affiliated trade unions, particularly Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, have argued for a major campaign to reclaim the Labour Party, rather than founding a new party.
Mistakenly there were hopes that Ed Miliband's leadership would represent a step in this direction. On the contrary, as we warned, Miliband's leadership is a continuation of New Labour.
For the trade unions to reclaim Labour would require a mass influx of trade unionists into the party. We don't think that this can be achieved: the main response of trade unionists to Miliband's condemnation of the strike is not to join the Labour Party to change it but to turn away from the Labour Party in disgust. We argue for Unite to stop funding New Labour and to begin to build a new party.
Serious campaign
Nonetheless, a serious campaign to reclaim New Labour by affiliated trade unions would be a huge step forward on the current policy of the majority of the union leaders of clinging to the coat-tails of the Labour leadership.Such a campaign would have to demand that Labour adopts a socialist programme. Key demands would include the repeal of all the anti-trade union laws and opposition to all cuts in public services, not just in words but in action.
It would be necessary to demand that Labour councils stop wielding the axe and instead 'take the Liverpool road', that is to follow the example of Liverpool City Council in the 1980s; refusing to implement cuts and mobilising the workforce and population in a mass campaign in their support.
It would also be necessary to demand that the pro-capitalist leaders be expelled from the party. Linked to this would be the rebuilding of democracy within the Labour Party, which is currently non-existent at national level.
The trade unions, the main funders of New Labour, no longer even have the right to move motions at the toothless annual conference. Yet Miliband is threatening to get rid of even the few tiny remnants of workers' democracy that still exist, including the election of the shadow cabinet.
We do not think that a campaign to reclaim New Labour could succeed. However, we are not inflexible; were it to be effective we would turn towards such a development.
Equally, if we are proved correct, the affiliated trade unions would need to draw the conclusion that New Labour could not be reclaimed and join with those workers who are fighting for the formation of a new party.
Such a party, in contrast to the shrinking membership of all the capitalist parties, would grow rapidly.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/12340/06-07-2011/labour-condemned-for-condemning-strike
Saturday, 7 May 2011
1226 votes for Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts in Bristol
Results are in and TUSC Against Cuts got a respectable 1226 votes across the 16 Bristol seats. Although we did not win any seats, we raised the level of the debate considerably in this campaign by being the only party to consistently argue for no cuts to jobs and services. Tories, Liberals and Labour all pushed an agenda of massive spending cuts and neo-liberal market policies, but we stand firmly against those spending cuts just as we stand against Councils that faithfully implement those cuts, whatever their political complexion. We have argued that the spending cuts are neither fair nor necessary and that ordinary people should not be paying for an economic crisis that they did not create, and we will continue to do so. The anti-cuts movement must now take this message into every community and every workplace, building for co-ordinated strike action and resistance to every single cut the council tries to make. On every issue the coalition has been tested and has shown to be weak, it can be broken and the cuts can be stopped. Help us in this struggle, get involved in building the Anti-Cuts Alliance, join with us in the Socialist Party.
Monday, 2 May 2011
TUSC Against Cuts: Eve of Poll public meeting TOMORROW
Cross Keys Pub,
Fishponds Road,
BS16 3BA
Tuesday 3rd May 2011
7.30pm
Friday, 15 April 2011
TUSC Against Cuts: Vote Robin Clapp in Bedminster
In BEDMINSTER vote Robin CLAPP on 5th May for Bristol City Councillor - Trade Unionists & Socialists Against Cuts - "A socialist and committed community activist, I will oppose all cuts to jobs and services as I did successfully in leading the 2008 campaign to keep Marksbury Road library open."
http://www.facebook.com/TUSCBristol
http://www.facebook.com/TUSCBristol
Monday, 11 April 2011
Fight the cuts with TUSC - Vote against cuts in Bristol
In 55 local authorities there will be the chance to support candidates who will refuse to implement the cuts, this includes 16 candidates in Bristol. To find out details about our candidates visit - http://www.facebook.com/TUSCBristol
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Reject 'TINA'- fight for socialism
The pages of the Socialist are bulging with reports from workers, young people and other service users who are organising to fight the cuts.
Con-Dem ministers and Labour councillors play the blame game. Councillors claim they have no choice but to axe vital services. Ministers say councillors have 'freedom to choose' how they implement spending cuts and could save some (popular) services by cutting others.
