ORGANIZED RAGE

The Chilcot Enquiry's aim is not an attempt to place public accountability for the Iraq fiasco, but to deny it entirely.

2009-11-25T13:15:00.001Z

In the cartoon below 'Adams' points out the 'Chilcot Enquiry' into the Iraq war is one of many attempts by both the Labour government and Conservative opposition to pass the buck; and cover up and whitewash clean those government ministers and parliamentarian's who took Britain to war against Iraq on a criminal lie. Whilst the overwhelming majority of the British people understand where responsibility for this criminal endeavor lays, by setting up the third public enquiry into the Iraq war in as many years, is not an attempt by the British government and parliamentarians to place public accountability where it belongs, but yet another silly attempt to substitute it entirely.

Incidentally, this refusal to place the blame for the Iraq war on those responsible for it, is the core reason why the electorate has lost all confidence in the UK's political elite and have come to regard them as a shower of shifty inadequates on the make. The MP's expenses scandal was merely the tipping point.

As Simon Jenkins writes in today’s Guardian

“ What else is Chilcot about? We know the truth. The report can be written in a sentence. Tony Blair went to war in Iraq because he lacked the guts to stand up to George Bush, say the invasion was not justified by facts or law, and refuse to join him in Baghdad. Despite being told to his face by Hans Blix that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he deceived the cabinet and parliament and took his nation to war.”

“ We know this from a dozen books and papers, from leaks and reports, from freedom of information requests and memoirs. Chilcot might dot an i and cross a t. He might reveal a memo or confirm a date. But to what end? We have been told how Blair took the decision by sofa government, twisting, dodging and distorting the constitution to get it through. We know how Downing Street crafted documents to scare the public into believing that the nation's security was under threat. We know that the army was left without equipment or planning. All this we know.”

What we also know is that in 2003 the UK parliament voted for the Iraq war by 412 votes to 149. Both government Ministers and MP’s, and the Tory opposition voted almost en masse for the use of military force in Iraq. Despite all the evidence pointing to there being a viable alternative; and our EU partners refusal to support the US President’s mad and criminal rush to war.

It is hardly surprising the British electorate have lost all confidence in its mainstream politicians, for when voting in support of the Blue Labour and Tory leaderships decisions to go to war, the overwhelming majority of MP’s were placing their own careers above the good of the country and the lives of the young men and women they were sending to war.

Jenkins continues,

“The war may have been peculiarly Blair's in that he personally oversaw the preamble to it and took upon himself the burden of selling it to the electorate. But parliament and the wider political community cannot be detached from blame and thus exonerated.

With the exception of the then foreign secretary,Robin Cook, and the development secretary Clare Short, every member of the cabinet signed up to the war and most MPs voted for it. They did so in defiance of what Cook, who knew the state of the intelligence, told them. They did so knowing that the attorney general's advice had smudges all over it and knowing that the weapons of mass destruction dossiers were "dodgy". Blair was no fool. He made sure that the House of Commons debated and voted for Iraq, and it did.”

He goes on.

“Parliament approved the war and its various select committees never once voiced dissent. It did so because Labour MPs were frightened for their jobs and wished to keep in with Blair, and because Tory MPs never oppose wars. Most of the media agreed with them, even after 2 million Britons marched through London opposing the invasion. The political community ultimately bought into Blair's war.”

Voting to take the country to war, or not, is the most important decision any parliamentarian can make. If that decision then goes pear shaped, a democratic assembly worthy of the name must account for its members behavior. The total refusal of the Westminster Parliament to explain why in March 2003 a majority of its members voted for war on Iraq, despite all the evidence available at the time highlighting there were alternative options available.

Jenkins concludes.

“If they (Westminster MP’s)now consider themselves mistaken, even if they were misled, MPs cannot push responsibility on to a stage army of judges, civil servants and historians. They must debate the matter and reach the appropriate conclusion. If parliament decides that the cabinet collectively was to blame – as surely it must – then it should demand resignations. If it finds itself to blame, it should dissolve and submit itself to the judgment of the electorate, rather than outrageously telling Chilcot not to report until after next year's election.”

Cartoons: The Chilcot Enquiry.

2009-11-25T10:21:00.001Z

The example of the PIRA's 'long war' model, bodes ill for NATO's war in Afghanistan.

2009-11-23T01:20:00.002Z

'Long war' model bodes ill for West.

Gordon Brown and the opposition leader David Cameron have conceded that the British army in Afghanistan needs additional helicopters to ferry the front-line troops around due to the heightened danger of roadside improvised explosive devices.

In doing so, they have inadvertently admitted that the war against the Taliban cannot be won.

Once an occupying army loses control of the highways and roads it has no hope of controlling, let alone permanently occupying, the surrounding countryside.

Nowhere was this better demonstrated than in south Armagh during the British army's long war against the Provisional IRA.

After a long and bloody war of attrition, the British military was eventually able to gain the upper hand in the major cities and towns of the north of Ireland.

Yet the British army was never able to take control of the roads and lanes away from the South Armagh Brigade of the Provisional IRA, nor the surrounding countryside.

When the roads became too dangerous, the British army was forced to retreat to fortified bases and watchtowers.

Whenever a British army foot patrol ventured out the South Armagh Brigade, on its own terms and home ground, was able to continuously harass the "occupying power."

Out of sight of the army, it went on to plan and implement successful "spectaculars" in the very heart of London.

Eventually the British military and politicians recognised this weakness and agreed terms acceptable to both sides.

Must we wait 30 years before the US government reaches similar terms with the Taliban?

If so, better to bring British troops home now and avoid countless more young people killed or maimed in a lost cause

Mick Hall

First published here.

'No2EU, Yes to Democracy' candidate in the 2009 MEP election challenges Organized Rage's assessment of the electoral alliance

2009-11-20T14:14:00.005Z

Below is an article by Pete McLaren, who stood as a 'No2EU, Yes to Democracy' candidate in the 2009 MEP election. Pete takes issue with the article I posted yesterday and raises some interesting points and castigates me for failing to mention them in my piece.

----------------------------------

I am really surprised by your article. (http://www.organizedrage.com/2009/11/with-its-anti-eu-stance-no2eu-allowed.html) I usually agree with much of what you write because it is well researched and therefore a good read. However, suggesting the Euro election Campaign of No2U-YestoDemocracy was ‘reactionary’ and close to Cameron is absurd and quite insulting.

No2U-YestoDemocracy was historic – the first ever trade union based challenge to New Labour, well overdue. It also contained a coalition of left organizations not seen since the heyday of the Socialist Alliance. Do you really think that Dave Nellist (SP), Mike Davies (AGS) or myself (SA) would have stood on a reactionary, nationalist programme?

You failed to specify that the full title of the Coalition was ‘No2U-YestoDemocracy’ – a significant error. No2U-YestoDemocracy NEVER called for withdrawal from the EU. It, quite rightly, opposed the EU as presently constituted, including the undemocratic nature of the EU with its unelected Council of Ministers having more power than elected representatives. It opposed the imposition of EU ‘laws’ which had never been democratically agreed, like the Lisbon treaty. But it was not anti EU. It opposed the Posted Workers Directive, whereby employers can use EU dictates to move workers around the EU to undermine negotiated trade union pay rates and conditions, enabling companies to sack ‘more expensive’ employed workers and replace them by low paid agency staff from poorer counties who are prepared to work for lower rates because that is more than they would get paid at home. That puts worker against worker, and undermines collective bargaining. Surely, all workers should get paid the negotiated rate for the job and work under the negotiated conditions?

