London police bodies oppose arming all officers
London’s policing bodies have opposed arming all police officers. Experts have pointed out that in the US many more officers are shot, and that arming the police creates a gun culture.
Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair said: “ninety per cent of the Met remains unarmed – I want to keep it that way”.
The Metropolitan Police Federation, representing rank and file officers, says three quarters of its members “did not want to be routinely armed”. The Metropolitan Police Authority, represent political parties and community groups, said that the current level of armed officers, 10 per cent, is “appropriate for London’s protection”.
The call for routine arming has also been opposed by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
London cabbies join low pollution drive
The mayor of London has announced plans to reduce emissions from London’s taxis by one third in three years, as part of plans to make London a Low Emission Zone which is also targeting buses, coaches and lorries.
London cabbies have a choice of buying new, cleaner cabs, fitting catalytic converters or filters, or converting to liquefied petroleum gas. This is being funded by a surcharge of 20p on all taxi fares which is already in place.
London Mayor Ken Livingstone says Taxi drivers themselves are exposed to pollution and tend to operate in the most polluted areas, such as central London and Heathrow airport.
London has the worst air quality in the UK, believed to be responsible for 1,600 premature deaths a year.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Britain's worst employment blackspot
London has lowest level of employment in the country
London has been revealed as the country’s worst employment blackspot, as well as having the second highest unemployment, despite being by far the wealthiest part of Britain.
London is the only region in Britain where unemployment is now higher than in 1979.
Only 69.4 per cent of the workforce are working in the capital, the lowest in the country, against a UK average of 74.7 per cent.
In five boroughs - Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Haringey and Barking & Dagenham - employment is below the EU average of 63.3 per cent.
Although there are enough jobs in London, they are not being taken up for various reasons. The capital has the highest proportions of ethnic
minorities, lone parents, ex-prisoners and drug addicts, who often lack
education and skills.
Astronomical rent and house prices prevent many from taking low-paid jobs and losing benefits. Many of the best and well-paid jobs are taken by commuters from outside London.
Unemployment in London (people actively seeking work rather than just
receiving benefits) is 6.6 per cent, second only to the north-east and way above the national average of 4.7 per cent.
Unemployment is far worse for the capital’s minorities - 11.7 per cent
compared to 5.3 per cent for white Londoners. In Tower Hamlets 23.6% of
non-whites are unemployed.
Middle-Class Flight
Meanwhile an urban taskforce led by architect Lord Rogers has warned that the middle classes are abandoning inner London and other cities, threatening a “deepening racial and social divide”.
The study called for the development of more mixed communities on recycled urban land to tackle “massive inequalities”, even though Britain’s inner cities have overcome many of the problems of the 1980s and 90s caused by industrial decline.
The taskforce of architects and planners said there was increasing
“ghettoisation” between rented and private housing because new projects had low quality housing and were isolated from existing communities.
The group decided to produced their own study because recommendations they made six years ago in a government-backed report had been virtually ignored.
Lord Rogers singled out developments along the River Thames , saying “if you take a trip down the Thames, you’re absolutely amazed at the appalling design.”
One reason for this was a maze of public agencies, all with separate
funding.
The report says government funding was skewed towards new building in areas which were already over-congested, undermining existing communities – a criticism of deputy prime minister John Prescott’s “sustainable communities” plan focused on four big growth areas in southeastern England.
London has been revealed as the country’s worst employment blackspot, as well as having the second highest unemployment, despite being by far the wealthiest part of Britain.
London is the only region in Britain where unemployment is now higher than in 1979.
Only 69.4 per cent of the workforce are working in the capital, the lowest in the country, against a UK average of 74.7 per cent.
In five boroughs - Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Haringey and Barking & Dagenham - employment is below the EU average of 63.3 per cent.
Although there are enough jobs in London, they are not being taken up for various reasons. The capital has the highest proportions of ethnic
minorities, lone parents, ex-prisoners and drug addicts, who often lack
education and skills.
Astronomical rent and house prices prevent many from taking low-paid jobs and losing benefits. Many of the best and well-paid jobs are taken by commuters from outside London.
Unemployment in London (people actively seeking work rather than just
receiving benefits) is 6.6 per cent, second only to the north-east and way above the national average of 4.7 per cent.
Unemployment is far worse for the capital’s minorities - 11.7 per cent
compared to 5.3 per cent for white Londoners. In Tower Hamlets 23.6% of
non-whites are unemployed.
Middle-Class Flight
Meanwhile an urban taskforce led by architect Lord Rogers has warned that the middle classes are abandoning inner London and other cities, threatening a “deepening racial and social divide”.
The study called for the development of more mixed communities on recycled urban land to tackle “massive inequalities”, even though Britain’s inner cities have overcome many of the problems of the 1980s and 90s caused by industrial decline.
The taskforce of architects and planners said there was increasing
“ghettoisation” between rented and private housing because new projects had low quality housing and were isolated from existing communities.
The group decided to produced their own study because recommendations they made six years ago in a government-backed report had been virtually ignored.
Lord Rogers singled out developments along the River Thames , saying “if you take a trip down the Thames, you’re absolutely amazed at the appalling design.”
One reason for this was a maze of public agencies, all with separate
funding.
The report says government funding was skewed towards new building in areas which were already over-congested, undermining existing communities – a criticism of deputy prime minister John Prescott’s “sustainable communities” plan focused on four big growth areas in southeastern England.
Off the rails!
South East Trains re-privatised
Keith Norman, head of the rail union ASLEF, says the government has “ignored its responsibilities to passengers, staff and the tax-payer” by re-privatising South East Trains.
Train operator Govia has been awarded an eight year franchise in an exercise costing the Department for Transport £3.85 million. Its first decision was to increase fares by 3% above inflation.
Norman described the move as “the politics of the madhouse and the economics of the asylum” and “a slap in the face for millions of commuters across the south-east of England”. The two years in public hands after Connex lost its franchise saw great improvements in South East Trains’ punctuality and profitability.
Norman pointed out that the Labour Party conference fully supported South East Trains staying in public hands. “Their decisions have been ignored, and the government’s real attitude towards public ownership has been revealed.
It seems the real policy is privatisation, pure and simple.”
A recent poll showed 72% of the public would like rail companies to revert to public control when franchises expire - demolishing the myth of British Rail’s appalling services.
Northern Line crisis could be end of line for tube PPP
The Northern Line, London underground’s busiest section, suffered a four-day shutdown in November as a direct result of carving the system up between ever more contractors with part-privatisation.
The crisis saw transport minister Alistair Darling, London’s mayor,
Transport for London (TfL), the head of London Underground and the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT), united in calling for French contractors Alstom to be sacked.
The shutdown happened when tripcock safety brakes were declared unsafe by RMT stewards after multiple failures.
They were backed by transport commissioner Bob Kiley and London Underground chief Tim O’Toole, while Alstom denied any threat to safety.
According to RMT head Bob Crow, Alstom opposed daily testing of the
‘failsafe’ brakes because the resulting delays would incur financial
penalties.
For the first time London Underground issued an ‘emergency direction’,
ordering contractors Tube Lines (Alstom’s parent company) to speed up
repairs.Since then London Underground has effectively taken over safety maintenance on the Northern Line until the problems have been resolved.
Under the labyrinthine PPP system, TfL inspectors could only take action after four stages of legal action.
Dozens of lawyers had to plough through two million-word PPP contracts and the 18 volume PFI contract between Alstom and Tube Lines.
Following the crisis Bob Kiley and transport minister Alistair Darling gave TfL the green light to end Alstom’s contract. According to Darling,“no-one can regard the present situation as anything but unbelievably unsatisfactory”.
Incredibly even parent company Tube Lines warned Alstom that their PFI
arrangement was not working, no doubt worried about its share prices.
The crisis has raised the prospect that the ill-fated part privatisation will not last until 2032 after all.
The government may now opt for a similar solution to that following the
collapse of Railtrack, and the creation of publicly owned Network Rail.
How corruption was built in to underground contracts
Public-private partnership on the tube, one of the most convoluted deals ever made, has been described as a “gold-plated cash cow” for the
contractors.
The contracts came complete with generous “success fees”, involve no risks, guarantee a huge income until 2032, and frequently change hands with huge profits made.
Construction firms Jarvis and Amey were floundering when they won their contracts and were saved by the PPP contracts, which became their main profit earners. Jarvis has sold its contract to Amey, which was then bought by a Spanish company.
The Metronet consortium running six tube lines plans to subcontract train maintenance to Bombardier, making front-line engineering staff redundant and leaving separate companies running its trains, track maintenance, and train maintenance.
The RMT’s Bob Crow says London’s mayor should be able to halt further
subcontracting. “No amount of fine-tuning can transform the PPP from a
vehicle for profit without responsibility into one that delivers
improvements safely and at reasonable cost.”
Meanwhile Ken Livingstone and transport commissioner Bob Kiley have operated public services superbly.
The Docklands Light Railway extension, East London line and Oyster card
ticketing, improvements to busses, and central London traffic reduction, are all on time and within budget.
Overcrowding + Delays = Higher Profits
The contractors pay high penalties for rush hour delays in central London. But early morning delays due to late engineering incur small fines, even though they cause knock-on delays throughout the morning rush hour.
So now we know: tube users suffer delays and crowding so that contractors can boost their lucrative profits.
Targets not met? Get paid anyway!
The contractors still get paid for work, even when it is not done. New
District Line trains are a year late, but Metronet has been paid.
The Victoria Line refurbishment, station renewal and track renewal are all late - but the contractors have already been paid!
Keith Norman, head of the rail union ASLEF, says the government has “ignored its responsibilities to passengers, staff and the tax-payer” by re-privatising South East Trains.
Train operator Govia has been awarded an eight year franchise in an exercise costing the Department for Transport £3.85 million. Its first decision was to increase fares by 3% above inflation.
Norman described the move as “the politics of the madhouse and the economics of the asylum” and “a slap in the face for millions of commuters across the south-east of England”. The two years in public hands after Connex lost its franchise saw great improvements in South East Trains’ punctuality and profitability.
Norman pointed out that the Labour Party conference fully supported South East Trains staying in public hands. “Their decisions have been ignored, and the government’s real attitude towards public ownership has been revealed.
It seems the real policy is privatisation, pure and simple.”
A recent poll showed 72% of the public would like rail companies to revert to public control when franchises expire - demolishing the myth of British Rail’s appalling services.
Northern Line crisis could be end of line for tube PPP
The Northern Line, London underground’s busiest section, suffered a four-day shutdown in November as a direct result of carving the system up between ever more contractors with part-privatisation.
The crisis saw transport minister Alistair Darling, London’s mayor,
Transport for London (TfL), the head of London Underground and the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT), united in calling for French contractors Alstom to be sacked.
The shutdown happened when tripcock safety brakes were declared unsafe by RMT stewards after multiple failures.