Both of these positions are unacceptable and working class people have no choice but to fight all cuts - whoever makes them.
Polls show that, despite a constant and exclusive diet of TINA (there is no alternative) from big business politicians, backed up by their media friends, almost a third of people believe the cuts are unnecessary. This number will multiply as the fightback develops, as it will be accompanied with increasing realisation of the amount of money that is swilling around in big business circles.
It's estimated that a tax on Barclays' £2.7 billion bonus pool alone would allow the government to reverse cuts to the Education Maintenance Allowance, disability allowance and housing benefit.
A YouGov poll in 2010 showed that "74% of the population would favour a tax on the wealthiest six million (who have an average of £4 million of private wealth per household) to pay off the national debt and therefore avoid the cuts".
However, none of the main political parties has any intention of doing anything like this. Health minister Andrew Lansley has received an estimated £20,000 from private health care companies, while the Mirror reports that such companies have paid out £750,000 to the Tories. The Con-Dems and their Labour predecessors act in the interest of the directors and owners of these companies and those in other sectors of big business and finance.
"Too far, too fast" is not an effective rallying cry. Labour leader Ed Miliband is worse than useless in opposition, merely criticising the speed at which cuts are carried through.
In national and local government Labour has carried through a Tory agenda of privatisation. For instance, in the NHS the 'internal market' was massively expanded under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, preparing the ground for the Con-Dems to smash the NHS completely.
The Tories' motives go way beyond a temporary austerity drive. This was made clear when David Cameron blurted out last August: "Should we cut things now and go back later to try and restore them later? I think we should avoid that approach."
Working class people need our own mass party - one which fights all the cuts. A survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development of 700 employers revealed that firms in all sectors plan to shed 6.2% on average of their workforce in the first quarter of this year, up from 3.8% in the previous quarter.
A mass workers' party could demand a 35-hour week without loss of pay. And that the billions paid out in bonuses to bankers should instead be invested in a programme of socially useful job creation.
Many more measures along these lines are necessary, but we also need to take into account that capitalism, a system motivated solely by private profit, means there will always be crises, always be poverty and inequality. That is why, as well as fighting the cuts, the Socialist Party proposes a socialist alternative. That would mean ordinary people deciding how our lives are run, how the wealth and resources in the economy can be used to meet our needs - not to stack up in the vaults of bank executives and in the assets and luxuries of the rich.
Instead of making cuts, a socialist government would nationalise the banks and major corporations and place them under democratic workers' control and management. Compensation would be paid only on the basis of proven need. A state monopoly on foreign trade and transactions could stop the wealthy removing money.
A socialist planned economy would make us no longer subject to the whim of the markets. The resources made available would transform all our lives - providing living standards and services that are unimaginable under capitalism.
If you agree, join the Socialist Party.
Con-Dem ministers and Labour councillors play the blame game. Councillors claim they have no choice but to axe vital services. Ministers say councillors have 'freedom to choose' how they implement spending cuts and could save some (popular) services by cutting others.
Both of these positions are unacceptable and working class people have no choice but to fight all cuts - whoever makes them.
Polls show that, despite a constant and exclusive diet of TINA (there is no alternative) from big business politicians, backed up by their media friends, almost a third of people believe the cuts are unnecessary. This number will multiply as the fightback develops, as it will be accompanied with increasing realisation of the amount of money that is swilling around in big business circles.
It's estimated that a tax on Barclays' £2.7 billion bonus pool alone would allow the government to reverse cuts to the Education Maintenance Allowance, disability allowance and housing benefit.
A YouGov poll in 2010 showed that "74% of the population would favour a tax on the wealthiest six million (who have an average of £4 million of private wealth per household) to pay off the national debt and therefore avoid the cuts".
However, none of the main political parties has any intention of doing anything like this. Health minister Andrew Lansley has received an estimated £20,000 from private health care companies, while the Mirror reports that such companies have paid out £750,000 to the Tories. The Con-Dems and their Labour predecessors act in the interest of the directors and owners of these companies and those in other sectors of big business and finance.
"Too far, too fast" is not an effective rallying cry. Labour leader Ed Miliband is worse than useless in opposition, merely criticising the speed at which cuts are carried through.
In national and local government Labour has carried through a Tory agenda of privatisation. For instance, in the NHS the 'internal market' was massively expanded under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, preparing the ground for the Con-Dems to smash the NHS completely.