Yes, there were some overtly nationalistic aspects to the campaign at the very start, before most of the left got on board, and unfortunately put on a web site that was subsequently not amended when it should have been. Such sentiments came from the CPB. I made it clear at the time that the awful phrase “social dumping”, for example, was dropped very early on – in my region (West Midlands) the decision was unanimous, including the CPB. The Coalition adopted the slogan ‘No to racism and fascism, Yes to international solidarity of working people’ as one of its ten key demands, used on leaflets and put on the web site. Hardly nationalism. In any case, although many aspects of nationalism could be bordering on reactionary politics (such as British jobs for British workers), what about Irish nationalism? Does Scottish nationalism not somehow fit with Scottish socialism? Nationalism is not always to be opposed, even by internationalists like myself.

In addition, the Coalition clearly and openly opposed racism and the BNP – indeed it was the only ‘party’ to devote much of its national TV broadcast to explain why the BNP needed to be opposed.

The Lyndsay dispute earlier this year sums it all up for me. To begin with, sections of the left were taken in by the ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ slogans that appeared in the right wing press for the first couple of days of the dispute. It was never about that, as soon became apparent. It was about the same pay and conditions for all workers, not sacking the more expensive ones to replace them with cheap labour. The Portuguese and Italian workers brought over to Lyndsay were housed in compounds or barges, kept away from other Lyndsay workers, and paid a lower rate. The strike victory has meant that all workers – agency and permanent employees, now have the same pay and conditions – and, what is more, all can (and have) join the trade union.

The point I am making is that just because there were some dodgy slogans around at the start of the dispute, does not make the dispute reactionary as some on the left claimed. Most now agree it was a dispute to support. In the same way, No2U-YestoDemocracy may have had the odd dodgy slogan to begin with. But in the end, it was a left/TU challenge to the capitalist parties which, worts and all, certainly does not deserve to be put in the same bed as Cameron or worse. It is worth remembering that the official policies of No2U-YestoDemocracy included defending Public services and that they should be democratically controlled; renationalizing the railways, developing sustainable industries; standing up for workers rights.

In the general election, the EU will hardly be an issue. The Coalition for the General election, which has now been launched largely out of No2U-YestoDemocracy, will hopefully have a raft of socialist and green socialist. It will almost certainly not be perfect. But it will not be reactionary or right wing, any more than the actual policies of No2U-YestoDemocracy were. Indeed. local publicity in June went a lot further – in the West midlands we called for a socialist federation of Europe, for example, under the slogan ‘No to a bosses Europe’. Now, that would have been a better, more class based title to stand under. But we can not have everything, especially as we build in the short term. W e must judge the developing GE Coalition in the same light

With its anti EU stance, No2EU allowed itself to become the willing tools of some of the most reactionary political forces in the UK.

2009-11-19T12:04:00.001Z

When Pierre Lellouche, the Minister for Europe in the French government, recently said the position of the Tory Party led by David Cameron on the European Union is pathetic and displays a bizarre form of Autism. My first thought was he could be describing much of the UK left, which has a programe on Europe which is straight out of the 1970s and which takes no account of the massive economic and societal changes which have occurred since that fateful decade.

Indeed when a section of the left formed an electoral alliance to fight this years elections to the EU parliament they called it No2EU, which placed them alongside some of the most reactionary individuals and political party’s in the UK, including a large wedge of Tory MP’s and local councillors, the BNP and UKIP. *

If this section of the left does not quickly update it platform on the EU, come next years general election, on the EU, they will be placing themselves in the same camp as David Cameron's Tories, who are incidentally a far more serious threat to working class living standards that the BNP.

Cameron has made clear, if elected he will do all in his power to withdraw the UK from the EU’s working time directive and oppose the social chapter which has been at the heart of progressive Europe. If the Left does not wake up to the dangers which could flow if it continues with its simplistic sloganeering on the EU, it will be used as putty by some of the most reactionary political forces in the UK to bring about Britain’s exit from the European Union.

Saying No2EU may have been a sensible strategy in the 1970s; when there was a solid bank of left wing Labour MPs and the trade unions had over eleven million members, thus giving the Labour Movement real political power. But not today, when trade union membership is down to less than half that number, and the Labour parliamentary left is hanging on by its finger tips, and a sizable section of the working class have been atomized into millions of often politically demoralized and confused individuals.

Thus the left cannot afford, on a nationalist whim, to be party to removing from the statue book legislation that protects the rights of millions of people throughout the UK and the wider European Union. For were the UK to withdraw from the EU, this is what the impact would be. British workers would be further individualised, and in all probability thrown at the mercy of a vindictive class prejudiced Tory government led by old Etonian David Cameron.

Make no mistake Blue Labour would soon follow Cameron's lead over Europe and in the process move ever more into the US camp, resulting in those workers who exist outside of the trade unions having absolutely no one to fight their corner when unbridled capitalism came calling for their pound of flesh.

What the left must do is draw up a pro EU platform that defends the societal gains I have mentioned above and demands the EU implements policies that build on the social chapter and ceases pandering to the multi nationals by supporting Neo-liberal economics. We should also be at the forefront of the campaign to democratize the EU so that the current democratic deficit that lies at the heart of the EU becomes a thing of the past.

* No2EU was an electoral alliance made up of the Socialist Party, members of Respect, Socialist Alliance, Communist Party of Britain, Bob Crowe and other leaders of the RMT trade union and various other leftists and trade unionists.

SACP general secretary and ANC government minister Blade Nzimande gets a new car.

2009-11-18T01:38:00.001Z

There was uproar over SACP general secretary and government minister Blade Nzimande's 1.2 million rand luxury BMW. Cartoon by Zapiro. For more Zapiro cartoons, please visit http://www.zapiro.com.

The Chilcot Inquiry will whitewash all guilt from those who were responsible for the Iraq fiasco.

2009-11-17T01:25:00.002Z

With the ‘Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war about to begin, it looks very much like after months of taking evidence from government mandarins, senior officers and government ministers, John Chilcot, will end up next year, issuing a report which make’s piffling recommendations for greater scrutiny, more accountability, fact-checking and new planning mechanisms. Whilst whitewashing all guilt from those responsible for this criminal endeavor; Tony Blair, the members of his cabinet, Chief of staff of the UK military, heads of the security services and David Cameron and the Tory opposition will all walk away without a stain on their characters.

As has always been the way with UK public enquires, the main purpose is not to pinpoint those who are guilty of colluding in criminality, but to spread the guilt around so thin, there is no alternative but a total acquittal and to find the bureaucratic language to justify this lie. In Chilcot the State has found the right man, his suitability for the task was best demonstrated in the lead in to the invasion of Iraq, when he compared George W Bush, and Tony Blair to Roosevelt and Churchill during WW2.

Carne Ross, the former diplomat and the UK's Iraq "expert" on the UN Security Council between 1998-2002, recently wrote a powerful article it which he mapped out the devious purpose of those who appointed Chilcot and the direction he will take when directing the inquiry. First he sets out Mr Chilcot’s unsuitability to chair a public inquiry into the Iraq war and occupation.