They were backed by transport commissioner Bob Kiley and London Underground chief Tim O’Toole, while Alstom denied any threat to safety.
According to RMT head Bob Crow, Alstom opposed daily testing of the
‘failsafe’ brakes because the resulting delays would incur financial
penalties.
For the first time London Underground issued an ‘emergency direction’,
ordering contractors Tube Lines (Alstom’s parent company) to speed up
repairs.Since then London Underground has effectively taken over safety maintenance on the Northern Line until the problems have been resolved.
Under the labyrinthine PPP system, TfL inspectors could only take action after four stages of legal action.
Dozens of lawyers had to plough through two million-word PPP contracts and the 18 volume PFI contract between Alstom and Tube Lines.
Following the crisis Bob Kiley and transport minister Alistair Darling gave TfL the green light to end Alstom’s contract. According to Darling,“no-one can regard the present situation as anything but unbelievably unsatisfactory”.
Incredibly even parent company Tube Lines warned Alstom that their PFI
arrangement was not working, no doubt worried about its share prices.
The crisis has raised the prospect that the ill-fated part privatisation will not last until 2032 after all.
The government may now opt for a similar solution to that following the
collapse of Railtrack, and the creation of publicly owned Network Rail.
How corruption was built in to underground contracts
Public-private partnership on the tube, one of the most convoluted deals ever made, has been described as a “gold-plated cash cow” for the
contractors.
The contracts came complete with generous “success fees”, involve no risks, guarantee a huge income until 2032, and frequently change hands with huge profits made.
Construction firms Jarvis and Amey were floundering when they won their contracts and were saved by the PPP contracts, which became their main profit earners. Jarvis has sold its contract to Amey, which was then bought by a Spanish company.
The Metronet consortium running six tube lines plans to subcontract train maintenance to Bombardier, making front-line engineering staff redundant and leaving separate companies running its trains, track maintenance, and train maintenance.
The RMT’s Bob Crow says London’s mayor should be able to halt further
subcontracting. “No amount of fine-tuning can transform the PPP from a
vehicle for profit without responsibility into one that delivers
improvements safely and at reasonable cost.”
Meanwhile Ken Livingstone and transport commissioner Bob Kiley have operated public services superbly.
The Docklands Light Railway extension, East London line and Oyster card
ticketing, improvements to busses, and central London traffic reduction, are all on time and within budget.
Overcrowding + Delays = Higher Profits
The contractors pay high penalties for rush hour delays in central London. But early morning delays due to late engineering incur small fines, even though they cause knock-on delays throughout the morning rush hour.
So now we know: tube users suffer delays and crowding so that contractors can boost their lucrative profits.
Targets not met? Get paid anyway!
The contractors still get paid for work, even when it is not done. New
District Line trains are a year late, but Metronet has been paid.
The Victoria Line refurbishment, station renewal and track renewal are all late - but the contractors have already been paid!
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Multiculturalism works for London
by Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London
Against a backdrop of the London bombings, the scenes in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and the riots across French towns and cities, a furious debate on racial equality and community relations has unfolded in the media over the summer and autumn.
After the terrorist attacks in July, some commentators and newspapers urged London to abandon its policies of respect for different cultures and celebration of diversity – in favour of what some described as the ‘French model’.
The suggestion was that, London, by celebrating the contribution of
different cultures to our city, was emphasising differences rather than what people have in common and encouraging ‘segregation’. In reality the Greater London Authority’s research shows that the real trend is not of ‘segregation’ of ethnic minorities, but of increased dispersal as new communities become established over time.
It was suggested that the French model, which supposedly disregards ethnic and religious differences – to the point of banning Muslim headscarves in schools – would produce greater social cohesion. As France does not collect statistics on ethnic and religious communities, there is little evidence of whether the model allows ethnic minorities to get their fair share of jobs,resources and opportunities.
But the riots which spread across France from the end of October suggest the French model has singularly failed to integrate the 10 or more per cent of its population of Arab and African heritage – and instead confined them to vast ghettos with many times the average levels of unemployment and poverty, and the indignity of being disproportionately singled out for police identity checks when they leave their local area.
In Britain, it was stop and search operations disproportionately targeting black youths that triggered the riots which swept the country more than 20 years ago in 1981. It should not be forgotten that, at that time, much as in France today, there was not a single black or Asian member of parliament, virtually no representation on local councils, virtually no black police officers, few teachers and virtually no leading business people. London still faces great challenges. Our education system does not give black schoolboys the start in life to which they are entitled. Far too little has been done to ensure that those leading and staffing our public services and private companies properly reflect all of the city’s communities.
But, as the united response to the bombings showed, London’s model of
multiculturalism works. Its cornerstone is the simple economic reality that in the age of globalisation the world’s great cities will become more and more diverse. We want any company, anywhere in the world, looking to invest here to know that their staff will find a community to welcome them and help them be themselves.
We can celebrate our diversity and make it a great source of creativity and dynamism, or we can fight it, as in the clash of civilisations thesis, and turn our cities into zones of fear and conflict.
London’s choice is clear. We celebrate diversity. We aim to give every
community its fair stake in our city’s politics, prosperity and culture. We want every community fully represented in our police service, teaching profession, boardrooms and politics. We have no illusions about how far we still have to go to achieve social justice and racial equality – but we have no doubt that we have chosen the right path for the future.
with thanks to The Londoner, newspaper of the GLA.
Friday, January 13, 2006
A Lack of Respect
RESPECT MP George Galloway last week made a catastrophic political mistake in taking part in the Celebrity Big Brother programme on Channel Four. His declared aim was “to bring political debate to wider audience” of young people who are out of touch with political issues. But the programme makers have gagged him. Every political word he utters is edited or bleeped out.
It has to be so. Broadcasting standards authorities do not allow the expression of political opinions in programmes unless they are “completely balanced” with a right of reply for all mainstream viewpoints. Programme makers cannot achieve this except in designated discussion programmes, documentaries and well-signposted satires.
This is why in dramas and soap operas no character ever expresses an opinion on any current major news topic or takes part in any political activity. This has led to a generation of young people who have grown up thinking that getting involved in politics is not quite normal.
George Galloway is experienced enough to know that no aspect of the bourgeois state can be used against the system. He has made a fool of himself and played into the hands of those who want to discredit his campaign against the war on Iraq.
Just a few months ago his political stature was miles high after he publicly berated the US Senate Committee over the war on Iraq. Now he has undermined his own credibility by mistaking a programme chiefly about sleaze and voyeurism for a political platform.
It has to be so. Broadcasting standards authorities do not allow the expression of political opinions in programmes unless they are “completely balanced” with a right of reply for all mainstream viewpoints. Programme makers cannot achieve this except in designated discussion programmes, documentaries and well-signposted satires.
This is why in dramas and soap operas no character ever expresses an opinion on any current major news topic or takes part in any political activity. This has led to a generation of young people who have grown up thinking that getting involved in politics is not quite normal.
George Galloway is experienced enough to know that no aspect of the bourgeois state can be used against the system. He has made a fool of himself and played into the hands of those who want to discredit his campaign against the war on Iraq.
Just a few months ago his political stature was miles high after he publicly berated the US Senate Committee over the war on Iraq. Now he has undermined his own credibility by mistaking a programme chiefly about sleaze and voyeurism for a political platform.
RMT battles for Tube safety
THE RMT transport union last Monday slammed the management of London Underground for ignoring Tube safety rules in an attempt to beat strike action by station staff over the imposition of unsafe rosters.
RMT London regional organiser Bobby Law said that the system was being kept open by untrained staff and managers who were working shifts of up to 20 hours.
“Due to the intransigence of London Underground, trains full of passengers are running through closed stations, in direct contravention of safety rules.
“For instance, instead of disembarking passengers, Piccadilly lines are running through three consecutive closed stations: Caledonian Road, Holloway Road and Kings Cross,” he said.
Bobby Law also outlined one incident at Upminster Bridge on Sunday evening when an emergency alarm stopped the train halfway into the platform.
Unruly passengers began opening the doors and the driver retreated to his cab and locked himself in. Police arrived 40 minutes later with a supervisor who had been called in from his home to open the station.
“It is clear that London Underground attempts to run a network without adequate station staff is putting the public at risk. They can’t even keep their headquarters station, St James’s Park, open without using untrained staff,” said Bobby Law.
RMT general secretary Bob Crow said the blatant safety breaches showed management desperation.
“We will be balloting the union’s entire London Underground membership for action short of strike action over these health and safety breaches.
“However, the union appeals to London Underground, even at this late stage, to postpone the imposition of these unsafe staffing plans in order to assess all safety implications,” he said. The RMT also welcomed the announcement of a safety investigation by HM Chief Inspector of Railways into reported breaches of safety regulations by London Underground during the New Year’s Eve strike by 4,000 RMT station staff.
RMT London regional organiser Bobby Law said that the system was being kept open by untrained staff and managers who were working shifts of up to 20 hours.
“Due to the intransigence of London Underground, trains full of passengers are running through closed stations, in direct contravention of safety rules.
“For instance, instead of disembarking passengers, Piccadilly lines are running through three consecutive closed stations: Caledonian Road, Holloway Road and Kings Cross,” he said.
Bobby Law also outlined one incident at Upminster Bridge on Sunday evening when an emergency alarm stopped the train halfway into the platform.
Unruly passengers began opening the doors and the driver retreated to his cab and locked himself in. Police arrived 40 minutes later with a supervisor who had been called in from his home to open the station.
“It is clear that London Underground attempts to run a network without adequate station staff is putting the public at risk. They can’t even keep their headquarters station, St James’s Park, open without using untrained staff,” said Bobby Law.
RMT general secretary Bob Crow said the blatant safety breaches showed management desperation.
“We will be balloting the union’s entire London Underground membership for action short of strike action over these health and safety breaches.
“However, the union appeals to London Underground, even at this late stage, to postpone the imposition of these unsafe staffing plans in order to assess all safety implications,” he said. The RMT also welcomed the announcement of a safety investigation by HM Chief Inspector of Railways into reported breaches of safety regulations by London Underground during the New Year’s Eve strike by 4,000 RMT station staff.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Bus, tube and train fares surge upwards
COMMUTERS in London and throughout the country are facing above inflation-level increases in fares on just about all forms of public transport.
Train travellers are angry at rises of up to nine per cent on unregulated fares and up to 3.9 percent on regulated fares (season and saver tickets).
Passenger groups complain that services are not improving as fares rise. Trains are still unreliable and often very overcrowded.
The Rail Passengers’ Council said: “We have had loads of complaints. People are really worried about the massive price rises made by all the train companies. For lots of passengers forced to travel to work at peak times, these new price hikes will make the train unaffordable.
