Transport Meeting at the Convention of The Left

23/06/2008 by admin.

The Convention of The Left is being held as an alternative to the New Labour conference in Manchester.  The aim is to encourage wide participation in debate on The Left, which may lead to the development of ‘charters’ around which socialists can agree to mobilise in unity so as to campaign more effectively. 

After discussion on more general political issues over the weekend of 20-21^st September, the following three days will focus on particular themes, namely Politics (Monday), Public Services (Tuesday) and Peace (Wednesday), each with its own sub-committee.  The Public Services sub-committee covers Education, Health, Housing and Transport; the following concerns the Transport meeting. 

Why is transport an issue?

Any local bus journey will show the main users to be the young and the elderly – namely people on low incomes.  For rural families in poverty the situation can be equally difficult with a car being an unaffordable necessity in the absence of local transport and the closure of local amenities.  High fares can limit travel and lead people to live isolated lives or to refuse employment.  The Oyster card in London has shown how people can be drawn to use public transport.  And are all the lorries speeding up and down the motorways really necessary?  Is there an alternative which meets the needs of people, society and the environment? 

Integrated?

On the political left there is general support for an ‘integrated transport policy’ as the solution.  However, what the word ‘integration’ means in this context is not always clear.   Does it refer to the co-ordinated time-tabling of public transport, such as train connections or bus-train timetables?  Or, regarding haulage, the more efficient use of freight trains and distribution of goods? And how should other forms of transport, such as coach travel, metro/trams/underground, cycling, domestic flights and inland waterways and ferries be integrated into the transport system?  And then there is the private car issue … and, of course, our own in-built transportation, our legs! So, does an integrated transport policy mean the most efficient ‘integration’ of these various forms of transport?  Taking ‘efficient’ here to include energy efficiency (less fuel and pollution), cost efficiency, time efficiency and convenience for the user. A second way to consider ‘integration’ of the transport system is how the movement of people and goods integrates with other aspects of society.  This perspective would require consideration of issues such as:

• The environment and pollution, including noise pollution
• The effect of various forms of transport and associated infrastructure on local communities
• Congestion and parking
• The effects of the ‘school run’ and how to minimise this
• Safety – in terms of transport workers, health, accidents and late night travel in public transport
• The needs of rural communities, adolescents, young adults and the elderly.
• Minimising the need to travel by retaining local schools, Post Offices, shops and health care, de-centralised employment and local food production.

 A third aspect of integration is that between public and private ownership.  There is a consensus amongst socialist, and more widely, that all aspects of rail transport should be in public ownership or re-nationalised.  But there could be debate around how a nationalised railway is run, and how this is made accountable to its users.  Who should own and/or control the local bus services, the trams, metro etc?  How should road haulage be controlled and owned?  And ferries?  How can the various roles of the government, the local authority and local/regional transport committee and the private sector be integrated?  Who pays, and what is the role of subsidies?   

Input to the debate

These issues are raised in order to stimulate debate and clear realistic thinking about the sort of transport policy we, as socialists, would support.  As it will be impossible to discuss all the above, never mind other issues that may be raised, the following is proposed: 

a)         a debate on transport starts on the website now, prior to the Convention in September. 
b)         organisations (such as transport Trade Unions, political parties and pressure groups) which have an existing transport policy, submit this, or a summary, to the Convention of The Left website discussion. 
c)         submissions and comments from individuals are equally welcome, especially thoughts about various forms of integration.  It would be particularly interesting to learn about successful transport systems operating in other European countries and how these are organised, run and financed. 
d)         Questions and issues arising from these submissions will be available before the Transport meeting on 23^rd September.  Organisations are also welcome to bring a summary of their own transport policies to the meeting to circulate.  

Aim of the Transport meeting:

The aim of the meeting is to initiate ideas for an integrated transport policy, which can be further developed at a later stage, and to identify the first steps needed to achieve this.  For example, people can’t be expected to use their cars less until there is a more convenient, safe and reliable alternative for a similar cost – so do we start by campaigning for off-the-road cycle routes to schools and major centres of employment?   The actual issues discussed at the meeting will be those identified by contributors to the pre-meeting debate, or raised at the meeting, as being most relevant in the context of an overall integrated transport policy which is based on meeting people’s needs, and not on private profit. 