“ That Sir John Chilcot served on the Butler inquiry is like trying the same crime twice with the same judge and jury – not a credible standard for truth-seeking. Nor would a truth-seeker allow the inquiry's staff to be headed by the civil servant who was in a senior position in the foreign and defence policy secretariat of the Cabinet Office during Britain's military occupation of Iraq

Meanwhile, many of those giving evidence will have a deep interest in confirming the government's narrative, for they are deeply implicated in having implemented it. One little-discussed disgrace of prewar policy-making is that there was never a proper review of the available options. Witnesses will no doubt claim to Chilcot that there were none and that sanctions "were not working". This is not true: the government's internal assessments up to 2002 confirmed that sanctions had prevented Iraq from rearming with any significant stocks of conventional weapons or WMD.”

Ross goes on to say that few in government truly understand places like Iraq and government Ministers can not hope to understand accurately the intricacy of the country. Let alone the complex UN Security Council resolutions that framed the weapons inspections and sanctions regime. Although he cryptically writes one man did, David Kelly and laments the fact that Kelly will not be available to give evidence to the Chilcot enquiry.

“ Other questions require a profound knowledge of the complex UN Security Council resolutions that framed the weapons inspections and sanctions regime, almost all of which were originally drafted by British officials. One resolution in particular established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), the weapons inspection body, in 1999. During those negotiations, the UK and US insisted that UNMOVIC required at least six months of inspections before it could reach a view on the degree of Iraqi disarmament and report to the UN Security Council. If this was the allied view in 1999, why did that change in 2003, when inspectors were given just weeks to visit hundreds of sites across a large country, sift thousands of documents and then deliver their judgments? Will the inquiry have the resources or inclination to address these issues? They are central to understanding the policy issues that led to war.

The inquiry will probably focus on the senior officials. But much of the policy-making detail is known best by more junior officials who were immersed in Iraq day in, day out. Will the inquiry have the time to interview these officials thoroughly? Will these officials, many of whom are still in government, be guaranteed protection if they reveal accounts at odds with the official version?

Few are the officials genuinely knowledgeable about the twists, turns and options of long-term Iraq policy. At the MoD, there was one so authoritative on the complex questions of weapons inspections and WMD programmes that at the UK mission in New York we insisted on his presence in our briefings of UN Security Council diplomats. He is sadly no longer around to offer the inquiry his testimony. His name was David Kelly.”

Carne ends by displaying his contempt for the behaviour of David Cameron and the Tory opposition,

“ The opposition's motives are less clear, but still discernible. They, too, supported the war, supposedly because they believed the government's claims about WMD. But they failed to question the government in detail before the invasion and only began to do so when it became clear how disastrously the invasion and occupation had been planned. What the opposition parties want from the inquiry is evidence that they were misled, thus absolving them of blame. What they do not want is confirmation of what clearly was the case: that they – and by implication Parliament – were incapable of scrutinising government and holding officials to account in the gravest of circumstances.”

The full article by Carne Ross can be found here.

TV and Radio have been given a green light to insult and disparage working class people.

2009-11-16T12:09:00.000Z

Once again we are living though a period when it is perfectly acceptable for the mass media to insult working class people, often for no better reason than ‘some’ of them live on Council Estates. Indeed LBC, one of London’s most popular ‘talk radio’ stations does this daily. Tune into this station and throughout the day ordinary working class people will be lumped together and described as lardies or scrubbers who live on council estates, benefit scroungers, hefty hideaway girls and thoughtless automaton's who strike’s when ever a trade union leader demands it. These are just some of the less insulting terms of abuse and class prejudice this station’s broadcasters spit out daily. That those who work at LBC front of mic are almost exclusively middle class people tells me how deep such class prejudices have become amongst a large sections of that class.

One LBC broadcaster was lamenting the deaths of British solders in Afghanistan and demanding the government spend more on up to date weaponry and give extra support to there families. As is the way today, he then quickly flipped subjects and poured out a torrent of hate, calling a minor celebrity one Sheryl Cole, "a working class scrubber who should get back to her council estate in the North East where she and here family belong." He seemed totally oblivious to the fact that a majority of the young squadies he speaks so highly of; and are killed and maimed with sickening regularity in Afghanistan; along with their families in all probability come from a ‘council estate not dissimilar to those he was so willingly disparaging.

If it were just a case of one local radio station churning out such poison I could possibly live with it, but it is not. Such class hatred is endemic throughout the main stream media. For example, recently in an episode of Coronation Street, the UKs most popular soap, one of its main characters, Sally Webster, shouted at John Snape, recently released from prison and the new husband of her neighbor Fizz, “He should clear off and live on a grotty council estate.”

East Enders is the same, if not worse, the programe is set in East London, an area which has tens of thousands of decent law abiding council and housing association tenants, yet not a single character portrayed in the show lives in a council or housing association property, they all either own their own home or rent from the private sector. (What worker could afford to buy a home in east London today?)

This lack of reality is not a mere oversight, there has been a sea change in the BBC’s portrayal of working class people since East Enders first appeared on our screens, and today the show undoubtedly reflects this.

When East Enders first hit the TV screens, out went the mockney middle class actors who portrayed working class people as stereotypes and spoke like Dick Van Dyke in the movie Mary Poppin’s. The producers of East Enders searched out actors who came from a working class background. Not anymore, if you look at any of the characters who have come into the programe in recent years they are almost exclusively played by middle class actors, this is especially true of the children. Market trader and fly by the seat of his pants businessman, Ian Beal’s, has kids who all speak as if they went to an English public school or County grammar, despite in the programe supposedly attending the local comp. The same is true of the Asian family in the programe, even the villains are now played by middle class actors.

These days, the only time council tenants are portrayed on TV is as victims or villians, living on sink estates, surrounded by joy riders, lumpen drug dealers, violent hoodies, benefit fraudsters, and various other forms of supposed low life. Never mind such people exist within all sections of society, and live on a host of differing housing estates. When was the last time a TV journalist reported that a convicted criminal or victim of crime lived on a Bovis Homes estate, or one owned by the Duchy of Cornwall? Never. Yet today these lazy hacks feel it is imperative for them to tell their viewers/listeners if someone lived on a ‘council estate,’ as by saying these two words they believe there is no need for any further explanation.

Not only are they wrong and incompetent bigots, they are stereotyping and devaluing all those who do live on a council estate and in the process make a dam fine pair of shoes of a life lived in often difficult economic circumstances. When I see a young working class single mother, I do not see a scrubber but a hero who daily creates a tiny miracle despite the obstacles society throws up at her; for she provides love, substance and shelter for the next generation and in return; far to often, from the aforementioned media types she has excrement thrown in her face.

Shame on them for doing it, shame on us for allowing it to happen.

Of course if this upsurge of anti working class propaganda was only about more working class journalists and actors working and appearing on TV we could leave the matter to their trade unions the NUJ and Equity, but it is not. The real purpose is to demoralize and further atomize working class people.

At a time when our living standards and quality of life are under attack, it is imperative workers come together collectively to resist all attempts by the State to drive down their quality of life. If class solidarity is depicted in the media as a 20th Century fiction, and working class people are portrayed daily as living on squalid estates and fighting amongst each other like cats in a sack, it makes it all the harder for the class to pull together.