“At the moment people do not think they get value for their money. They see no benefits for the price they pay. Commuters are facing a monopoly where they have no choice but to travel with certain companies at certain times.” shamelessly
Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT transport union, also criticised the private train companies. “The train operators are shamelessly using their route monopolies to maximise revenues and profits on premium routes.”
Londoners face even bigger rises for bus and tube fares. The price of a single journey by tube in central London has risen by 50 per cent to £3 while the cost of a single bus journey in London has risen to £1.50.
London mayor Ken Livingstone says the price rises are intended to encourage Londoners to get Oyster travel cards which give discounted fares. But even on these the discounted single bus journey fare is now £1 – a 25 per cent rise from 80 pence last year.
And weekly bus passes – which can be included on an Oyster card – have risen by nearly 25 per cent from £11 a week to £13.50. These increased travel costs will hit hardest those on the lowest incomes who cannot afford to travel any other way.
There is great resentment as many feel that the poorest Londoners are being taxed in this way to fund the 2012 Olympics – which will be of no benefit to them at all as they will be unable to afford the entry price to the events and will face only increased disruption, increased prices and congestion during the Olympics.
Train travellers are angry at rises of up to nine per cent on unregulated fares and up to 3.9 percent on regulated fares (season and saver tickets).
Passenger groups complain that services are not improving as fares rise. Trains are still unreliable and often very overcrowded.
The Rail Passengers’ Council said: “We have had loads of complaints. People are really worried about the massive price rises made by all the train companies. For lots of passengers forced to travel to work at peak times, these new price hikes will make the train unaffordable.
“At the moment people do not think they get value for their money. They see no benefits for the price they pay. Commuters are facing a monopoly where they have no choice but to travel with certain companies at certain times.” shamelessly
Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT transport union, also criticised the private train companies. “The train operators are shamelessly using their route monopolies to maximise revenues and profits on premium routes.”
Londoners face even bigger rises for bus and tube fares. The price of a single journey by tube in central London has risen by 50 per cent to £3 while the cost of a single bus journey in London has risen to £1.50.
London mayor Ken Livingstone says the price rises are intended to encourage Londoners to get Oyster travel cards which give discounted fares. But even on these the discounted single bus journey fare is now £1 – a 25 per cent rise from 80 pence last year.
And weekly bus passes – which can be included on an Oyster card – have risen by nearly 25 per cent from £11 a week to £13.50. These increased travel costs will hit hardest those on the lowest incomes who cannot afford to travel any other way.
There is great resentment as many feel that the poorest Londoners are being taxed in this way to fund the 2012 Olympics – which will be of no benefit to them at all as they will be unable to afford the entry price to the events and will face only increased disruption, increased prices and congestion during the Olympics.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Londoners protest against global warming
by Renee Sams
THE FIRST world-wide day of action to put pressure on the international climate change negotiating summit taking place in Montreal, the most important since the Kyoto Protocols eight years ago, saw demonstrations taking place in 30 countries last week-end.
In London around 10,000 people marched from Lincoln’s Inn Fields to the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square with banners from UNISON, the NUJ Magazine Branch, Green Party, Respect and CND, and the demonstration was enlivened by the group of drummers from Globalise Resistance.
The march was organised by the Campaign for Climate Change and supported by the Green Party, People and Planet, Green peace, Friends of the Earth, and the Christian Ecology Link.
Many demonstrators carried placards calling Blair and Bush “climate criminals” and the march took a short diversion to deliver a letter calling on Prime Minister Blair, who put climate change a top priority at the Gleneagles Summit, to reaffirm his commitment to a new international agreement treaty with legally binding targets.
It also called for more to be done to cut pollution from carbon dioxide emissions in this country which have risen in this country since 1997 although the in its election pledges the government promised to cut them by 20 per cent by 2010
Friends of the Earth Nick Rau, energy campaigner said, “If the UK is serious about leadership on climate change then our Government needs to take action at home. It is not too late.”
In Montreal there was a big demonstration and five environmental groups delivered a petition signed by 600,000 Americans to the US Consulate calling on the Bush administration to take action to slow global warming.
Supporting the action was a delegation from the Inuit people from the Arctic Circle where the ice and permafrost is already melting and destroying the homes and livelihoods of whole communities.
Also joining in the worldwide protest were the people of New Orleans suffering from the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina held a Stop the Global Warming Party. This marks a major change in the United States where the number of people telling the opinion polls that they now believe that something must be done immediately to avert the threat.
There is now a broad agreement among scientists that the greenhouse gases will have to be reduced by some 80 per cent by 2050 if there is to be any hope of preventing climate change escalating out of control.
But Stavros Dimas, the EU environmental commission admitted that little will be achieved in Montreal but they hope that they will be able “to get an agreement to start negotiations”. Margaret Beckett, Secretary of Sate for the Environment was even less helpful only hoping that, “we can move forward instead of setting some arbitrary goal that cannot possible be achieved.”
In the developing countries they are already doing all they can to cut domestic pollution and develop renewable energy and are prepared to “play their part” in efforts to prevent an environmental catastrophe.
But the largest problem is still the White House, the biggest producers of polluting gases where President Bush, despite the shock of Hurricane Katrina is still adamant and refusing to join the other countries of the world in overcoming what is fast becoming the most urgent issue of saving the planet.
THE FIRST world-wide day of action to put pressure on the international climate change negotiating summit taking place in Montreal, the most important since the Kyoto Protocols eight years ago, saw demonstrations taking place in 30 countries last week-end.
In London around 10,000 people marched from Lincoln’s Inn Fields to the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square with banners from UNISON, the NUJ Magazine Branch, Green Party, Respect and CND, and the demonstration was enlivened by the group of drummers from Globalise Resistance.
The march was organised by the Campaign for Climate Change and supported by the Green Party, People and Planet, Green peace, Friends of the Earth, and the Christian Ecology Link.
Many demonstrators carried placards calling Blair and Bush “climate criminals” and the march took a short diversion to deliver a letter calling on Prime Minister Blair, who put climate change a top priority at the Gleneagles Summit, to reaffirm his commitment to a new international agreement treaty with legally binding targets.
It also called for more to be done to cut pollution from carbon dioxide emissions in this country which have risen in this country since 1997 although the in its election pledges the government promised to cut them by 20 per cent by 2010
Friends of the Earth Nick Rau, energy campaigner said, “If the UK is serious about leadership on climate change then our Government needs to take action at home. It is not too late.”
In Montreal there was a big demonstration and five environmental groups delivered a petition signed by 600,000 Americans to the US Consulate calling on the Bush administration to take action to slow global warming.
Supporting the action was a delegation from the Inuit people from the Arctic Circle where the ice and permafrost is already melting and destroying the homes and livelihoods of whole communities.
Also joining in the worldwide protest were the people of New Orleans suffering from the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina held a Stop the Global Warming Party. This marks a major change in the United States where the number of people telling the opinion polls that they now believe that something must be done immediately to avert the threat.
There is now a broad agreement among scientists that the greenhouse gases will have to be reduced by some 80 per cent by 2050 if there is to be any hope of preventing climate change escalating out of control.
But Stavros Dimas, the EU environmental commission admitted that little will be achieved in Montreal but they hope that they will be able “to get an agreement to start negotiations”. Margaret Beckett, Secretary of Sate for the Environment was even less helpful only hoping that, “we can move forward instead of setting some arbitrary goal that cannot possible be achieved.”
In the developing countries they are already doing all they can to cut domestic pollution and develop renewable energy and are prepared to “play their part” in efforts to prevent an environmental catastrophe.
But the largest problem is still the White House, the biggest producers of polluting gases where President Bush, despite the shock of Hurricane Katrina is still adamant and refusing to join the other countries of the world in overcoming what is fast becoming the most urgent issue of saving the planet.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Defending rail safety regulations
by Rob Laurie
AROUND 300 protesters gathered at King’s Cross tube station last Saturday in a demonstration organised by the Fire Brigades Union against plans to downgrade safety regulations on the Underground.
Eighteen years have passed since the 1987 fire at London’s King’s Cross tube station killed 31 people, when rubbish in an ill-maintained escalator caught fire. In the aftermath of that tragedy the judicial inquiry chaired by Desmond Fennel recommended strict new safety rules on underground railways which were adopted and are in force to this day.
These regulations are now under threat thanks to changes planned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which are due to be introduced next year. Instead of the existing regulations they will be replaced by laxer rules allowing individual risk assessments of each station. As maintenance of the Underground is now in private hands, inspectors will be under commercial pressure to cut costs.
Local Labour MP Frank Dobson opened the proceedings by regretting the necessity for calling such a rally. Two other Labour MPs spoke: Jeremy Corbyn from the neighbouring Islington constituency urged the audience to keep up pressure on their MPs on the issue, while John McDonnell of the Labour Representation Committee denounced the rule changes as an unacceptable attack on the safety of Londoners.
Keith Norman, general secretary of the train drivers’ union Aslef, claimed that the proposed changes are an invitation to operators to cut corners in the interest of the commercial companies now responsible for maintaining the track and stations.
The general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, Matt Wrack, recalled attending the funeral of Colin Townsend the fireman killed that night 18 years ago.
Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT transport union, concluded the rally by attacking Government plans to run the new rules in tandem with the old for six months in order to avoid them coming into force before the local elections next May.
He promised that any threats of a reduction in safety would be met by a huge ballot in favour of industrial action.
AROUND 300 protesters gathered at King’s Cross tube station last Saturday in a demonstration organised by the Fire Brigades Union against plans to downgrade safety regulations on the Underground.
Eighteen years have passed since the 1987 fire at London’s King’s Cross tube station killed 31 people, when rubbish in an ill-maintained escalator caught fire. In the aftermath of that tragedy the judicial inquiry chaired by Desmond Fennel recommended strict new safety rules on underground railways which were adopted and are in force to this day.
These regulations are now under threat thanks to changes planned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which are due to be introduced next year. Instead of the existing regulations they will be replaced by laxer rules allowing individual risk assessments of each station. As maintenance of the Underground is now in private hands, inspectors will be under commercial pressure to cut costs.
Local Labour MP Frank Dobson opened the proceedings by regretting the necessity for calling such a rally. Two other Labour MPs spoke: Jeremy Corbyn from the neighbouring Islington constituency urged the audience to keep up pressure on their MPs on the issue, while John McDonnell of the Labour Representation Committee denounced the rule changes as an unacceptable attack on the safety of Londoners.
Keith Norman, general secretary of the train drivers’ union Aslef, claimed that the proposed changes are an invitation to operators to cut corners in the interest of the commercial companies now responsible for maintaining the track and stations.
The general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, Matt Wrack, recalled attending the funeral of Colin Townsend the fireman killed that night 18 years ago.
Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT transport union, concluded the rally by attacking Government plans to run the new rules in tandem with the old for six months in order to avoid them coming into force before the local elections next May.