Ann Papageorgiou – June 2008

Posted in Planet, People not profit, Statements | 1 Comment »

Working class people deserve a party to speak for them by Nick Wrack

06/06/2008 by admin.

Working class people deserve a party to speak for them

Respect National Secretary Nick Wrack looks at the current political situation and explains the need for an alternative to New Labour.New Labour’s humiliation at the local elections was followed up by a thrashing in the Crewe and Nantwich parliamentary by-election with a 17% swing to the Tories, that would put Cameron and the Tories into power at the next general election.Of course, Gordon Brown must go. But why was he elected leader in the first place? He was the architect of New Labour’s economic policy for ten years; the paymaster for the war on Iraq. One of his first decisions as Prime Minister was to appoint Digby Jones, former leader of the bosses’ CBI, to a ministerial post. Why did so many Labour MPs nominate him? More pertinently, why did so many trade union leaders back him, when they knew he would continue with attacks on their members? Changing the leader won’t make a fundamental difference unless there is also a complete change of direction in Labour party policy. And this is not going to happen. The Labour Party leadership is completely wedded to the right-wing, anti-working-class policies of privatisation and cuts. A decision to ditch all that and adopt policies that benefit working-class people is as likely to happen as the Queen becoming a republican. John McDonnell has launched a campaign for labour party members and trade union branches to adopt a series of left-wing policies, all of which Respect supports. We believe that such policies are essential to advance the interests of trade unionists and working-class communities. But, unfortunately, no matter how much support John wins for them, they’re not going to be adopted by the New Labour leaders. The fact that John could not muster the support of the 45 MPs needed to challenge for Labour Party leader says it all. The Labour Party is completely irredeemable as a party to represent working-class interests. Whether it’s the 10p tax rate, the below inflation pay awards, the continued intrusion of the market into the NHS and schools, or the attacks on civil liberties, immigrant communities and young people, New Labour stands against pretty much everything that Labour voters expect. It has placed itself completely at the disposal of big business and the super-rich. Workers, the poor, the pensioners, the sick and disabled, the immigrant and the youth are all disregarded. That many still vote Labour reflects the deep loyalty of many working-class communities to a party that has let them down repeatedly and a fear that Cameron’s resurgent Tory Party are heading for government in 2010. But New Labour is squandering this capital with the determination of a drug addict in a crack house. New Labour cannot rely on its traditional vote for ever. There’s no enthusiasm for Labour. Voters hold their noses while they vote. Others stay at home, casting a plague on all the parties. A few are tempted to vote for the conservatives, forgetting the experience of Thatcher, Heseltine and Tebbit, the miners’ strike and the poll tax. Some, in the most deprived areas, take out their frustration and disillusionment by turning to the racist and fascist BNP. In the unions, the slow disintegration of Labour’s base continues. The RMT remains expelled from Labour and has considered standing its own candidates. The FBU’s recent conference confirmed its decision to remain disaffiliated. Discontent with the payment of the political fund to Labour is growing in other unions, with the CWU conference discussing whether to withhold money until they get a commitment from the government that the Post Office is safe from privatisation and that their pensions are safe. Now, even the GMB union, one of Labour’s biggest backers, is also debating disaffiliation over concerns about how its donations are treated. Many younger voters do not share the traditional allegiance to the Labour Party, nor do the new immigrant workers from Africa and the extended European Union. More and more of Labour’s own members are calling it a day. Since 1997 over 200,000 have left the Labour Party. Now the party is in financial crisis, owing over £10 million to the banks and various rich creditors. Many members have now decided they aren’t even prepared to raise funds for the party any more, worried that it will be spent on the wrong things. When a 70-year old woman in Hyndburn, Lancashire, with over 50 years’ membership, is no longer prepared to bake cakes for the party, its very existence is called into question. Young activists in the unions, anti-war, anti-racist and environmental campaigns are not going to replace the long-time devoted Labour stalwarts. Only right-wingers and careerists seem to join these days. As one activist in the CWU postal workers’ union commented, “I’ve been a Labour Party member for nearly thirty years but when I see former Tories given standing ovations at the annual conference, it makes me sick to my stomach”. The need for a left-wing alternative to New Labour could not be clearer. It won’t be built overnight. But built it must be. Respect aims to play its part it this process, recruiting new members and standing in elections to present an alternative. But Respect is still small and it cannot at this stage present a national alternative. At the next general election it will contest only a handful or two of seats. We want to reach out a hand of unity to all on the left who want to establish a broader, unified alternative to New Labour. There have been several false starts and, no doubt, this colours the thinking of leading figures on the left in the labour movement. The experience of the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Alliance, the Scottish Socialist Party and, latterly, the split in Respect would make the most optimistic exponent of left unity reach for the nearest barge pole. “Once bitten, twice shy” may be the more obvious saying but “try, try again” is a better one. Working-class people deserve a party that speaks for them. And time is ticking. The slow business of creating a party to the left of Labour needs to begin now. We will continue to seek alliances with all on the left, including those still in the Labour Party, to fight for policies that can benefit working-class people - policies such as free school meals for all children; abolition of prescription charges; free leisure facilities for young people; affordable housing; an end to privatisation and job cuts; and pay awards to keep ahead of inflation.