That a ‘tiny’ minority of working class people have, at the ballot Box given their support to the BNP, has given the media a field day to portray us in a bad light; and goes some way to explain why the BBC were so ready to give a platform to Nick Griffin, for if it is to their advantage the ruling class never pass up an opportunity to use the Fascists.

In case anyone feels I am over egging the pudding, I suggest they google ‘council estate’ as I did when looking for a photo to accompany this piece, I found page after page of tower blocks and flats and not one of the many well kept council estates which exist throughout the UK. I rest my case.

Hundreds of benefit claimants unjustly imprisoned.

2009-11-13T01:44:00.004Z

Hundreds of claimants unjustly imprisoned

Many hundreds of claimants are unjustly imprisoned every year because overpayment amounts are being ‘wildly exaggerated’ by the DWP, welfare benefits expert witness Neil Bateman has told MPs . In one case he assisted with, a woman prosecuted for a £47,000 overpayment had in reality under-claimed benefits.

The shocking revelations were made in written evidence to a House of Commons committee currently examining the standard of DWP decision making.

According to Bateman, criminal judges and defending solicitors do not understand benefits law and it is very rare for a welfare rights specialist to be involved in defending claimants. As a result, the DWP get away with massively inflating the amount of benefit a claimant has been overpaid. Where this is more than £20,000 a prison sentence is the likely outcome, with the DWP getting positive press coverage for exposing the criminal.

At the time of writing Bateman had been asked for assistance by criminal defence solicitors in 66 cases in the last two years. In no fewer than 59 of these he proved that the DWP had overstated the overpayment by up to twenty times the true figure. The DWP almost always accept Bateman’s findings without argument and only two claimants had been imprisoned where Bateman was involved.

Most overpayment cases that Bateman assist with arise not from someone deliberately plotting to defraud the system, but from foolishly failing to declare a change of circumstances.

For example, a single parent starts seeing a man who gradually moves in with her. But she still isn’t certain that the relationship is secure and does not want to become financially dependent upon him, so she decides to wait a while before declaring his presence. Weeks turn into months and sometimes even years.

Or a claimant has a serious health condition and gets DLA as a result. Their condition very slowly and gradually improves and they realise that it’s probably time they told the DWP. But they feel sure that no-one will employ them with their health history and they are certain they can’t manage on basic benefits. So they put it off and put it off.

Or a claimant with huge debts finds work, but it’s insecure and low paid. So they decide not to declare it until they’re sure it’s going to last and they’ve paid off some of their bills.

Whilst all these are criminal offences, the claimants still have a right to be treated lawfully and to have the amount they have stolen from the public purse correctly calculated both for sentencing purposes (where notional tax credits may be relevant) and for the actual overpayment itself.

For example, in one case at which Neil Bateman assisted, the claimant had failed to declare that she had started living with a man who was in work. As a result she was prosecuted for dishonestly claiming over £47,000 in benefits and looked certain to receive a substantial prison sentence.

Bateman was commissioned by her solicitor to check the figures.

He first examined the alleged £19,000 housing benefit overpayment.
He discovered that the claimant’s household income was so low that if she had declared that her partner was living with her she would still have been entitled to all but £700 of the housing benefit she received. This was a basic ‘error’ on the DWP’s part that any advice volunteer would have spotted in an instant.

Bateman then looked at the alleged income support overpayment of over £28,000.
He discovered that the DWP had failed to take into account other benefits and tax credits that the claimant would have been entitled to, had she declared her real circumstances. The result was that, far from having been overpaid, the claimant had actually lost out by her dishonesty. She would actually have been paid more than £47,000 in benefits and tax credits if she had told the DWP she was living with her partner.

The Crown Court judge found the claimant guilty but, instead of a lengthy prison sentence, she was given a conditional discharge. The DWP were refused most of their costs because the judge considered they had not “done their job properly”.

Sadly few defence solicitors ever trouble to engage a welfare rights specialist in cases like these, so DWP exaggerations go undetected.

The situation is made worse by the fact that most social security tribunal judges cravenly refuse to hear an overpayment case if the claimant is also facing criminal prosecution for fraud. This is in spite of the fact that the tribunal judge has a much better understanding of benefits law and, in two thirds of cases where the claimant is represented, will find that there has been no overpayment at all.

The result of this combination of exaggeration and judicial negligence is that, in the 12 months to March 2009, a total of 8,701 claimants were tried for overpayment of benefits by judges who don’t even remotely understand benefits law . Four hundred and sixty three people were put in prison as a consequence.

If Neil Bateman’s experience is any guide, most of them should still be free.

This article first appeared here,

You can read Neil Bateman’s full, shocking submission to the Work and Pensions Select Committee.

You can visit Neil Bateman’s website

It is time to get the illicit drugs debate rolling.

2009-11-12T12:26:00.001Z

As regular readers of this blog will know, I am in favour of decriminalising almost all of what we regard today as illicit drugs. I understand this would be a complex thing to put into practice, nevertheless I believe if we were to take this bold step the pluses would far out weigh the disadvantages. Having said this I doubt a government would ever exist, whatever its political complexion, which would legalise the majority of illicit drugs in a single step.

This is why many of those who favour decriminalisation welcomed the Blue Labour governments decision in 2004 to downgrade cannabis from class B to C. We hoped given time statistics would emerge which proved harsh penalties for possession of this drug play little if any role in persuading people not to use illicit drugs. Indeed this was beginning to happen as during the short period cannabis was classified as class C, its use fell, especially amongst the under twenty-five age group. Which convinced some that the very illegality of illicit drugs attracted some youngster to experiment with them

Sadly this experiment was brought to an end when Gordon Brown bowed to pressures brought by the media and the powerful prohibition lobby and reclassified cannabis back to class B. That the campaign to bring this about was built on sand without a shred of societal or scientific evidence seems to have been totally ignored by Brown. Who at the time was sucking up to the reactionary Rupert Murdoch whose media outlets were at the forefront of the campaign.

That Blue Labour's fawning before Murdoch was to end in failure when the Sun announced it would be supporting the Tories at the next UK general election may be seen by some as poetic justice, but it will not help those who find themselves in jail for possessing a comparatively harmless substance, whilst individuals like Rupert Murdoch continue to enrich themselves by selling advertising space to purveyors of alcohol and tobacco, which between them kills tens of thousand of British people a year.

Below is an article which was first published here; in it Liz Davies writes"it is time to get the drug debate rolling" and Hallelujah to that!

MH
________________________________________________________
Get the drugs debate rolling.
By Liz Davies.

If there's one thing that most politicians can be relied to do, it's to come over all authoritarian as soon as the word "drugs" is mentioned.

Professor David Nutt found that out to his cost when he published the text of a lecture, given by him in July to an audience that included Home Office representatives, concluding that cannabis is mildly harmful but not nearly as harmful as alcohol or tobacco.

Nutt's evidence is clearly set out in his paper and, frankly, his conclusion is unsurprising.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson, on the other hand, didn't rely on any evidence. He just sacked Professor Nutt from his position as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs having "lost confidence" in him.

When Johnson argues: "There are not many kids in my constituency in danger of falling off a horse - there are thousands at risk of being sucked into a world of hopeless despair through drug addiction," he engages in classic politicians' scare-mongering.