He promised that any threats of a reduction in safety would be met by a huge ballot in favour of industrial action.
Gate Gourmet workers still barred
ALMOST two months after unions and management at Gate Gourmet signed an agreement, officially ending the long dispute, hundreds of workers are still picketing outside the factory gates, waiting to get their jobs back.
The dispute brought chaos to British Airways at the height of the holiday season last August when BA baggage handlers walked out spontaneously in solidarity with workers sacked by the Heathrow catering company Gate Gourmet.
The Gate Gourmet workers had been sacked after some of them walked out when the company brought in low-paid temporary staff at the same time they were negotiating redundancies.
The whole thing was a provocation to allow Gate Gourmet to sack its entire workforce and replace them with lower paid workers – without having to pay any redundancy packages.
The Transport and General Workers’ Union played a leading role in negotiating to get the baggage handlers back to work and in getting a deal with Gate Gourmet that would reinstate most of the workforce reinstated with acceptable redundancy packages for the rest in a deal agreed in early October.
Gate Gourmet refused to take back some active trade unionists. But last week Parmjit Kaur, a worker still waiting to get her job back, declared: “It’s not over. People think it is over but we are still picketing, we are still out of work, we come here, we put up a tent every day".
Kaur worked as a tray setter for Gate Gourmet for 11 years. She says: “It’s very hard. All I want to do is work but I’m not allowed to. I am not on strike; I am fighting for my rights. They have kicked us out with nothing.”
Last August she and her colleagues met in the canteen when workers were angry that the company had brought in temporary workers on lower pay.
They were told over the tannoy system – a message that many did not hear clearly – that they had to go back to work at once or face the sack.
“We were made to feel like criminals,” said Kaur. “We were told to hand over our passes and leave. We were escorted off the building.”
Meanwhile British Airways is accusing TGWU officials, including general secretary Tony Woodley, of encouraging the unofficial walkout by the baggage handlers.
The company has threatened three shop stewards with disciplinary hearings and claims it can prove their involvement beyond a doubt. Now it claims that the stewards have implicated Tony Woodley in giving private support to the walkout.
The union has warned that there could be a ballot for an official strike if the stewards are sacked.
A TGWU statement said: “We completely refute any suggestion of any involvement along the lines apparently suggested by anonymous sources.
“The TGWU dissociated itself from the unofficial action and did all it could to secure a return to work within deadlines set by BA.
BA is threatening to sue the union for compensation for the strike, which, it claims, cost it £45 million. This could push the union – one of the biggest donors to the Labour Party, towards bankruptcy.
New BA chief executive William Walsh is also trying to introduce new working practices at Heathrow and is in the middle of negotiations with the union over a £1 billion shortfall in the company’s pension scheme.
Last October’s Labour Party conference passed a motion calling for the abolition of the Tory anti-trade union laws that outlaw solidarity action, like that taken by the baggage handlers.
The dispute brought chaos to British Airways at the height of the holiday season last August when BA baggage handlers walked out spontaneously in solidarity with workers sacked by the Heathrow catering company Gate Gourmet.
The Gate Gourmet workers had been sacked after some of them walked out when the company brought in low-paid temporary staff at the same time they were negotiating redundancies.
The whole thing was a provocation to allow Gate Gourmet to sack its entire workforce and replace them with lower paid workers – without having to pay any redundancy packages.
The Transport and General Workers’ Union played a leading role in negotiating to get the baggage handlers back to work and in getting a deal with Gate Gourmet that would reinstate most of the workforce reinstated with acceptable redundancy packages for the rest in a deal agreed in early October.
Gate Gourmet refused to take back some active trade unionists. But last week Parmjit Kaur, a worker still waiting to get her job back, declared: “It’s not over. People think it is over but we are still picketing, we are still out of work, we come here, we put up a tent every day".
Kaur worked as a tray setter for Gate Gourmet for 11 years. She says: “It’s very hard. All I want to do is work but I’m not allowed to. I am not on strike; I am fighting for my rights. They have kicked us out with nothing.”
Last August she and her colleagues met in the canteen when workers were angry that the company had brought in temporary workers on lower pay.
They were told over the tannoy system – a message that many did not hear clearly – that they had to go back to work at once or face the sack.
“We were made to feel like criminals,” said Kaur. “We were told to hand over our passes and leave. We were escorted off the building.”
Meanwhile British Airways is accusing TGWU officials, including general secretary Tony Woodley, of encouraging the unofficial walkout by the baggage handlers.
The company has threatened three shop stewards with disciplinary hearings and claims it can prove their involvement beyond a doubt. Now it claims that the stewards have implicated Tony Woodley in giving private support to the walkout.
The union has warned that there could be a ballot for an official strike if the stewards are sacked.
A TGWU statement said: “We completely refute any suggestion of any involvement along the lines apparently suggested by anonymous sources.
“The TGWU dissociated itself from the unofficial action and did all it could to secure a return to work within deadlines set by BA.
BA is threatening to sue the union for compensation for the strike, which, it claims, cost it £45 million. This could push the union – one of the biggest donors to the Labour Party, towards bankruptcy.
New BA chief executive William Walsh is also trying to introduce new working practices at Heathrow and is in the middle of negotiations with the union over a £1 billion shortfall in the company’s pension scheme.
Last October’s Labour Party conference passed a motion calling for the abolition of the Tory anti-trade union laws that outlaw solidarity action, like that taken by the baggage handlers.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Bourgeois democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat
by Richard Bos
‘All bourgeois elections are the manipulation of the largest number of votes by the smallest number of people’ – Andy Brooks
THE MARXIST concept of the state is fundamental to understanding that bourgeois state power (which in the last instance is based upon force) can only be abolished by use of force from the oppressed class. The working class can not simply inherit the bourgeois state, it must be “smashed” and the working class must create its own state organs. This was one of Marx’s most important conclusions after studying the uprising and eventual defeat of the Paris Commune.
The State is not neutral and devoid of class interests. It exists to defend the interests of the ruling class.
Lenin said, “The working people are barred from participation in bourgeois parliaments (they never decide important questions under bourgeois democracy, which are decided by the stock exchange and the banks) by thousands of obstacles. And the workers know and feel, see and realise perfectly well that the bourgeois parliaments are institutions alien to them, instruments for the oppression of the workers by the bourgeoisie, institutions of a hostile class, of the exploiting minority.” (VI Lenin, Collected Works 28, p. 247)
On the “left,” in Britain petty-bourgeois illusions and reformist ideas have always flourished, especially since the Second World War when, during the post-war reconstruction and imperialist exploitation of the third world, the working class was able to extract concessions from the ruling class. Even though social democracy can no longer deliver the goods and the earlier concessions have been grabbed back, those illusions still persist.
Marxist-Leninists will always make use of what exists to fight for democratic rights and liberties in the interest of workers, but never believing that those demands may be obtained other than partially and incompletely under capitalist conditions. The struggle for peace, popular action opposing the attacks of imperialism against national sovereignty, the struggle to defend the environment, the defence of the right to strike and other democratic rights will always be central to our tactical programme.
At the same time, Communists are clear that any success in such struggles under capitalist conditions will only be partial and of limited permanence, depending on the forcefulness, unity of action, and the fighting ability of the working class and the masses at that time. Lasting reforms and significant progress are part and parcel of an entirely different social and economic system: socialism.
Therefore, involvement in, and reform of, institutions of the bourgeois state (that means Parliament, the military, the courts and so on) are never included as any part of a revolutionary strategy, but are tactical matters. The attitude of Communists where these institutions are concerned (for example taking part in elections or not, military service or not (where it exists), and so on) are tactical issues, and our attitude would depend on the situation, on the “temperature” of the class struggle and balance of forces. In short, depending on what, at the given moment, under changing circumstances, best helps forward the realisation of our strategic aims.
The Communist Party of Greece, KKE, operating in a capitalist country that is dominated by the imperialist powers and working in accordance with the balance of forces as they exist there, has no illusions about the system. They answer the following question: Is free will under capitalism a deception?
And say:
“Engels said that free will means our ability to decide based on knowledge of facts. Thus it is an illusion to talk of the free will of the broad masses, even in those capitalist countries in which the right to choose formally exists. The middle class is proud of its bourgeois parliament, which it presents as a Temple of Democracy, and local government as approximating the institution of a people’s republic.
“During the past ten years in particular, very rapid developments have taken place with the result that the bourgeois parliament, both national and European, and the organs of local government have become transformed formally into organs and sub-organs of the bourgeois state. A number of institutions which had emerged within the framework of the bourgeois democracy through the struggle of the labour movement, have been transformed into blind organs of capital, into organs of class collaboration, into organs of buying off, bribery, manipulation.
“The great majority of trade union movement institutions have gone downhill on this wave. It is not accidental that the peoples of Europe do not feel any respect for bourgeois institutions. Our party is not content with this view which, deprived as it is of all political content, and does not represent any threat to the system. On the contrary, it may lead to the dissemination of even more reactionary, fascist views. We are working hard in Greece to prove why and how the bourgeois democracy has exhausted any leeway it may have had, and why and how the people, through their struggle, will push forward independent institutions generated by the people, which they will utilise to bring about revolutionary change in the society.”
Different revisionist currents claim that the “new world order” as well as the experience of the counter-revolutions in Eastern Europe, prove that the violent revolution is no longer a probability, that it is a hopeless dream, or not at all “necessary”. Somehow they will get a majority vote in parliamentary elections, and the popular will of the masses will prevent the return of the old order.
The new European Left Party formation comprises a hotchpotch of communist, socialist, Trotskyist and green parties. It is completely devoid of any Marxist analysis of the nature of the capitalist state and imperialism. It seeks to “transform” the EU into “another kind of Europe” of lots of nice things that no one disagrees with. It is another social-democratic project, desperately seeking the acceptance of its Brussels paymasters.
In Britain some revisionists state that violent revolution may still be a necessity in other parts of the world. However, according to them, the history, culture and tradition of Britain make this Leninist teaching obsolete and that there is a British Road to Socialism, to which the rules of the rest of the world do not apply! This, of course, is a fraud.
According to the Communist Party of Britain programme Britain’s Road to
Socialism: “What is needed instead is a new type of left government, based on a Labour, socialist and communist majority in the Westminster Parliament, one which comes about through the wide-ranging struggles of a mass movement outside Parliament, demanding the kind of policies contained in the AEPS (Alternative Economic and Political Strategy).”
They assume that support would be so overwhelming that the state, military, and financial institutions would have to allow themselves to be “democratised”. Those were the assumptions made in Chile during the Allende government of the early 70s which did all the things called for in Britain’s Road to Socialism, and, like the CPB, completely disregarded Marxist understanding of the nature of the bourgeois state and was drowned in blood.
The Socialist Labour Party sees itself sweeping the Labour Party aside, and winning a majority for socialist change by itself alone being elected as government.