Posted in Power and politics | 6 Comments »

What is the true cost of Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan?

03/06/2008 by admin.

What is the true cost of Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan?

An invite for academic, research papers and investigations.

  We would like to invite researchers, students and campaigners to investigate and research the true costs of Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to then present their findings at a key session during the Convention of the Left which is taking place Manchester in September 2008. This idea is inspired by the economists Joseph Stigliz and Linda Bilmes book. “The Three Trillion Dollar War “.   

 Stigliz & Bilmes book brought together for the first time the ’facts we need to understand the financial, economic and social consequence of the Iraq conflict”.  The main focus of the book was on the USA.  The authors devote a small section in their book on the cost of the Iraq war to Britain. Stigliz and Bilmes put forward an estimated cost to the UK of the Iraq war (table 6.1) of £20.9 billion.  It this area that we believe needs further research, investigation and exposure.  What is also not been subject to any rigorous and meaningful examination is the true cost of Britain’s involvement, up to now and in the future, in Afghanistan.

  We would like to encourage research and investigation in all or of any part of the financial, economic or social cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 We would envisage the results of any research being produced to published on a website and to become freely available as a resource for campaigners, journalists and the general public

If you are interested or want further information, please contact us 

Richard Searle - 07760 224 580 / gearie@aol.com

Linda Clair - 07985 624 968 / lindaclair@btinternet.com

For the Convention of the Left

&

Jacqui Burke. Greater Manchester & District CND

(0161) 273 8283 / gmdcnd@gn.apc.org

Please forward this message to anyone you think may be interested in participating in this project

Posted in Peace, Planning | 2 Comments »

John McDonnell MP: After Labour’s electoral disaster - we need action on policies.

03/06/2008 by admin.

In the light of Labour’s election defeat last week, John McDonnell MP is circulating a manifesto petition to Labour Party members, trade unons and MPs to gain large scale rank and file support for a new policy programme for Labour to bring about a radical change in political direction for the Laboour Government.

John McDonnell MP said:

“After the serious rejection of New Labour at the polls last week assurances that the Government is listening are simply not going to be enough to restore any sense of belief in the Labour Party. What is needed is a radical change of political direction.

“We have to demonstrate that change by introducing a new policy programme that specifically and very concretely addresses peoples’ concerns raised on the doorstep. This May manifesto petition is launched so that all our supporters can have a say in pressing for the changes we need.”

We believe that Labour can win back the support of our people by adopting a new 2008 May Manifesto, which should include:

• Nailing the 10p tax mistake by the introduction of a fair tax system removing the low paid from taxation and ensuring the wealthiest and corporations pay their fair share
• An increase in the basic state pension, immediately restoring the link with earnings, lifting people off means tested benefits and providing free care for the elderly
• An immediate start on a large scale council house building programme and assistance for those facing repossession
• Immediate end to programme of local Post Office closures and liberalisation of postal services
• An end to the privatisation of our public services
• A new pay deal for public sector workers to protect their living standards and tackle low pay
• Abolishing tuition fees and restoring maintenance grants for all students
• Scrapping ID cards and abandoning 42 days detention
• Introduction of a trade union freedom bill and measures to protect temporary and agency workers
• Rejecting the proposals to renew Trident

Posted in Power and politics, Statements | No Comments »

Can Brown be beaten by John McDonnell’s Manifesto? by Mark Hoskisson

03/06/2008 by admin.