The phrase "hopeless despair through drug addiction" is worth analysing. It's unfortunate that Nutt chose horse-riding for his comparator with ectasy, as it permits Johnson to portray Nutt as out of touch with most people.

But Nutt's overall point is entirely sensible. There are some legal activities which society acknowledges there is a risk of injury to the user and to others but prefers to take the risk after having decreased it by regulation and supervision - not only horse-riding but cycling, driving or travelling in a car, eating certain foods, sports and all sorts of other everyday activities come to mind.

If legal activities are, in fact, more risky than the risks associated with some illegal drugs - cannabis and ectasy - why do we ban those drugs?

It's the fact that cannabis and ectasy are illegal that allows Johnson his sleight of hand.

Johnson implies that once a young person has succumbed to a joint, addiction to smack and crack cocaine will inevitably follow.

That's nonsense, of course. What cannabis, ecstasy, heroin and crack cocaine have in common is that they are illegal, not that they all have the same level of risk of harm.

But unlike Johnson, Nutt has examined the evidence. He says that cannabis can be harmful to some people - there is a probable but weak causal link between psychotic illness and cannabis use, meaning some people are at a greater risk of having psychotic experiences if they indulge in cannabis.

His research does not show a link between cannabis and schizophrenia despite popular belief that there is that link.

Cannabis doesn't kill people, but alcohol does, as it fuels propensities for violence. Tobacco kills both smokers and non-smokers.

It is perfectly rational and in accordance with the evidence to recognise that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. And it leads to the absurd situation that high-risk and low-risk drugs - heroin and crack cocaine, and cannabis and ecstasy - are banned, while medium-risk drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are not.

So what's the most sensible way forward?

Nutt recommends returning cannabis to class C from the present class B classification. The problem with this approach is that cannabis remains illegal but the police are less likely to prosecute someone for possession. However, the police retain the discretion to prosecute and this means that they can use that discretion to harass certain groups such as black people and young people.

My view is that government policy on drugs should go much further than Nutt recommends.

It seems to me obvious that all drugs, from the less risky to the most dangerous, should be decriminalised. Not because I don't think that heroin and crack cocaine are dangerous - as they obviously are - but because I don't see how criminalising an addiction can help.

The principal argument against the decriminalisation of all drugs is that keeping class A drugs unlawful deters and prevents people from using them. That seems to ignore reality. Anyone who wants to find heroin or crack cocaine can, with a certain amount of effort.

So what about the other arguments for illegality? Johnson's "risk of being sucked into a world of hopeless despair" is principally because drugs are illegal.

Once illegality is out of the picture, the suggestion that cannabis use might lead to heroin addiction is no more valid than suggesting a drinker of camomile tea will get sucked into a heavy coffee addiction.

Decriminalisation would end the huge discretion currently enjoyed by the police to harass and criminalise someone who might have a joint or pill in his or her pocket. It would allow addicts who want help and treatment to seek that help openly without any fear that they will be treated as criminals.

The legal supply of drugs would, quite simply, break the link with organised crime. And it would probably keep prices down so that addicts felt less compulsion to commit crimes to pay for their habits. Indeed, open legal suppliers would be businesses paying taxes, responsible for paying and treating their employees properly and resolving differences through the courts like everyone else.

Legalising the supply of drugs allows for regulation. There can be restrictions on where drugs can be sold, to whom, in what form and quantity, and plenty of advice available about the risks involved. Society would accept that the consumption of harmful drugs is risky but would prefer that risk to be out in the open rather than part of a criminal underworld.

The 19th century temperance movement was absolutely convinced that because alcohol is dangerous for drinkers and harms others it should be prohibited.

Between 1920 and 1933 during the prohibition-era in the United States gangsters flourished and alcohol consumption first decreased but then rose over the period.

The risks associated with drinking alcohol increased because its illegality prevented regulation and it was often diluted with even more dangerous substances. Public resources were spent on closing down speakeasies rather than treating alcoholics.

Nowadays we know far more about the risks of alcohol. But we prefer to publicise those risks and treat the consequences, rather than drive alcohol underground again. Shouldn't we start to take the same approach to other drugs?

Liz Davies is a political activist, barrister and chairwoman of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers (www.haldane.org). This column is written in a personal capacity.

David Cameron announces how he will end poverty.

2009-11-11T13:37:00.000Z

First published here.

INLA renounce armed struggle and encourage its members to engage in politics alone..

2009-11-11T11:13:00.000Z

Below is an article by Gerry Ruddy, a leading member of the Irish Republican Socialist Party, which sets out the reasoning behind the decision by the leadership of the INLA to stand their volunteers down. By publishing this I am not expressing support for the IRSP, although I welcome the INLA decision to stand down. Given the nature of this organisations history and the disillusionment many Left Republicans feel with the progress made since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, I feel it is an extremely brave decision and wish the members of the IRSP well.

MH

-------------------------------------------------
The Political Road by Gerry Ruddy.

The recent decision by the INLA to renounce armed struggle and encourage all its members and supporters to engage in politics is welcome. It is an historic decision and all those involved in reaching that decision deserve the thanks and gratitude of all who are serious about challenging capitalism. It is the end of one chapter in the history of republican socialism. But it should not be the end of republican socialism.
Almost from the introduction of republicanism into Irish political life 220 years ago there has always been a leftist element within republicanism that saw the centrality of the working class or the “men of no property” as the critical factor for the success of republicanism. That leftist trend was woven from Jamie Hope through the Fenians, encompassing James Connolly, Liam Mellows, the Republican Congress of the 1930’s, the left turn of the Republican movement in the 1960’s the emergence of the IRSP in the seventies and the emergence of differing republican groupings all claiming in some way to be republican socialists. Even Adams leader of Provisional Sinn Fein tried to claim he and his organisation were republican socialists in the tradition of Seamus Costello!

On a more serious level there has been the emergence of Eirigi, and the attempt by Eoin O’Broin to give a leftist ideological depth to debates within Provisional Sinn Fein in his book,
“Sinn Fein and the Politics of Left Republicanism”
and encourage its move towards a form of democratic socialism based on European social democracy.
Furthermore the recent publication of the history of the Workers party/Official IRA in the “Lost Revolution” adds an important addition to our understanding of the evolution of republican socialism and warns of the dangers that can occur when Republicans lose sight of the original reasons why they became republicans in the first place. The book should be compulsory reading for any serious republican.

For far too long many simply used the term “sticky” as a form of abuse rather than seriously try to deal with the intellectual arguments and positions that organisation put forward in its evolution into a sect that ended up as cheer leaders for British policy in Ireland.

Indeed abuse has been the stable form of political analysis for some republicans. “Sell out” “traitors” and other forms of abuse have routinely been applied to any republicans that sought to develop their republicanism from the simple slogans of “Brits Out” or the “armed struggle”.
Indeed there was along period during the seventies and eighties when it was almost considered profane to question the tactic of armed struggle. References to 1916 heroism and the brave guerrilla fighters were enough to end debate.