Respect, led by the Socialist Workers’ Party, doesn’t even mention socialism in its policy documents, and looks to a liberal/reformist mixed economy agenda. Interestingly they don’t have anything to say about the EU.
What they all have in common is that they believe that they can win by imitating social democracy and playing the bourgeois election game. And they would all like proportional representation so they can boost their egos by having their own little slice of power as a reward for playing that game!
Real reality, unlike the “virtual reality” of the revisionists, tells us otherwise.
“The civilisation and justice of bourgeois order comes out in its lurid light whenever the slaves and drudges of that order rise against their masters. Then this civilisation and justice stand forth as undisguised savagery and lawless revenge. Each new crisis in the class struggle between the appropriator and the producer brings out this fact more glaringly.”
(Marx: The Civil War in France)
The democratic facade of the bourgeois state is worth nothing more than a house of cards. It will immediately fall to the ground if threatened by social unrest. This understanding is essential if one is to develop a revolutionary strategy.
The Communists and the working class must be clear about what sort of enemy we actually stand against. The bourgeoisie will not wait a second to consider before it will make use of its violent state machinery to crush any serious attempt at revolt – in parliamentary traditional Britain as in any other country. The velvet glove soon reveals the mailed fist time after time, in any part of the world where imperialism is challenged.
Another quote from Lenin: “Take the fundamental laws of modern states, take their administration, take freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, or ‘equality of all citizens before the law’, and you will see at every turn evidence of the hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy, with which every honest and class-conscious worker is familiar. There is not a single state, however democratic, which has no loopholes or reservations in its constitution guaranteeing the bourgeoisie the possibility of dispatching troops against the workers, of proclaiming martial law, and so forth, in case of a ‘violence of public order,’ and actually in case the exploited class ‘violates’ its position of slavery and tries to behave in a non-slavish manner. Kautsky shamelessly embellishes bourgeois democracy and omits to mention, for instance, how the most democratic and republican bourgeoisie in America or Switzerland deal with workers on strike.” (VI Lenin, Collected Works 28, p. 244)
Exactly the same can be said of the industrial relations laws in this country, which are designed to create impotence in the trade union movement. The Prevention of Terrorism Act Section 44 has been used to expel Walter Wolfgang from the Labour Party Conference this year, and was used 4000 times by Hampshire police in September alone!
For many years the state has used it’s agents to infiltrate and subvert all working class organisations whenever they are considered a threat. It is reputed that, at one stage, almost half the membership of the Communist Party of the United States of America were government agents. Only this month, Edward Woodward, the former head of the Australian ASIO (the Australian state intelligence service), said that the problem in the Communist Party of Australia during the late 70s and early 80s was that often the most active member of the local branch was the government agent! The same kind of thing went on in Communist Parties throughout Scandinavia, Western Europe, and other parts of the world. The British experience will have been no different.
The ruling class completely disregards its own laws and regulations whenever it finds this convenient. Of course illegal surveillance is going on and will continue, probably in new forms and by different means. Regardless of this, the core of the matter is that preparations to “deal with” political opposition is regarded as appropriate and quite legal as long as this opposition is considered to be “endangering national security”.
From the Lenin’s Theses on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat – 1st Congress of the 3rd International 1919, Collected Works
Vol28 pp 457:
1. “Faced with the growth of the revolutionary workers’ movement in every
country, the bourgeoisie and their agents in the workers’ organisations are making desperate attempts to find ideological and political arguments in defence of the rule of the exploiters. Condemnation of dictatorship and defence of democracy are particularly prominent among these arguments. The falsity and hypocrisy of this argument, repeated in a thousand strains by the capitalist press and at the Berne yellow International Conference in February 1919, are obvious to all who refuse to betray the fundamental principles of socialism.
2. “Firstly, this argument employs the concepts of ‘democracy in general’
and ‘dictatorship in general’, without posing the question of the class concerned. This non-class or above-class presentation, which supposedly is popular, is an outright travesty of the basic tenet of socialism, namely, its theory of class struggle, which socialists who have sided with the bourgeoisie recognise in words but disregard in practice. For in no civilised capitalist country does ‘democracy in general’ exist; all that exists is bourgeois democracy, and it is not a question of ‘dictatorship in general’, but of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, in other words the proletariat, over its oppressors and exploiters, in other words the bourgeoisie, in order to overcome the resistance offered by the exploiters in their fight to maintain their domination.”
Lenin further said: “The main thing that socialists fail to understand and that constitutes their short-sightedness in matters of theory, their subservience to bourgeois prejudices and their political betrayal of the proletariat is that in capitalist society, whenever there is any serious aggravation of the class struggle intrinsic to that society, there can be no alternative but the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dreams of some third way are reactionary, petty-bourgeois lamentations.”
Nowadays those opposed to the concept of Dictatorship of the Proletariat say that they are opposed to “Stalinism”. But the political forbears of the anti-Stalinist “left” used all the same arguments in opposition to Lenin long before Stalin led the Soviet Union!
Many of illusions on the Left in bourgeois democracy manifest themselves in the various groups trying to replace the Labour Party by putting up candidates in elections. On the one hand they lie to the masses by elevating it to a strategy for achieving power, and denounce us Communists as traitors to the working class for not supporting them. On the other hand they say that it is a tactic that will give them a parliamentary platform and publicity from which to build a mass movement outside Parliament. Either way they show that they have no understanding of the nature of the state machine or the purpose of bourgeois elections.
The fact is that there are only two choices in an election for which party runs the bourgeois state in this country – Labour or Conservative. Labour’s links with the trade union movement means that there is the possibility of concessions being won – how much depends on the levels of working class action. Blair and company do not represent the whole party. The Conservatives are at least as reactionary as Blair, whoever is in charge. The masses are not fools and they know this.
It is the duty of Communists to expose the nature of the state and bourgeois democracy at every opportunity. Within that system which cannot now, and will not ever deliver socialism, the best we can get is temporary reforms for the benefit of the working class, which should not be ignored. It is through those struggles that awareness can be raised. Right now, it is only the Labour Party that can deliver those temporary reforms after organised pressure.
From the 14th Congress of the NCP
“Though the Labour Party is dominated by the class-collaborating right wing in the parliamentary party and the trade union movement, the possibility of their defeat exists as long as Labour retains its organisational links with the trade unions that fund it. The defeat of right wing union blocs in most of the major unions over the past two years demonstrates this possibility.”
“We reject the “parliamentary road” and electoral politics. The old Communist Party of Great Britain abandoned the revolutionary road when it adopted the British Road to Socialism. Its successors in the Communist Party of Britain and the Communist Party of Scotland continue this essentially social-democratic and revisionist policy today. The Socialist Labour Party, Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and the Trotskyist Socialist Alliance express essentially the same theory. (Also Respect - RB)
The paltry votes won by all these parties – including the SSP whose modest gains in the Scottish Parliament were more than matched by the non-socialist Greens – show the futility of programmes that argue that the only way to defeat social democracy is in fact to imitate it. They call for social-democratic reforms while campaigning against the only mass force capable of implementing reform, the Labour Party itself. All of them end up attacking the Labour Party rather than the ruling class as the main enemy of the working class. Objectively they end up in the camp of the class enemy.
But the masses are often much wiser than those who claim to lead them and this is why these parties remain isolated amongst the working class despite all their pretensions. The Labour Party is not the enemy of the working class nor is it a barrier to communist advance.”
‘All bourgeois elections are the manipulation of the largest number of votes by the smallest number of people’ – Andy Brooks
THE MARXIST concept of the state is fundamental to understanding that bourgeois state power (which in the last instance is based upon force) can only be abolished by use of force from the oppressed class. The working class can not simply inherit the bourgeois state, it must be “smashed” and the working class must create its own state organs. This was one of Marx’s most important conclusions after studying the uprising and eventual defeat of the Paris Commune.
The State is not neutral and devoid of class interests. It exists to defend the interests of the ruling class.
Lenin said, “The working people are barred from participation in bourgeois parliaments (they never decide important questions under bourgeois democracy, which are decided by the stock exchange and the banks) by thousands of obstacles. And the workers know and feel, see and realise perfectly well that the bourgeois parliaments are institutions alien to them, instruments for the oppression of the workers by the bourgeoisie, institutions of a hostile class, of the exploiting minority.” (VI Lenin, Collected Works 28, p. 247)
On the “left,” in Britain petty-bourgeois illusions and reformist ideas have always flourished, especially since the Second World War when, during the post-war reconstruction and imperialist exploitation of the third world, the working class was able to extract concessions from the ruling class. Even though social democracy can no longer deliver the goods and the earlier concessions have been grabbed back, those illusions still persist.
Marxist-Leninists will always make use of what exists to fight for democratic rights and liberties in the interest of workers, but never believing that those demands may be obtained other than partially and incompletely under capitalist conditions. The struggle for peace, popular action opposing the attacks of imperialism against national sovereignty, the struggle to defend the environment, the defence of the right to strike and other democratic rights will always be central to our tactical programme.
At the same time, Communists are clear that any success in such struggles under capitalist conditions will only be partial and of limited permanence, depending on the forcefulness, unity of action, and the fighting ability of the working class and the masses at that time. Lasting reforms and significant progress are part and parcel of an entirely different social and economic system: socialism.
Therefore, involvement in, and reform of, institutions of the bourgeois state (that means Parliament, the military, the courts and so on) are never included as any part of a revolutionary strategy, but are tactical matters. The attitude of Communists where these institutions are concerned (for example taking part in elections or not, military service or not (where it exists), and so on) are tactical issues, and our attitude would depend on the situation, on the “temperature” of the class struggle and balance of forces. In short, depending on what, at the given moment, under changing circumstances, best helps forward the realisation of our strategic aims.
The Communist Party of Greece, KKE, operating in a capitalist country that is dominated by the imperialist powers and working in accordance with the balance of forces as they exist there, has no illusions about the system. They answer the following question: Is free will under capitalism a deception?
And say:
“Engels said that free will means our ability to decide based on knowledge of facts. Thus it is an illusion to talk of the free will of the broad masses, even in those capitalist countries in which the right to choose formally exists. The middle class is proud of its bourgeois parliament, which it presents as a Temple of Democracy, and local government as approximating the institution of a people’s republic.
“During the past ten years in particular, very rapid developments have taken place with the result that the bourgeois parliament, both national and European, and the organs of local government have become transformed formally into organs and sub-organs of the bourgeois state. A number of institutions which had emerged within the framework of the bourgeois democracy through the struggle of the labour movement, have been transformed into blind organs of capital, into organs of class collaboration, into organs of buying off, bribery, manipulation.