Can Brown be beaten by John McDonnell’s Manifesto? by Mark Hoskisson

Post election blues 

The local elections have left Gordon Brown and the Labour government in a very weak position. Brown himself is deeply unpopular. The Tories, thanks to years of New Labour betrayal, are once again a viable electoral alternative….writes Mark Hoskisson….

In the South Welsh valleys, where Labour used to rule unchallenged, control of three councils have now slipped from its grip. In a newspaper interview a Labour activist from the area argued that Brown’s continuation of Blair’s policies, symbolised by his invitation to Number Ten of Margaret Thatcher who is rightly hated for her role in destroying the coal based economy of South Wales, was the number one cause for the recent election losses.

John McDonnell’s own response to the local elections was relatively muted. He said:

“After the serious rejection of New Labour at the polls last week assurances that the Government is listening are simply not going to be enough to restore any sense of belief in the Labour Party. What is needed is a radical change of political direction. We have to demonstrate that change by introducing a new policy programme that specifically and very concretely addresses peoples’ concerns raised on the doorstep. This May manifesto petition is launched so that all our supporters can have a say in pressing for the changes we need. We believe that Labour can win back the support of our people by adopting a new 2008 May Manifesto.”

What is to be done? 

Across the labour movement activists in the Labour Party, the unions and the wider left are all asking what should be done in the light of New Labour’s rotten record and the shift to the right, in elections at least, that it has precipitated. The answer is to wage war on the whole New Labour Project. And the war should start with a battle to finish Brown’s leadership off.

We don’t say this because we think Brown lacks charisma and is a poor communicator. Such twaddle is best left to the press pundits who think politics should be about celebrity and image.

But nor is addressing Labour’s crisis merely a matter of convincing Brown to adopt a few better policies to revive Labour’s credibility with its voting base. Cosmetic surgery cannot eradicate the ugliness of New Labour.

Brown and New Labour need to be fought at every level of the labour movement. The pay freeze needs to be smashed. The increasingly regressive tax system needs to become the focus of mass protest action. The steam roller of Labour privatisation across the public services needs to halted in its tracks. And the daily racism meted out by this government – racism that is fuelling the growth of the fascists – needs to be combated.

The Labour Left today 

The first port of call for workers up against such a right wing Labour government as this one used to be the Labour Left. But today the Labour Left cannot rally mass support in the unions and really shake things up in the way, for example, that Benn’s deputy leadership challenge did in the early 1980s.

John McDonnell, the nearest person to being a figurehead that the Labour Left has in parliament, could not get enough support from MPs to mount a leadership challenge to Brown last year. With so many MPs looking anxiously at their slender majorities he would probably get even less support for a challenge now.

More importantly he does not have anything approaching a sizeable base amongst the activists – in the party or the unions – to be able to shake things up. The membership of the Labour Party is in sharp decline. So too is that of its left. The Labour Representation Committee (LRC) which McDonnell heads has rightly opened itself up to non-party members (though wrongly, as long as they don’t stand against Labour) to try and build up wider support for its renewal project. But there are no signs that this is transforming the LRC into a significant player.

McDonnell’s manifesto 

In these circumstances John McDonnell’s new manifesto is a disappointing one. It consists of the following ten points:

“ * Nailing the 10p tax mistake by the introduction of a fair tax system removing the low paid from taxation and ensuring the wealthiest and corporations pay their fair share
* An increase in the basic state pension, immediately restoring the link with earnings, lifting people off means tested benefits and providing free care for the elderly
* An immediate start on a large scale council house building programme and assistance for those facing repossession
* Immediate end to programme of local Post Office closures and liberalisation of postal services
* An end to the privatisation of our public services
* A new pay deal for public sector workers to protect their living standards and tackle low pay
* Abolishing tuition fees and restoring maintenance grants for all students
* Scrapping ID cards and abandoning 42 days detention
* Introduction of a trade union freedom bill and measures to protect temporary and agency workers
* Rejecting the proposals to renew Trident”

This is a pallid manifesto. While Brown hits the poorest sections of society with unfair indirect taxes he tolerates criminally low rates of corporation tax. Calling for fairness doesn’t really amount to much. Why not say openly, let’s tax the rich?