The Tories' motives go way beyond a temporary austerity drive. This was made clear when David Cameron blurted out last August: "Should we cut things now and go back later to try and restore them later? I think we should avoid that approach."
Working class people need our own mass party - one which fights all the cuts. A survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development of 700 employers revealed that firms in all sectors plan to shed 6.2% on average of their workforce in the first quarter of this year, up from 3.8% in the previous quarter.
A mass workers' party could demand a 35-hour week without loss of pay. And that the billions paid out in bonuses to bankers should instead be invested in a programme of socially useful job creation.
Many more measures along these lines are necessary, but we also need to take into account that capitalism, a system motivated solely by private profit, means there will always be crises, always be poverty and inequality. That is why, as well as fighting the cuts, the Socialist Party proposes a socialist alternative. That would mean ordinary people deciding how our lives are run, how the wealth and resources in the economy can be used to meet our needs - not to stack up in the vaults of bank executives and in the assets and luxuries of the rich.
Instead of making cuts, a socialist government would nationalise the banks and major corporations and place them under democratic workers' control and management. Compensation would be paid only on the basis of proven need. A state monopoly on foreign trade and transactions could stop the wealthy removing money.
A socialist planned economy would make us no longer subject to the whim of the markets. The resources made available would transform all our lives - providing living standards and services that are unimaginable under capitalism.
If you agree, join the Socialist Party.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/11179/16-02-2011/reject-tina-fight-for-socialism
Thursday, 20 January 2011
NSSN: Fighting cuts and privatisation!
Circular from the National Shop Stewards Network:
This Saturday will see fighting Trade unionists and anti cuts/community groups from across England, Scotland & Wales come together to develop & debate a strategy to fight the cuts, THIS will be a key conference to start the year and we want YOU to join us.
AGENDA: A fuller agenda will be available on the day.
10.30am Registration (Please come early!)
11.30am Chair’s opening remarks
11.40am Guest Speakers including Alex Gordon President RMT
12 Two motions proposed
12.20pm Discussion from floor
2.45pm Votes
3.20 Chair’s closing remarks
Feel free to bring banners, placards, posters and flyers etc!
Look forward to seeing you Saturday!
Practical info:
LUNCH: There will be lunch and refreshments available to buy but NO break.
ACCESS: The main conference is on the first floor, 40 steps or a lift. (Lift will be in operation).
TRAVEL - Nearest station Morning Crescent (3mins) Kings Cross & Euston 10-15 minutes walk. Check TFL regarding engineering works etc www.tfl.gov.uk (Lines closed: Waterloo & City, Hammersmith & City & Circle. 6 other lines are part closed. FULL service on Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria & Central lines.
The National Shop Stewards Network was set up by the RMT some years back and we have industrial links to some of the most militant trade unionists in Britain.
Email: info@shopstewards.net
Phone: 020 8522 1156
Web: http://www.shopstewards.net/
Facebook ‘Like us’ - http://tinyurl.com/325bo2o
This Saturday will see fighting Trade unionists and anti cuts/community groups from across England, Scotland & Wales come together to develop & debate a strategy to fight the cuts, THIS will be a key conference to start the year and we want YOU to join us.
AGENDA: A fuller agenda will be available on the day.
10.30am Registration (Please come early!)
11.30am Chair’s opening remarks
11.40am Guest Speakers including Alex Gordon President RMT
12 Two motions proposed
12.20pm Discussion from floor
2.45pm Votes
3.20 Chair’s closing remarks
Feel free to bring banners, placards, posters and flyers etc!
Look forward to seeing you Saturday!
Practical info:
LUNCH: There will be lunch and refreshments available to buy but NO break.
ACCESS: The main conference is on the first floor, 40 steps or a lift. (Lift will be in operation).
TRAVEL - Nearest station Morning Crescent (3mins) Kings Cross & Euston 10-15 minutes walk. Check TFL regarding engineering works etc www.tfl.gov.uk (Lines closed: Waterloo & City, Hammersmith & City & Circle. 6 other lines are part closed. FULL service on Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria & Central lines.
The National Shop Stewards Network was set up by the RMT some years back and we have industrial links to some of the most militant trade unionists in Britain.
Email: info@shopstewards.net
Phone: 020 8522 1156
Web: http://www.shopstewards.net/
Facebook ‘Like us’ - http://tinyurl.com/325bo2o
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)