“The great majority of trade union movement institutions have gone downhill on this wave. It is not accidental that the peoples of Europe do not feel any respect for bourgeois institutions. Our party is not content with this view which, deprived as it is of all political content, and does not represent any threat to the system. On the contrary, it may lead to the dissemination of even more reactionary, fascist views. We are working hard in Greece to prove why and how the bourgeois democracy has exhausted any leeway it may have had, and why and how the people, through their struggle, will push forward independent institutions generated by the people, which they will utilise to bring about revolutionary change in the society.”
Different revisionist currents claim that the “new world order” as well as the experience of the counter-revolutions in Eastern Europe, prove that the violent revolution is no longer a probability, that it is a hopeless dream, or not at all “necessary”. Somehow they will get a majority vote in parliamentary elections, and the popular will of the masses will prevent the return of the old order.
The new European Left Party formation comprises a hotchpotch of communist, socialist, Trotskyist and green parties. It is completely devoid of any Marxist analysis of the nature of the capitalist state and imperialism. It seeks to “transform” the EU into “another kind of Europe” of lots of nice things that no one disagrees with. It is another social-democratic project, desperately seeking the acceptance of its Brussels paymasters.
In Britain some revisionists state that violent revolution may still be a necessity in other parts of the world. However, according to them, the history, culture and tradition of Britain make this Leninist teaching obsolete and that there is a British Road to Socialism, to which the rules of the rest of the world do not apply! This, of course, is a fraud.
According to the Communist Party of Britain programme Britain’s Road to
Socialism: “What is needed instead is a new type of left government, based on a Labour, socialist and communist majority in the Westminster Parliament, one which comes about through the wide-ranging struggles of a mass movement outside Parliament, demanding the kind of policies contained in the AEPS (Alternative Economic and Political Strategy).”
They assume that support would be so overwhelming that the state, military, and financial institutions would have to allow themselves to be “democratised”. Those were the assumptions made in Chile during the Allende government of the early 70s which did all the things called for in Britain’s Road to Socialism, and, like the CPB, completely disregarded Marxist understanding of the nature of the bourgeois state and was drowned in blood.
The Socialist Labour Party sees itself sweeping the Labour Party aside, and winning a majority for socialist change by itself alone being elected as government.
Respect, led by the Socialist Workers’ Party, doesn’t even mention socialism in its policy documents, and looks to a liberal/reformist mixed economy agenda. Interestingly they don’t have anything to say about the EU.
What they all have in common is that they believe that they can win by imitating social democracy and playing the bourgeois election game. And they would all like proportional representation so they can boost their egos by having their own little slice of power as a reward for playing that game!
Real reality, unlike the “virtual reality” of the revisionists, tells us otherwise.
“The civilisation and justice of bourgeois order comes out in its lurid light whenever the slaves and drudges of that order rise against their masters. Then this civilisation and justice stand forth as undisguised savagery and lawless revenge. Each new crisis in the class struggle between the appropriator and the producer brings out this fact more glaringly.”
(Marx: The Civil War in France)
The democratic facade of the bourgeois state is worth nothing more than a house of cards. It will immediately fall to the ground if threatened by social unrest. This understanding is essential if one is to develop a revolutionary strategy.
The Communists and the working class must be clear about what sort of enemy we actually stand against. The bourgeoisie will not wait a second to consider before it will make use of its violent state machinery to crush any serious attempt at revolt – in parliamentary traditional Britain as in any other country. The velvet glove soon reveals the mailed fist time after time, in any part of the world where imperialism is challenged.
Another quote from Lenin: “Take the fundamental laws of modern states, take their administration, take freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, or ‘equality of all citizens before the law’, and you will see at every turn evidence of the hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy, with which every honest and class-conscious worker is familiar. There is not a single state, however democratic, which has no loopholes or reservations in its constitution guaranteeing the bourgeoisie the possibility of dispatching troops against the workers, of proclaiming martial law, and so forth, in case of a ‘violence of public order,’ and actually in case the exploited class ‘violates’ its position of slavery and tries to behave in a non-slavish manner. Kautsky shamelessly embellishes bourgeois democracy and omits to mention, for instance, how the most democratic and republican bourgeoisie in America or Switzerland deal with workers on strike.” (VI Lenin, Collected Works 28, p. 244)
Exactly the same can be said of the industrial relations laws in this country, which are designed to create impotence in the trade union movement. The Prevention of Terrorism Act Section 44 has been used to expel Walter Wolfgang from the Labour Party Conference this year, and was used 4000 times by Hampshire police in September alone!
For many years the state has used it’s agents to infiltrate and subvert all working class organisations whenever they are considered a threat. It is reputed that, at one stage, almost half the membership of the Communist Party of the United States of America were government agents. Only this month, Edward Woodward, the former head of the Australian ASIO (the Australian state intelligence service), said that the problem in the Communist Party of Australia during the late 70s and early 80s was that often the most active member of the local branch was the government agent! The same kind of thing went on in Communist Parties throughout Scandinavia, Western Europe, and other parts of the world. The British experience will have been no different.
The ruling class completely disregards its own laws and regulations whenever it finds this convenient. Of course illegal surveillance is going on and will continue, probably in new forms and by different means. Regardless of this, the core of the matter is that preparations to “deal with” political opposition is regarded as appropriate and quite legal as long as this opposition is considered to be “endangering national security”.
From the Lenin’s Theses on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat – 1st Congress of the 3rd International 1919, Collected Works
Vol28 pp 457:
1. “Faced with the growth of the revolutionary workers’ movement in every
country, the bourgeoisie and their agents in the workers’ organisations are making desperate attempts to find ideological and political arguments in defence of the rule of the exploiters. Condemnation of dictatorship and defence of democracy are particularly prominent among these arguments. The falsity and hypocrisy of this argument, repeated in a thousand strains by the capitalist press and at the Berne yellow International Conference in February 1919, are obvious to all who refuse to betray the fundamental principles of socialism.
2. “Firstly, this argument employs the concepts of ‘democracy in general’
and ‘dictatorship in general’, without posing the question of the class concerned. This non-class or above-class presentation, which supposedly is popular, is an outright travesty of the basic tenet of socialism, namely, its theory of class struggle, which socialists who have sided with the bourgeoisie recognise in words but disregard in practice. For in no civilised capitalist country does ‘democracy in general’ exist; all that exists is bourgeois democracy, and it is not a question of ‘dictatorship in general’, but of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, in other words the proletariat, over its oppressors and exploiters, in other words the bourgeoisie, in order to overcome the resistance offered by the exploiters in their fight to maintain their domination.”
Lenin further said: “The main thing that socialists fail to understand and that constitutes their short-sightedness in matters of theory, their subservience to bourgeois prejudices and their political betrayal of the proletariat is that in capitalist society, whenever there is any serious aggravation of the class struggle intrinsic to that society, there can be no alternative but the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dreams of some third way are reactionary, petty-bourgeois lamentations.”
Nowadays those opposed to the concept of Dictatorship of the Proletariat say that they are opposed to “Stalinism”. But the political forbears of the anti-Stalinist “left” used all the same arguments in opposition to Lenin long before Stalin led the Soviet Union!
Many of illusions on the Left in bourgeois democracy manifest themselves in the various groups trying to replace the Labour Party by putting up candidates in elections. On the one hand they lie to the masses by elevating it to a strategy for achieving power, and denounce us Communists as traitors to the working class for not supporting them. On the other hand they say that it is a tactic that will give them a parliamentary platform and publicity from which to build a mass movement outside Parliament. Either way they show that they have no understanding of the nature of the state machine or the purpose of bourgeois elections.
The fact is that there are only two choices in an election for which party runs the bourgeois state in this country – Labour or Conservative. Labour’s links with the trade union movement means that there is the possibility of concessions being won – how much depends on the levels of working class action. Blair and company do not represent the whole party. The Conservatives are at least as reactionary as Blair, whoever is in charge. The masses are not fools and they know this.
It is the duty of Communists to expose the nature of the state and bourgeois democracy at every opportunity. Within that system which cannot now, and will not ever deliver socialism, the best we can get is temporary reforms for the benefit of the working class, which should not be ignored. It is through those struggles that awareness can be raised. Right now, it is only the Labour Party that can deliver those temporary reforms after organised pressure.
From the 14th Congress of the NCP
“Though the Labour Party is dominated by the class-collaborating right wing in the parliamentary party and the trade union movement, the possibility of their defeat exists as long as Labour retains its organisational links with the trade unions that fund it. The defeat of right wing union blocs in most of the major unions over the past two years demonstrates this possibility.”
“We reject the “parliamentary road” and electoral politics. The old Communist Party of Great Britain abandoned the revolutionary road when it adopted the British Road to Socialism. Its successors in the Communist Party of Britain and the Communist Party of Scotland continue this essentially social-democratic and revisionist policy today. The Socialist Labour Party, Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and the Trotskyist Socialist Alliance express essentially the same theory. (Also Respect - RB)
The paltry votes won by all these parties – including the SSP whose modest gains in the Scottish Parliament were more than matched by the non-socialist Greens – show the futility of programmes that argue that the only way to defeat social democracy is in fact to imitate it. They call for social-democratic reforms while campaigning against the only mass force capable of implementing reform, the Labour Party itself. All of them end up attacking the Labour Party rather than the ruling class as the main enemy of the working class. Objectively they end up in the camp of the class enemy.
But the masses are often much wiser than those who claim to lead them and this is why these parties remain isolated amongst the working class despite all their pretensions. The Labour Party is not the enemy of the working class nor is it a barrier to communist advance.”
China Calls For Peace
CHINESE President Hu Jintao called for lasting peace and common development in London on the first day of his state visit to Britain. “We stand ready to work with the UK to strengthen mutual trust, expand exchanges and co-operation and make joint efforts for the well-being of the two peoples and a harmonious world of lasting peace and common prosperity,” the Chinese leader declared.
Old China was the workshop of the world in the 18th century. New China is set to become the workshop of the world of the 21st century. People’s China has the fastest growing economy in the world. It will probably be second biggest economy in the world by the next decade. This has given a better life to the Chinese masses and working people across the world have also benefited from the growth of the Chinese market.
China and Britain have established a comprehensive strategic economic partnership that has benefited the people of both countries. Thousands of British people work, travel and study in China. Many Chinese now study in our colleges and universities while an overseas Chinese community has lived in Britain for generations. The Government should now move to remove all remaining Cold War barriers to trade like the European Union’s arms embargo on China and support Beijing’s efforts for the peaceful return of Taiwan to the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic.
Old China was the workshop of the world in the 18th century. New China is set to become the workshop of the world of the 21st century. People’s China has the fastest growing economy in the world. It will probably be second biggest economy in the world by the next decade. This has given a better life to the Chinese masses and working people across the world have also benefited from the growth of the Chinese market.