A new pay deal for public sector workers? Why not call for an end to Brown’s pay freeze? Reject Trident – sure, but we aren’t using it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let’s prioritise getting Britain out of the wars Labour is actually waging and link this to a fight to end Britain’s nuclear missile programme.

A new trade union bill is all well and good – but what about scrapping the existing anti-union laws? And why no mention of renationalising the railways, raising the minimum wage and carrying through a massive investment in the public sector, including bringing privatised services back into state ownership?

By any standards this manifesto seems timid when so much is at stake. And if you believe, as McDonnell does, the answer to the current political crisis and growing economic mess, is a programme of left reforms then those reforms should provide a fundamental alternative to the New Labour programme.

It is questionable whether even a set of more powerful reforms would do the trick. Will issuing a manifesto, even a better one than Mcdonnell’s (better in left reformist terms) really change much? It will be taken up by a handful of supporters. It will give Labour left activists a petition they can take to meetings. And it will provide a counterpoint to the official manifesto when work on it gets underway. But it won’t change a great deal in British politics because it does not constitute a full frontal attack on New Labour.

A manifesto for today should encompass a strategy for taking on and defeating New Labour in every arena of the class struggle – the party itself, the unions, the campaigns against racism and fascism, the campaigns against climate change, the campaigns to defend abortion rights.

A call to arms 

McDonnell should have issued a call to arms. He should have said, “Brown is following on from Blair. He is leading us to disaster and I intend to call a national meeting of all activists across the movement (or I call on all activists to come to the Convention of the Left) to discuss waging a fight to the finish with these traitors in our midst. They have single handedly saved the Tories from oblivion and restored their electoral credibility. I will ask every union conference to back my challenge to the leadership of Brown in the next few months. I declare war on New Labour” … or words to that effect!

But he didn’t. He did not outline a course of action that could rally people to a fight now. He poses it all as a “policy” change. This misses the point. Brown will change policies as and when it suits, as the retreats over the 10p tax threshold shows.

What Brown will not do is change New Labour’s fundamental line. And getting into arguments about the finer points of policy plays into Brown’s hands. He can keep the debate going at that level while carrying on a neoliberal programme at a practical level.

None of this is to suggest that McDonnell and the LRC should not be part of the fightback. They should. But the number one priority is not a policy debate within the Labour Party in preparation for the next election. The priority is beginning the fightback – the sooner the better – so that the working class movement is better equipped to resist whatever is thrown at them by either New Labour or the Tories, before, during and after the next general election.

Posted in Power and politics | 2 Comments »

First thoughts on the elections

04/05/2008 by admin.

The election results on May 1st should be a wake up call for the left. The size of the Tory recovery - and the election of the BNP to the London assembly - signal a shift to the right. Ten years of dog-whistle politics - from both the Tories and New Labour -  found their echo on election day. In this new situation, the importance of the Connvention of the Left should not be under-estimated. We need to look at the state of British society with clear eyes and an honest appraisal of where we are and where we need to go. Below is the initial response of RESPECT to the election results. 

 Clive Searle

 The local and London elections have been bad for the left and for progressive voters everywhere. The backlash against the Brown government, which many now feel has betrayed them on the economic and social fundamentals, has pushed Labour’s share of the vote below the Liberal Democrats nationally.

In London, Johnson is now mayor, although the final margin after second preferences was lower than many predicted. Much worse, the BNP got a first seat on the Assembly. The Liberal Democrats also had a bad day in London, with their vote down substantially and it was a pretty mixed picture for them elsewhere.

For parties to the left of Labour, results were also generally poor with some notable exceptions, particularly but not only in Birmingham. In London the best results were posted by Respect with almost 60,000 list votes, 2.43%, but this was still below the deposit saving level and less than half what was needed to get a seat on the Assembly. The combined left vote, excluding the Greens, was only 3.61% on the list.

On the positive side for Respect, winning another seat on Birmingham council was a sharp ray of light. This now gives us all three councillors in Sparkbrook.