So it has been a welcome development that after a period of intense debate and arguments the leadership and volunteers of the INLA have reached the decision they did. Perhaps it was always inevitable. The INLA had been plagued over the years with internal bickering, external physical attacks, infiltration from pro-British agents and sometimes-apolitical leaders. When the membership took back control of the organisation from the Torney faction in the mid-nineties a slow process of politicisation took place.

Recognising the changing political situation the organisation in April1996 adopted the position of defence and retaliation and promoted the idea of a Non Aggression Pact to lessen sectarian tensions. The decision to call a ceasefire in August 1998 was another step in moving away from a military strategy. Now the 2009 decision is the culmination of a process that began back in that period 1994/1995.

In the intervening years the IRSP has been almost rebuilt from scratch. It is now in as strong a position has it has ever been despite many teething problems. During all those year of rebuilding it kept its’ commitment to the centrality of the working class in the struggle and reaffirmed it Marxist orientation in all the Ard-Feis since1997.

Indeed it is fair to say that the continued existence of the Republican Socialist movement is as a result of its commitment to a specific form of socialism and a specific form of Republicanism. It rejected nationalism and pointed out the dangers of sectarianism. It placed itself firmly in the camp of internationalism rejecting Imperialism and committing itself to a socialist world.

It is in a long line of Irish revolutionary movement that despite many mistakes were able to rise above petty nationalism and see beyond our own shores. The original ideas of Irish Republicanism arose from the most progressive ideas of the late 18th century and which inspired both he American and French revolutions of that century. These ideas were developed and refined by subsequent generations to include socialist ideas. In the mid 19th century the Fenian brotherhood were influence by the socialist ideas then beginning to take hold in the industrial working classes. James Connolly at the beginning of the 20th century firmly place socialist ideas within the mainstream of republican thought. When the IRSP began to debate moving towards Marxism in the 1980's the then Chair of the Party, Jim Lane in arguing for the adoption of Marxism as fundamental to the development of the party, pointed out then, as it is now, that Marxism is the most progressive thought of the day.

But of course there were other influences on Irish republicanism. During the 19th century there was a flowering of nationalism among many oppressed peoples. One major influence was that of Italian nationalism and the struggles of Garibaldi to unify Italy. Incidentally because he curtailed the powers of the Papal States Garibaldi and his red shirts were much admired by the northern Protestants!

Nationalism began to influence Irish republicanism. Myths began to be developed by romantic Irish nationalists about a golden past and nationalist symbols began to take hold on peoples’ consciousness. Needless to say the emergence of nationalism in a country under foreign rule is not unexpected nor does it necessarily make it reactionary. Since the mid 18fifties until today there has always been two dominant trends in republicanism, one heavily influenced by nationalism and the other heavily influenced by the most progressive views of the day.

Today with some small sections of the northern nationalist population we see the worst attributes of nationalism as sectarian hatreds take hold. That some sections of republican thought actually use this sectarian hatred, rather than oppose it, is disgraceful.

Some so-called internationalists equate any form of nationalism as reactionary and lump it in with the extreme nationalism of the fascists and Nazis. They do no service to socialism with this approach. Many nationalist struggles can be progressive and the struggle of the Irish for the removal of Britain from interfering in our internal affairs was and is progressive.

But beware of the word struggle! Too many republicans think that struggle equates with the use of arms against the British. What kind of serious revolutionary restricts him/her self to only one form of struggle? The almost exclusive use of armed struggle by republicans in the twenties, the thirties, the forties, the fifties and so on up to today resulted in almost total failure. Some republicans have been reduced to believing that the maintenance of armed struggle is a success in itself without regard to the goals that republican actually have.
(See The Pensive Quill Hatred of War by former IRA Volunteer Anthony McIntyre http://thepensivequill.am/2009/10/hatred-of-war.html

The sum total success of the use of armed struggle by republicans has been the legitimisation of the 26 county state in the eyes of its inhabitants and the stabilisation and consolidation of the Northern state under British hegemony. Some return for the generations of republicans killed jailed and demonised over the past ninety years.

On the other hand those who adopted an almost exclusively parliamentary road also failed. Fianna Fail in the Twenties, Clann Na Poblachta, in the Fifties, The Workers Party, Democratic Left in the Eighties and Nineties, and now Provisional Sinn Fein in the Noughties, all succumbed to the lure of constitutional politics and forsook their revolutionary past becoming integrate in to the ruling class and administering capitalist rule in Ireland.

Two major attempts to build a mass anti-imperialist front in the thirties with the Republican Congress and in 1976/77 to build a Broad Front also ended in failure. Seamus Costello a founder of the IRSP advocated the broad front strategy in the mid 1970’s. However his death stymied the broad front approach and subsequent attempts by the IRSP during the 1981 hunger strikes and in the recent past few years to build some republican left unity in action came to nothing.

These three approaches, armed struggle, parliamentarism and broad fronts are not the only actions available to revolutionaries.
Traditionally Marxist groups have worked within the trade unions seeking to win advanced sections of workers to the ideas of socialism supporting workers in defence of hard won rights and seeking to influence significant sections of the trade union bureaucracy to make a left turn and /or establish rank and file groups to mobilise the working class. Some ultra leftists reject such an approach claiming that the trade unions are indeed a reactionary force with their leadership well integrated into the capitalist system. But to adopt such an approach is to leave thousands of trade unionists without a lead to combat the betrayals of the trade union bureaucracy. Surely it is better to fight to win workers within the organised working class to Marxist ideas. For a period the Workers Party had a consistent approach towards the trade unions and established a strong base within some sections particularly within RTE. However they used that base in a politically sectarian way. The Communist Party has always had some influence among trade unionists and both the SWP and the SP have done much work trying to win workers over to their political views.

Others argue that given the strict segregation that operates within the northern state that the best method is to operate at a community level working within the sectarian parameters of the state trying to reach across sectarian divides using community groups and ex political prisoners organisations to build up contacts. Essentially that means operating within one so called community and hope to open up avenues of communication with class-conscious community workers within the “other community. This later approach leaves one open to the charge of gas and water socialism with its echoes of the Walker Connolly dispute a hundred years ago or the accusations thrown against the “sticks” of ring road socialism. It also leaves one open to the charge of pandering to reactionary loyalism by giving credence to former loyalist combatants. Certainly if it means hiding one’s politics or aims, such a charge is justified.

But Left republicans need to ask themselves how do we reach out to the mass of workers with illusions either in British or Irish nationalism? One thing is for certain it will not be easy or quick. Given the strong entrenched hold that sectarian views have over many it is not surprising that many seek short cuts or else give up the struggle al together, but revolutionaries should, rather than see the difficulties, see the opportunities.

There can be no better time to win workers to the ideas of socialism in Ireland. The crisis within the world banking system has seen the Governments pouring money into the banks to maintain the system while at the same time exhorting workers to do the patriotic thing and accept savage cuts in wages salaries and living conditions. North or South or in Britain all workers are under attack regardless of ethnic background nationality religion or colour.

In the South of Ireland the economic crisis means that it is the working class who are bearing the worst of the cuts and there is much scope for intervention by socialists. Fianna Fail has its lowest support for years and the public front line service unions are in militant mood over proposed cuts in wages.

In the North it is imperative that efforts are now directed towards the defence of not only the public services but of the rights of all workers. It would be a bad mistake for the IRSP to shadow Provisional Sinn Fein by echoing the mantras of equality and human rights.