China and Britain have established a comprehensive strategic economic partnership that has benefited the people of both countries. Thousands of British people work, travel and study in China. Many Chinese now study in our colleges and universities while an overseas Chinese community has lived in Britain for generations. The Government should now move to remove all remaining Cold War barriers to trade like the European Union’s arms embargo on China and support Beijing’s efforts for the peaceful return of Taiwan to the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Review : Kilombo
by Ray Jones
Kilombo, Pan-African Community Journal. Vol 8, issue 2, October-December 2005. £2. PO Box 21266, London W9 3YR. phone 07384 405307, email nkexplo@yahoo.co.uk
THE WORD Kilombo comes from the Kimbunu language in what is now Angola. It means a warrior village or settlement.
These were the organisational core of Queen N’zinga M’bandi’s resistance to the Portuguese invaders in the 17th century and the word represents, say the publishers, the unity of fighters in battle and their determination to achieve freedom.
Brave words, which the journal does its best to live up to.
For many of us in Britain Africa is probably still a dark continent as far as it’s politics goes. Well, here is our chance! From Cameroon to the Congo, from Kenya to Uganda, plus Black struggles in Britain and the United States, its all in Kilombo. But not in a dry academic style, because this is a campaigning journal and not just an educational one.
Readers will not agree with all of it, indeed not all the articles necessarily represent the views of the editorial board, but they will find it interesting and informative. The brief over view of the situation in the US by Kali Akuno, from the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, for example, gives an interesting perspective and food for thought
The journal is well produced and easy to read and a real bargain at £2.
Kilombo, Pan-African Community Journal. Vol 8, issue 2, October-December 2005. £2. PO Box 21266, London W9 3YR. phone 07384 405307, email nkexplo@yahoo.co.uk
THE WORD Kilombo comes from the Kimbunu language in what is now Angola. It means a warrior village or settlement.
These were the organisational core of Queen N’zinga M’bandi’s resistance to the Portuguese invaders in the 17th century and the word represents, say the publishers, the unity of fighters in battle and their determination to achieve freedom.
Brave words, which the journal does its best to live up to.
For many of us in Britain Africa is probably still a dark continent as far as it’s politics goes. Well, here is our chance! From Cameroon to the Congo, from Kenya to Uganda, plus Black struggles in Britain and the United States, its all in Kilombo. But not in a dry academic style, because this is a campaigning journal and not just an educational one.
Readers will not agree with all of it, indeed not all the articles necessarily represent the views of the editorial board, but they will find it interesting and informative. The brief over view of the situation in the US by Kali Akuno, from the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, for example, gives an interesting perspective and food for thought
The journal is well produced and easy to read and a real bargain at £2.
Parliament cleaners stage second strike
THE CLEANING staff of the Houses of Parliament staged their second strike on Wednesday in a long running dispute over pay after the parliamentary authorities refused to meet with the contractors and the cleaners’ union, the Transport and General Workers’ Union.
MPs and members of the House of Lords have been pressuring the parliamentary authorities to meet with the TGWU since July, when Parliament saw its first ever strike by cleaners.
Top civil servant Peter Grant Peterkin, Serjeant at Arms, who earns more than £100,000 a year in salary and benefits, and lives in a Whitehall mansion worth nearly £2 million, is refusing to meet to consider the cleaners’ claim for a living wage.
Currently the 140 cleaners are paid just £5.20 an hour; they receive no sick pay, no pension and minimum holidays.
The Serjeant at Arms says he is refusing to meet the union representatives because of recent questions posed in the House of Commons over the cleaners’ pay and conditions.
He told the TGWU: “Given the exchanges on the floor of the House earlier this week, the proposed tripartite meeting would probably achieve nothing.”
TGWU deputy general secretary Jack Dromey said: “In today’s democracy it seems inconceivable that unelected, privileged civil servants are blocking attempts by parliamentarians to get their cleaners a living wage.
“We have been overwhelmed with support by MPs and Lords but the stubborn refusal of the parliamentary authorities to act has led our members to decide they have no alternative but to mount picket lines outside Parliament once more.”
MPs and members of the House of Lords have been pressuring the parliamentary authorities to meet with the TGWU since July, when Parliament saw its first ever strike by cleaners.
Top civil servant Peter Grant Peterkin, Serjeant at Arms, who earns more than £100,000 a year in salary and benefits, and lives in a Whitehall mansion worth nearly £2 million, is refusing to meet to consider the cleaners’ claim for a living wage.
Currently the 140 cleaners are paid just £5.20 an hour; they receive no sick pay, no pension and minimum holidays.
The Serjeant at Arms says he is refusing to meet the union representatives because of recent questions posed in the House of Commons over the cleaners’ pay and conditions.
He told the TGWU: “Given the exchanges on the floor of the House earlier this week, the proposed tripartite meeting would probably achieve nothing.”
TGWU deputy general secretary Jack Dromey said: “In today’s democracy it seems inconceivable that unelected, privileged civil servants are blocking attempts by parliamentarians to get their cleaners a living wage.
“We have been overwhelmed with support by MPs and Lords but the stubborn refusal of the parliamentary authorities to act has led our members to decide they have no alternative but to mount picket lines outside Parliament once more.”
Housmans: 60 years of promoting peace
by Robert Laurie
LAST FRIDAY saw Housmans, the radical bookshop based near London’s King’s Cross station, celebrate 60 years of business. Pacifists founded it in 1945 and named it after Laurence Housman, the author and illustrator who was the brother of the poet A E Housman.
The shop has seen many ups and downs over the years, but with the King’s Cross area being redeveloped the future is bright once the London terminus for the Channel Tunnel brings more customers.
While the shop is still run by pacifists the stock is by no means exclusively pacifist. It gives shelf space to many left-wing publications from home and abroad including The New Worker, Sinn Fein’s Republican News and Revolutionary Democracy from India to name but three not devoted to the cause of non-violent struggle. The latest Harry Potter can also be picked up.
The shop has a strong stationery business, which in the past has enabled it to survive some difficult times. Special Branch officers anxious to keep up with the doings of left are rumoured to be among its customers.
Speakers at the anniversary party included Jean Lambert, Green Party MEP, who recalled that her interest in politics was awakened by the journals sold in Housmans. Brian Mister who was active in the Peace Pledge Union before the Second World War recalled the early days of the shop. The main speaker was however Walter Wolfgang, whose ejection from the Labour Party Conference hit the headlines.
He condemned the Government’s plans for a new generation of Trident missiles and looked forward to future successes for the peace movement.
The occasion also saw the launch of the Housmans Peace Diary for 2006, a publication which has been coming out for over 50 years. This year’s edition can be obtained from The New Worker office for £7.95 plus 50p P&P. Apart from being a diary it is an essential tool for all peace activists as it contains contact details of over two thousand organisations across the globe active in the cause of peace.
LAST FRIDAY saw Housmans, the radical bookshop based near London’s King’s Cross station, celebrate 60 years of business. Pacifists founded it in 1945 and named it after Laurence Housman, the author and illustrator who was the brother of the poet A E Housman.
The shop has seen many ups and downs over the years, but with the King’s Cross area being redeveloped the future is bright once the London terminus for the Channel Tunnel brings more customers.
While the shop is still run by pacifists the stock is by no means exclusively pacifist. It gives shelf space to many left-wing publications from home and abroad including The New Worker, Sinn Fein’s Republican News and Revolutionary Democracy from India to name but three not devoted to the cause of non-violent struggle. The latest Harry Potter can also be picked up.
The shop has a strong stationery business, which in the past has enabled it to survive some difficult times. Special Branch officers anxious to keep up with the doings of left are rumoured to be among its customers.
Speakers at the anniversary party included Jean Lambert, Green Party MEP, who recalled that her interest in politics was awakened by the journals sold in Housmans. Brian Mister who was active in the Peace Pledge Union before the Second World War recalled the early days of the shop. The main speaker was however Walter Wolfgang, whose ejection from the Labour Party Conference hit the headlines.
He condemned the Government’s plans for a new generation of Trident missiles and looked forward to future successes for the peace movement.
The occasion also saw the launch of the Housmans Peace Diary for 2006, a publication which has been coming out for over 50 years. This year’s edition can be obtained from The New Worker office for £7.95 plus 50p P&P. Apart from being a diary it is an essential tool for all peace activists as it contains contact details of over two thousand organisations across the globe active in the cause of peace.
Friday, October 28, 2005
‘Put up or shut up’– Galloway challenges accusers
WHEN George Galloway addressed the United States Senate Committee earlierthis year, answering charges that he had benefited from Iraqi oil money, heemphatically rejected the charges and rounded on his accusers with counteraccusations over the illegal invasion of Iraq.
He made the Senate Committee look foolish in front of the world so it wasonly a matter of time before various US government agencies would set outto undermine his credibility.
And last week they came up with the goods – new claims of “smoking gun”evidence that £85,000 from Iraqi oil sales was paid into a bank accountbelonging to Galloway’s estranged wife, Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad.
They also claimed that another £250,000 was given to the Mariam Appeal –the charity launched by Galloway for Iraqi children suffering from cancer,caused by the use of depleted uranium weapons in the first Gulf War.
Galloway, now the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, has repeated hisdenials that he ever received any money from Iraqi oil revenues anddemanded that the Senate committee charge him with lying – a criminaloffence – so that he can clear his name in court – or withdraw theaccusations.
And Galloway accused Senator Norman Coleman, who chairs the committee, ofcarrying out “sneak revenge attacks”.
He said he did not wish to answer for his wife but that she has spent manyyears researching the health effects of depleted uranium and that researchhad funding from many sources.
“Please, please charge me,” he said. “Please prosecute me and I will be onthe next plane to America to see you in court.
“I am demanding prosecution. I am begging for prosecution. If I have lied under oath in front of the Senate, that’s a criminal offence. Charge me andI will face them down in court as I faced them down in the Senate room.”
The Senate committee claims that Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian friend ofGalloway, channelled the money from the Saddam government to the MariamAppeal and to Dr Abu Zayyad.
But, in spite of the serious charges, Zureikat is still trading in Iraqand has made business trips to the US with the approval of the Americanauthorities.
He said he had meetings with them and they had talked to him about Iraqbefore the war but they had never mentioned oil or Galloway.
Galloway has accused the Americans of obtaining false evidence against himby torturing prisoners now held in Iraq.
He made the Senate Committee look foolish in front of the world so it wasonly a matter of time before various US government agencies would set outto undermine his credibility.
And last week they came up with the goods – new claims of “smoking gun”evidence that £85,000 from Iraqi oil sales was paid into a bank accountbelonging to Galloway’s estranged wife, Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad.
They also claimed that another £250,000 was given to the Mariam Appeal –the charity launched by Galloway for Iraqi children suffering from cancer,caused by the use of depleted uranium weapons in the first Gulf War.
Galloway, now the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, has repeated hisdenials that he ever received any money from Iraqi oil revenues anddemanded that the Senate committee charge him with lying – a criminaloffence – so that he can clear his name in court – or withdraw theaccusations.