Another good result was both the constituency and list votes in East London, which clearly show we have built on our vote after a long period of internal difficulties. The constituency vote for Hanif Abdulmuhit increased by almost 7,000 from the 2004 result.

The local roots Respect has established in East London checked the forward march of the BNP. Without Respect East London could have begun to look like the 1970s with the BNP pushing into third place. Instead, Respect is one of the two major parties along with Labour in parts of Tower Hamlets and Newham, we beat the BNP on the list vote and pushed the Liberal Democrats into fifth place.

There was clearly a massive turnout in some parts of the Tory suburbs, a vote with some pretty nasty racist overtones following a campaign of vilification against Livingstone and his support for ethnic minority communities in general and the Muslim community in particular.

There is little for the left to be celebrating after these results. Many Labour voters will be rightly gutted at what has happened.

There will be many battles ahead against this big shift to the right. What we need to be doing now is regrouping our forces with a determination that the resistance starts here and starts now. George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob and Respect intend to be at the heart of that resistance pursuing the approach of building a plural left opposition.

Posted in Power and politics | 3 Comments »

Towards The Convention of The Left: Progress so Far.

17/04/2008 by admin.

Towards The Convention of The Left: Progress so Far.  

The following is an entirely personal account of where things have got to with this initiative and, in particular, an appeal for further contributions to the blog discussion.  

I write as one of the dozen or so people who thought it would be a good idea to hold the “convention”. Since that decision was made a few months ago a growing number of people from in and around Manchester have got involved. Probably as many as 50 people have attended at least one meeting, and from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives.  

At the last meeting on 31 March comrades from the SWP attended for the first time, as well as comrades from the LRC ( Labour Representation Committee) There were also comrades from Red Pepper,  Respect Renewal, The Green Party (myself !), The Labour Party, Permanent Revolution, The Communist Party of Britain and the AWL (Alliance for Workers Liberty)- sorry if I’ve missed anybody out- as well as a number of comrades who are not members of any political grouping.   

All of us attended as individuals, rather than as delegates from particular groups, and there appeared to be (as there has been throughout) an attempt to focus on what we all agreed upon and shared in common, rather than what divides us.

On Monday the comrades from Socialist Worker appeared anxious to ensure that our plans for Saturday 20 September complimented rather than clashed with the planned Stop The War Coalition demonstration which is likely to be held in Manchester on the same day.   The meeting affirmed this and the conference which we have planned for the Saturday will certainly break in the afternoon to allow participants to join the march.

We also discussed the possibility of moving the conference to the following day or possibly running it over the two days (The Friends Meeting House is not available for most of Sunday 21 September but there is a possibility of a booking at The University Students Union).  In addition to the “main” meeting at the weekend there is also an intention to hold a number of meetings on Monday, Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday (rooms have been booked and initial themes have been agreed)   

The meeting on Monday began to discuss how best to use the space that we have. It was agreed that although much of the focus of our monthly organising meetings would necessarily be on the arrangements for the week itself we also hoped to encourage discussion and debate beyond Manchester in the months between now and September. Ideally such a debate might encourage comrades to attend our conference and possibly get involved in an ongoing project to build something more permanent thereafter.  

Although discussions at our Manchester meeting have been largely positive and encouraging there has been limited contact from comrades beyond the Manchester area. I at least am anxious to find out if anybody else is interested in what we are trying to do.

If you are please let us know.   

Peter Allen

Posted in Planning | 4 Comments »

The missing theme - trade unionsim at home and abroad

17/04/2008 by admin.

A theme on trade unionism and workplace organisation in the UK and internationally

As was pointed out at the ‘big’ meeting, there is a major gap in the themes of the Convention as there is nothing specifically aimed at trade unionists or taking up trade union issues other than privatisation in the UK and internationally. A theme on trade unionism could focus both on drawing together current experiences and on dealing with the major political issues facing trade unionists.

I suggest setting up another sub-group to work out a detailed plan with speakers etc and a meeting to get together those interested specifically in this area.Here are some ideas to kick around for possible sessions. These are only suggestions and obviously open to amendments, additions and deletions but I think they might form the basis for a viable, relevant and interesting stream.