It needs to be clearly stated that there is no such thing as equality under capitalism. Sloganising about equality in the current context of the North simply means the re -distribution of resources away from the mainly Protestant population and towards the mainly Catholic population. Then it becomes a sectarian dogfight over resources. Indeed that was precisely the intent of the British when they negotiated the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent St Andrews Agreement. It has always been in Britain’s imperial interests to nurture maintain and feed sectarianism in Ireland

Of course revolutionaries should support reforms but need to be very clear that they argue that reforms are not enough to solve the many problems facing the working class. Reformism is the great danger facing revolutionary organisations coming out of one form of conflict. World history is littered with the examples of former revolutionaries who succumbed to reformist illusions once power beckoned or a few crumbs were thrown from the table of the capitalist classes-look at the degeneration of the ANC in South Africa to give just one example.

It is inconceivable that the IRSP particularly with the examples of Seamus Costello and Ta Power before them could go down that path. Certainly the IRSP should re-educate itself in the classic writing s of Marxism and Republicanism. It needs to organise agitate and work with the broad working class movement. It should certainly consider fighting elections, should work within the trade union movements work with other republicans Marxists socialists etc and work to build a mass party of the working class that encompasses all nationalities.

N o doubt the usual macho talk will surface on the Internet and in the pubs that the Erps lost their nerves. Despite the confused nature of the October 11th the decision to stand down the INLA is to be welcomed.

The decision was not taken by ceasefire soldiers. It was taken by comrades whose republican involvement sometimes predated the establishment of the IRSP in 1974 and was the collective decision of many comrades who believed in the armed struggle, participated in that struggle and were shot and or jailed for their involvement in the struggle against British Imperialism. It was absolutely the right decision.

Obituary: Eleanor Kasrils; Freedom fighter, member of ANC and SACP.

2009-11-10T12:43:00.000Z

Eleanor Kasrils, the ANC and CPSA activist, and wife of former intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils, died on Sunday after suffering a stroke. She was 73.

Ronnie Kasrils said Eleanor had suddenly collapsed and after just a few hours at Constantiaberg Medi-Clinic, died in the early afternoon.

The couple would have been married for 45 years next month - the "most wonderful, happy marriage", Kasrils said. Sounding emotional but calm, he said she had done "some fantastic things" in her lifetime's work for the Communist Party, the ANC and Umkhonto we Sizwe. In her last years she had been Kasrils' support: "My very strong support."

He described how she had been born in Scotland and moved to South Africa when she was just a year old.

She became involved in politics, becoming a member of the South African Congress of Democrats. She became the second white woman in the country to be arrested, when in 1963 she was held under the 90 Day Act because of her involvement in MK.

After a few months of detention she managed to escape from police custody. The couple then left South Africa and lived in exile for nearly 30 years. During this time Eleanor worked for ANC president Oliver Tambo. She later became a geologist and a technician and worked in London for the Inner London Education Authority.

The couple returned to South Africa in 1992 and Eleanor again spent time working for Tambo. ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said on Sunday night the party would be saddened by the news of her death.

"In her own right, we could not have been enjoying the freedoms we have now if people with her stature where not there. And we will remember her as the wife of a very good leader and Minister of the ANC. Behind every successful man there is a very good woman. We wouldn't have got the leadership from comrade Ronnie if he didn't have a stable background.

"We will miss her dearly and we know her family will miss her even more and we extend our condolences to them."

South African Communist Party spokesperson Malesela Maleka said: "We express our deepest sympathy to comrade Ronnie and to his family."

He said a full statement would be released after consultation with family and party members.

Eleanor had a daughter, Brigid, from a previous marriage, and two grandchildren. She and Kasrils had two sons, Andrew and Christopher.

Cape Times.

http://www.capetimes.co.za/

--------------------------------------------

Statement released by the SACP.

Cde Eleanor joined the underground SACP in the late 1950s. She was among the first to join the ranks of MK after the launch of the ANC’s armed wing in 1960. She was part of a Natal MK network that included the late Billy Nair and Eleanor’s future husband, Ronnie Kasrils.

She was the second white woman to be arrested for MK activities in the early 1960s. Subjected to intense interrogation and physical abuse, she eventually managed to escape from the Security Police while in custody in a medical facility. She re-established contact with her underground network. Together with Ronnie, who was on the run at the time, she was able to escape from the country and move into exile.

In the following three decades Eleanor remained an active cadre in the ANC-led movement. She was based at first in Tanzania and then later in London. During this time she worked with the ANC president, Cde OR Tambo. Later she was active in Operation Vula, in particular preparing disguises for comrades about to be deployed into the underground.

The ANC exile period is a remarkable story of perseverance in the face of enormous across several continents, at a time when the apartheid regime was still surrounded by a cordon sanitaire of like-minded white minority and colonial states. Uniquely for the national liberal movements in the 20th century, the ANC emerged from this lengthy diaspora unified and more popular inside SA than ever before.

This achievement was the accomplishment of many thousands of selfless and unsung cadres who succeeded in rebuilding organisation and morale. Eleanor’s work in exile epitomises all of the best features of this remarkable achievement.

Eleanor returned to SA in the early 1990s and was living in St James, Cape Town at the time of her death.

To Cde Ronnie Kasrils, to Eleanor’s daughter Bridget, and to Eleanor and Ronnie’s sons Christopher and Andrew, the SACP sends its deep sense of shared sadness, our solidarity with you at this time, and, above all, our pride in being able to count as one of ours, Cde Eleanor.

Hamba kahle, Cde Eleanor Kasrils.

Issued by the SACP.

Cartoon: Lose a son and win a years subscription to the soar away Sun.

2009-11-10T11:02:00.000Z

The best way of supporting the young men and women who are currently serving in Afghanistan, is to demand the government brings them home. NOW!

2009-11-09T01:30:00.002Z

Those who have touted the ‘red poppy’ over the last month, have more than had their day this year. Due to the UK's military involvement in the war on Afghanistan, the lead in to remembrance day started way back in the first week of October. The main UK media outlets in the run up to yesterdays Remembrance Day, have mounted what can only be described as a full blown advertising campaign in support of the war. With the tabloid press, the Mirror, Sun and Daily Mail having had page after page about ‘our boys’ and the British armies ‘heroic dead,’ whilst the broadsheets, BBC, Sky and ITV have been little better.

Both the Tories and Blue Labour have also played a major role in ramping up the type of jingoism we last witnessed in this country during the Falkland's war. Which is hardly surprising, as between the UK government and Tory opposition, there is not a cigarette paper between them as far as support for this hopeless and criminal war is concerned.

As things on the ground in Afghanistan deteriorate further, with Karsi, who was to be NATO's rabbet out of the hat, mired in corruption and an electoral fix. The Afghan police exposed as corrupt and totally unreliable, with Karsi’s army not far behind; and a US army officer only last week having murdered 13 of his fellow Gi’s due to his feelings of confusion and despair over the Afghan/Iraq wars.

Two weeks ago in London I marched through the city’s streets demanding ‘Troops out of Afghanistan’ with ‘serving’ British army solders marching alongside me, something I have never in my lifetime experienced before when protesting against UK foreign policy. More to the point, one of them reported on returning to his army base the following week, he received a round of applause from his comrades, not as he had feared, withering looks of anger and contempt.