And Galloway accused Senator Norman Coleman, who chairs the committee, ofcarrying out “sneak revenge attacks”.
He said he did not wish to answer for his wife but that she has spent manyyears researching the health effects of depleted uranium and that researchhad funding from many sources.
“Please, please charge me,” he said. “Please prosecute me and I will be onthe next plane to America to see you in court.
“I am demanding prosecution. I am begging for prosecution. If I have lied under oath in front of the Senate, that’s a criminal offence. Charge me andI will face them down in court as I faced them down in the Senate room.”
The Senate committee claims that Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian friend ofGalloway, channelled the money from the Saddam government to the MariamAppeal and to Dr Abu Zayyad.
But, in spite of the serious charges, Zureikat is still trading in Iraqand has made business trips to the US with the approval of the Americanauthorities.
He said he had meetings with them and they had talked to him about Iraqbefore the war but they had never mentioned oil or Galloway.
Galloway has accused the Americans of obtaining false evidence against himby torturing prisoners now held in Iraq.
The spirit of the anti-nazi struggle
Review
By Andy Brooks
Under the Wire: William Ash, Bantam Press, London 2005. Hbk, 292pp, illus.£16.99
Bill Ash, the Marxist writer, is well known to many of our readers for his novels based on the working class struggles in 1970s Britain. Some may know he gave up his American citizenship to fight the Nazis in 1940 when the United States was still neutral and then went on to become a successful script-writer after the war.
But what most of us didn’t know was why this young Texan chose to enter the fray by joining the Royal Canadian Air Force or what happened after his Spitfire was shot-down in 1942 over occupied France.
What followed is told in this gripping narrative of life evading the Gestapo and ending up as a reluctant POW in the camps. Bill’s courage never flagged. At every camp he plunged himself into work of the escape committees. Though their plans often ended in tears – Bill made over a dozen break-outs only to be recaptured – the efforts of the POWs tied down thousands of Nazi troops that would otherwise been sent to the front.
In telling his story Bill opens up the world of the RAF during the air-war with the Luftwaffe. He salutes his comrades in the skies, the resistance and in the camps who refused to accept that “for them the war was over”. And he does it with the wit and humour that runs through all his writings. Through his eyes we see the reality of fascist brutality and through his words we begin to understand the sacrifices that his generation made to rid the world of Hitler and Hirohito.
Producing this book for the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War was the brain-child of Brendan Foley, who first met Bill in the 1980s and wrote a screenplay of Bill’s wartime adventures. Bill says “most of the events in this book took place between sixty and seventy years ago, so I hope readers will forgive Brendan and me if we have tried to capture the spirit of the time, rather than the letter of it”.
Well there can be no doubt about that. Though the number of war-time memoirs must be legion Under the Wire stands out as a remarkable tribute to the men and women who gave their all to defeat the Axis. Well worth reading it can be bought from any high street bookseller or obtained from your local library.
By Andy Brooks
Under the Wire: William Ash, Bantam Press, London 2005. Hbk, 292pp, illus.£16.99
Bill Ash, the Marxist writer, is well known to many of our readers for his novels based on the working class struggles in 1970s Britain. Some may know he gave up his American citizenship to fight the Nazis in 1940 when the United States was still neutral and then went on to become a successful script-writer after the war.
But what most of us didn’t know was why this young Texan chose to enter the fray by joining the Royal Canadian Air Force or what happened after his Spitfire was shot-down in 1942 over occupied France.
What followed is told in this gripping narrative of life evading the Gestapo and ending up as a reluctant POW in the camps. Bill’s courage never flagged. At every camp he plunged himself into work of the escape committees. Though their plans often ended in tears – Bill made over a dozen break-outs only to be recaptured – the efforts of the POWs tied down thousands of Nazi troops that would otherwise been sent to the front.
In telling his story Bill opens up the world of the RAF during the air-war with the Luftwaffe. He salutes his comrades in the skies, the resistance and in the camps who refused to accept that “for them the war was over”. And he does it with the wit and humour that runs through all his writings. Through his eyes we see the reality of fascist brutality and through his words we begin to understand the sacrifices that his generation made to rid the world of Hitler and Hirohito.
Producing this book for the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War was the brain-child of Brendan Foley, who first met Bill in the 1980s and wrote a screenplay of Bill’s wartime adventures. Bill says “most of the events in this book took place between sixty and seventy years ago, so I hope readers will forgive Brendan and me if we have tried to capture the spirit of the time, rather than the letter of it”.
Well there can be no doubt about that. Though the number of war-time memoirs must be legion Under the Wire stands out as a remarkable tribute to the men and women who gave their all to defeat the Axis. Well worth reading it can be bought from any high street bookseller or obtained from your local library.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Red enough!
Review
by Paul Barrett
Night of the Demon – a classic film you may have missed.
IN 1911 M R James wrote a disturbing short story called The Casting of the Runes. In it the supernatural terrors that lurked on the periphery of the story’s events were never confirmed.
Yet in the 1957 horror film Night of the Demon, based on this story, there is no doubt that the horror is real. This little B film is one of the few of its kind that deserves to be remembered long after its first release, and remembered, respected and in many cases it is still loved.
And now the entire story of the film and those who made it is available in a book by Tony Earnshaw – Beating the Devil – printed by Tomahawk Press.
It is a fascinating insight into the story of the film, the cast and crew and is a highly informative easy read. It revealed that a Charles Bennett, who collaborated with Alfred Hitchcock on such films as Sabotage and The Man who Knew Too Much, wrote a highly literate script of the story under the working title of The Bewitched.
He was advised that any film version had no chance of the sought-after A certificate, with the censors likely to grant an X, even after swingeing cuts to the script and story. Then a chance meeting between Bennett and Hal C Chester, a small scale Hollywood producer and major hustler, resulted in a deal with Columbia Pictures to produce the film, with Chester’s name very prominent in the credits, while Bennett’s was not used.
Living in England at the time was black-listed writer/director Cy Enfield, who had been targeted by the fascist House of Un-American Activities Committee and had been considered a top Hollywood talent – though his inclination was to associate with the “brightest writers and directors”, ensuring that he was always prominent “at the Red table” in the studios’ cafeteria.
This of course sealed his professional doom in the “good old USA”. So Cy, whether a party member or not, was red enough to be driven from his country and astute enough to get out before the forces of reaction could jail him.
No doubt working well below scale, Enfield delivers a taut, tense and engrossing script. Incidentally he went on to great personal success, including the 1960s box office smash Zulu.
Night of the Demon, known in the US as Curse of the Demon, is a gripping little horror film that does so well what so few grossly over-budget films to today. It entertains, frightens and for the film’s duration almost convinces you that there really are ghosts and goblins and things that go bump in the night.
This enthralling little book is available online: www.tomahawkmedia.co.uk
RRP £13.50.
by Paul Barrett
Night of the Demon – a classic film you may have missed.
IN 1911 M R James wrote a disturbing short story called The Casting of the Runes. In it the supernatural terrors that lurked on the periphery of the story’s events were never confirmed.
Yet in the 1957 horror film Night of the Demon, based on this story, there is no doubt that the horror is real. This little B film is one of the few of its kind that deserves to be remembered long after its first release, and remembered, respected and in many cases it is still loved.
And now the entire story of the film and those who made it is available in a book by Tony Earnshaw – Beating the Devil – printed by Tomahawk Press.
It is a fascinating insight into the story of the film, the cast and crew and is a highly informative easy read. It revealed that a Charles Bennett, who collaborated with Alfred Hitchcock on such films as Sabotage and The Man who Knew Too Much, wrote a highly literate script of the story under the working title of The Bewitched.
He was advised that any film version had no chance of the sought-after A certificate, with the censors likely to grant an X, even after swingeing cuts to the script and story. Then a chance meeting between Bennett and Hal C Chester, a small scale Hollywood producer and major hustler, resulted in a deal with Columbia Pictures to produce the film, with Chester’s name very prominent in the credits, while Bennett’s was not used.
Living in England at the time was black-listed writer/director Cy Enfield, who had been targeted by the fascist House of Un-American Activities Committee and had been considered a top Hollywood talent – though his inclination was to associate with the “brightest writers and directors”, ensuring that he was always prominent “at the Red table” in the studios’ cafeteria.
This of course sealed his professional doom in the “good old USA”. So Cy, whether a party member or not, was red enough to be driven from his country and astute enough to get out before the forces of reaction could jail him.
No doubt working well below scale, Enfield delivers a taut, tense and engrossing script. Incidentally he went on to great personal success, including the 1960s box office smash Zulu.
Night of the Demon, known in the US as Curse of the Demon, is a gripping little horror film that does so well what so few grossly over-budget films to today. It entertains, frightens and for the film’s duration almost convinces you that there really are ghosts and goblins and things that go bump in the night.
This enthralling little book is available online: www.tomahawkmedia.co.uk
RRP £13.50.
London flood risk ignored
THE LONDON Assembly last week issued a report warning that the risk of major flooding in London is not being taken seriously enough – especially in the East London Thames Gateway flood plain.
This area is downstream of the Thames flood barrier and is the scene of a massive increase in building and development. New estates of lucrative luxury flats are springing up all along the river banks.
There is confusion over who should maintain flood defences in the Thames Estuary, which is home to 1.25 million people. Around half a million homes are prone to flooding and the threat is growing.
Green Party leader Darren Johnson, who chairs the report committee said: “In New Orleans the world has had a tragic reminder of the threat from natural disaster and the impact that flooding can have.
“It is therefore vital that lessons are learned and action taken immediately to streamline responsibilities for flood defences and planning control in the Thames Gateway.
“Much of the development area is on the flood plain, which will put London at greater risk.”
The committee reckons that five per cent of east London’s defences are in a poor condition and the situation could be worse further down river towards the coast.
The report says that private landowners are responsible for maintaining many of the capital’s 2,400 defence structures but in many cases it is impossible to identify who owns the land.
This area is downstream of the Thames flood barrier and is the scene of a massive increase in building and development. New estates of lucrative luxury flats are springing up all along the river banks.
There is confusion over who should maintain flood defences in the Thames Estuary, which is home to 1.25 million people. Around half a million homes are prone to flooding and the threat is growing.
Green Party leader Darren Johnson, who chairs the report committee said: “In New Orleans the world has had a tragic reminder of the threat from natural disaster and the impact that flooding can have.
“It is therefore vital that lessons are learned and action taken immediately to streamline responsibilities for flood defences and planning control in the Thames Gateway.
“Much of the development area is on the flood plain, which will put London at greater risk.”
The committee reckons that five per cent of east London’s defences are in a poor condition and the situation could be worse further down river towards the coast.
The report says that private landowners are responsible for maintaining many of the capital’s 2,400 defence structures but in many cases it is impossible to identify who owns the land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)