Organising the unorganised:·
Young workers·
Migrant workers

Where now for the unions?:
Should the unions still support Labour?
Rank and file organisation-Shop stewards network/trades councils; union lefts
Current disputes / Public sector pay freeze

International labour:
Solidarity with Iraqi & Iranian trade unionists
Fighting sweatshop labour: union organisation worldwide
Chinese workers and the Olympics IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED, PLEASE CONTACT ME BY EMAIL AT:
BRUCE@BRUCEROB.EU

Comradely,Bruce Robinson

Posted in Power and politics, People not profit, Statements, Planning | 3 Comments »

What they’re saying about the Convention of the Left

07/04/2008 by admin.

The Convention is gaining new sponsors every week. Read what some of them have to say below (all in personal capacity unless otherwise stated).

Joan Abrams, vice-chair Greater Manchester CND, CND National Council, Labour party member

“Political policies will not change towards the left until a socialist left is seen as an important political constituency. Only by giving a voice to a strong and convincing movement towards socialist policies may we turn the tide against the currrent assumed acceptance of a right wing consensus.”

Dr John Lister, author, The NHS After 60: for patients or profits?

“In this 60th Anniversary Year of the NHS it is vital for socialists to recognise what a massive asset we still have to defend in the NHS, a public service that reaches parts the private sector cannot or will not reach – because they do not offer the prospect of profits.”

Ken Loach, film director

“We should all welcome this convention. The fragmentation of the Left benefits the warmongers, privatisers and polluters. This meeting should help to affirm a Socialist alternative and to discuss how we can move forward. There is a mood throughout Europe to develop the anti-capitalist Left - we need to be part of that.”

John Nicholson, former Labour Deputy Leader Manchester Council and Convenor of the Socialist Alliance.

“We need to start defining a new way of working (even to reclaim that word “new”), so that we can come together in practical campaigns, regardless of the organisations we may belong to, so that we can stop the war and nuclear proliferation, the cuts and privatisation, the racism and environmental destruction.”

Councillor Susan Press, Calder Valley CLP, Chair Calderdale NUJ

“The Convention Of The Left is a serious opportunity for those of us who feel disillusioned by New Labour’s neo-liberalism to discuss the way forward . As a member of the LRC, I wish to carry on the fight for socialist values within the Labour Party. supporting left MPs like John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn. But I am also keen to campaign on issues like globalisation, peace and climate change with comrades from across the political spectrum . I look forward to taking part in the Convention.“

Raphie de Santos, Scottish Socialist Voice editorial board member

” I whole heartedly support the convention of the left. We need more developments like this that can bring together all those who are looking to build a left socialist alternative to New Labour’s failed neo-liberalism. Many comrades from the Scottish Socialist Party will coming down to Manchester to support and join in the discussions and share our experiences of left unity in Scotland.”

Clive Searle, on behalf of Greater Manchester Respect Renewal

“For too long we have been told by New Labour, and the Tories before them, that there ‘is no alternative’ to the free market and the wars that support it. This convention gives the Left, in all its variety, the chance to show that there is an alternative, to clarify what it looks like and discuss how we can work together to achieve it.”

Derek Wall, Green Party principal speaker.

“I would be very pleased to have my name lent to this venture.I am been very encouraged both by talking to John McDonnell and with a lot of positive stuff coming out from Morning Star that the left can work in practical non sectarian ways to promote change. Keep up all your good work”

Posted in Statements | 2 Comments »

A Socialist Vision of Health Care in a World Out of Balance

10/03/2008 by admin.

As socialists we continue to defend the NHS but we need to ask “what are we defending?” by Norma Turner

 The NHS

The founding principles of the NHS we support and hold onto. These were: equitable, universal health care free at the point of use, financed on the basis of people’s ability to pay through progressive taxation. Providing health services would neither be an opportunity to make money nor a charity. To provide a comprehensive, universal, equitable service, the organisation and funding needed to be integrated across the country.

Unfortunately, right from the conception of the NHS, compromises meant these principles could never be fully achieved. Financial restraints meant that only hospitals were included, making it a service for sickness rather than health. GP surgeries, dentists, opticians, community pharmacists were left as private concerns linked to but not accountable to the NHS. Ambulance services, community health, prevention, child health and public health were the responsibility of local authorities. Distinction was made between health and social care. Within the NHS the power of the consultants ensured mental health and geriatric services were marginalised. But the worst compromise was that private health care was allowed to run alongside the NHS.

These compromises have provided the private corporations with a way in to public funding; and successive governments have helped this process. This current Labour Government has been by far the worst, and most inexcusable. Their project is one of changing the NHS from a public service with some semblance of democratic accountability into a full health care market.

In my opinion this process is now beyond the point of no return; it will be fully in place within the lifetime of this Government. The general public will not feel the effects for a few years because the private health care industry is not interested in a purely private market. Its interests lie in becoming for-profit providers in a basic health system funded out of taxation while also providing, for additional fees, a higher quality of service for those who can afford it.

As socialists we can remind people of the founding principles. Before the NHS, the system had only served the rich and the rest lived in fear of ill health. Now people have no experience of a time before the NHS and therefore it is harder to convince them of its importance.

But there is an increasingly unwilling public appetite for the privatisation of everything from private armies, prisons, probation, transport, housing, education, health and social services, water, and on it goes to include the air we breathe. We can link the opposition to what is happening to the health service to the anti-capitalist struggle against the rush to privatise to make the rich richer and the poor poorer across the globe.

A Socialist Alternative

To link these struggles we also have to link our vision. A socially responsible programme of community health care cannot be run outside of a socialist context. I think we can find inspiration and ideas by looking to Cuba.

Article 49 of the Socialist Constitution of the Republic of Cuba states:
“Everyone has the right to the care and protection of their health. The state guarantees this right: by offering free hospital and medical services…; by offering free dental treatment; by developing plans for sanitary efforts, health education, periodic medical exams, general vaccination, and other preventive medical means. In these plans and activities the entire population participates through the social and mass organisations.”

This commitment is achieved through a nationally integrated system of public health in which social legislation about its application is unified with the training programmes of the workers. Public health is integrated with social welfare. Family planning is free, abortion is available on demand. There is a nationalised pharmaceutical industry, a high doctor to patient ratio, and no-one is without access to a doctor either geographically or financially.

Every GP lives in the community they serve, they are highly trained and chosen for training not just on academic achievement but more importantly social criteria. The doctors are part of community activities addressing environmental problems, sources of community stress, e.g. bad housing, family dynamics. They also are involved in organising social, sporting and fun events. There are political structures which enable the whole community to participate in making life decisions around what the community needs and wants.

This works because people are educated from nursery school throughout their whole lives, about health issues, including physical, psychological, social and political aspects needed for a healthy person, and because they develop an obligation to their community. Any health service requires people to adhere to principles of co-operation, equality, self-government and individual freedom.

In Britain the biggest providers of health and social care are not health and social service professionals, it is mothers and carers who provide over £87 billion worth of unpaid care a year.

Long term health depends on strengths of social networks, family structures and economic self-sufficiency. We need a system for instilling values in our young people – of caring and sharing, for community aspirations and involvement in civil society. This requires a high level of education and an understanding and commitment against discrimination, because of class, race, sex, sexual orientation, age and disability.

The current provision of health and social care defines people by what they lack or need and has resulted in people losing a sense of what they have to give, thus becoming inhumane to others.

Children in Cuba learn that the person beside them is healthy if they are kind to each other. Here in this country children learn to grab what they can for themselves, resulting in increased mental illness and suicide among young people.

A World Out of Balance

The other vital consideration in creating a vision of health is tackling global warming. We live in a world out of balance. Thanks to climate change and the results of the free market, we will be faced with both new diseases and old diseases re-emerging.

Already because of increased poverty and poor housing there is an increase of tuberculosis and rickets. Climate change causing floods and testing an ageing sewage system will see the return of enteric water-borne diseases. Also insects will thrive due to global warming in places they previously did not live. We have more mosquitoes and in time malaria will be introduced. We have already seen blue tongue disease in animals from midges. Other bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites will appear, causing disease in humans, plants and animals, threatening the eco-system. Any future discussion on health must be set in the context of strategies of environmental activists.

In conclusion a National Health Service can only be realised within a socialist ideology within which structures of organisation are developed to involve the participation of everyone in the needs of their own communities, linking education and health with environmental issues within an international perspective against global capitalism.

Easy – we start with nationalising the pharmaceutical industry.

Posted in People not profit, Statements | 1 Comment »