Yet the more this wicked and futile war is proved to be a charade, the more jingoistic the media, Blue Labour and the Tories become. Whilst the mass media insisted on making bizarre surface judgments as to how many red poppies were worn this year by people on the streets of the UK's cities. They would have done better to have asked those wearing the red poppy and their fellow citizens what they really think about this war? For UK opinion polls make it increasingly clear that wearing the Red Poppy is no longer a sign of support for the war in Afghanistan. People wear the red poppy for a host of differing and often complex personal reasons, which are in no way connected to the obscene jingoistic media stampede which applauds the deaths of other peoples sons and daughters and does not give a thought to the deaths of thousands of Afghan people.

After the Afghan presidential election result was announced, the US and British government openly admitted Karsi’s election as President could not stand, as it was fraudulent and there would have to be an election rerun. When Karsi’s opponent refused to play ball and withdrew, due to Karsi’s refusal to put in place the necessary democratic checks and balances if a second round were to be held. Our gallant politicians, Obama, Brown, Cameron, etc, etc, shrugged their shoulders and thought problem solved. They then picked up the phone and said, “President Karsi, good luck for your second term in office.” When almost the whole world knows they should have dismissed Karsi and his government from Office; and placed into power a temporary administration made up of a true cross section of Afghan society, including the Talaban, until fresh elections could be held in the spring.

Could NATO and its political masters have acted in a more contemptuous manner towards the Afghan people than acknowledging Karsi as president for a second term? I cannot see how.

Shame on all who support the sending of young squadies to die in support of Karsi, an incompetent quisling and reactionary crook who brought power with our tax dollars@pounds and the military might of NATO; and who maintains the support of our politicians for no better reason than, like the Soviets before them until Gorbachev took the bull by the horns, they are unwilling or unable to think outside the box and take the only logical decision to withdraw.

Until they do, we all have blood on our hands, but make no mistake in time NATO will withdraw from Afghanistan in much the same way as the Soviets did. But by then, the Sun, Mirror and the rest of these rags will no longer have use for dead squadies. Having reverted to treating the squadies and Gi’s in the manner Kipling best summed up here.

If we civilians do not speak out and oppose NATO military presence in Afghanistan, then there will be no one speaking up for the squadies, bar the cheer leaders for war, let alone for the Afghan people who bear the brunt of western military intervention.

I have just read a review of a new biography of the late Harry Patch which set out this old soldiers take on war; especially WW1, which he regarded as a totally obscene and unnecessary slaughter, and I have no doubt many of today's NATO troops feel much the same about Afghanistan.

To my mind the best way of supporting the young men and women who are currently serving in Afghanistan, is to demand the government brings them home. NOW!

Cartoon: Know yourself, know your enemy, but above all know the terrain.

2009-11-06T01:38:00.001Z

Obituary: Ernesto Leal Jimenez: Communist, trade unionist, seaman, tireless working class activist, and political exile.

2009-11-05T10:28:00.000Z

Obituary: Ernesto Leal Jimenez

By Roger Sutton.

Ernesto Leal Jimenez was born to communist parents on January 11 1938. At that time they were on the run, persecuted by the government of Arturo Alessandri for their part in organising the peasant struggle for better living standards.

His father, a self-taught man, was the Communist Party organiser for southern Chile and he and his wife were denounced as agitators and forced into clandestinity from their home in Valvidia.

Eventually they settled in in the small industrial and naval town of Talcahuano, where Ernesto's birth was registered.

His father helped set up neighbourhood committees to support communities in gaining access to clean water, better sanitation, housing and education.

Thus Ernesto grew up in a family passionately committed to protecting and promoting people's rights and freedom.

He loved the sea and at 17 became an ordinary seaman. He probably would have remained in the navy for many years had he not been caught up in a police raid in the early 1960s.

Copies of banned works - including essays by Karl Marx - were found in his possession. This was an offence under naval law and after a brief court martial he was discharged from the navy in disgrace.

Back in Talcahuano he worked for his father servicing navy ships and rejoined the Young Communist League, where he was elected political secretary.

The early 1960s were an exciting period in Chilean politics - Salvador Allende had embarked on a highly successful presidential campaign - and Ernesto rapidly rose to be in charge of regional affairs at the central committee of the Young Communist League. His recollections of working alongside the likes of Gladys Marin were an incredible source of pride to him.

In 1964 he married family friend and militant student activist Sonia Riquelme, with whom he had four children, Ernesto Jr, Juan, Rossana and Sonia.

It was during the Popular Unity government of Allende that he began working with the Chilean TUC but, like many Chileans, his life changed forever after the 1973 coup which brought down Allende's socialist government.

During the violent repressions post-coup, he was arrested and tortured by the navy for his trade union involvement.

He never recovered from the beatings and electric shocks inflicted on him while he was detained.

Eventually released, he was exiled and threatened with the death penalty if he ever returned to Chile. He left for Argentina and was joined by his family in Buenos Aires.

Surrounded by horrific repression in Argentina he had to come to terms with losing everything, including his beloved country, while staying alive and trying to find a better life for his family

In 1977, under the auspices of the UN, Amnesty International and British trade unions, he and his family were granted political asylum and provided with a home in Cowdenbeath by the Scottish NUM.

Then followed a move to Edinburgh, where Ernesto worked as a welder in the shipyards of Leith and joined the GMB union.

Those were the days of Margaret Thatcher and soon the yards were being closed and Ernesto "got on his bike" and found a job in the Faslane naval yards. But he was sacked when it was learned that his wife was outside the gates protesting against nuclear missiles!

Aberdeen and the Rob Caledon shipyards was his next port of call. He was blacklisted for being a trouble-maker following his participation in the unsuccessful struggle against its closure but through his union managed to get a job in the Loch Kern yard, welding the massive steel plates for the oil rigs.

In the late '80s he moved back to London to work in the city's building boom but when that ended it proved very hard to get a new job. He went on to work as cleaner in the old Evening Standard building, witnessed the way cleaners were treated by sub-contractors, and began to organise them under the auspices of the T&G.

During this time he met Rosa Ramirez, also a cleaner and a Chilean exile, who took part in setting up the Latin American Cleaners Union.

He was really proud of "el sindicato" and the way its membership had grown not just in London but across the country.

While in London he was a key member of the London May Day Organising Committee ensuring the full participation of the Latin American communities. He worked closely with GLATUC and was a leading figure in fighting the Pinochet dictatorship - reminding everyone of the first September 11 massacre, the coup against Allende.

A tireless worker for his class, Ernesto was a quiet figure who commanded respect from all sections of the movement.

The obituary was first published here.

The origins of the White Poppy worn on Armistice Day, later called Remembrance Day.

2009-11-05T01:51:00.002Z

After I posted an article about the Red Poppy early this week, a number of people contacted me to ask about the White Poppy. Terry L directed me to the Peace Pledge Union's web site , whilst not a pacifist myself the PPU web site has some interesting articles about WW1 and the origins of the White Poppy and where they can be purchased today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

WHITE POPPIES ARE FOR PEACE
The idea of decoupling Armistice Day , the red poppy and later Remembrance Day from their military culture dates back to 1926, just a few years after the British Legion was persuaded to try using the red poppyas a fundraising tool in Britain.

A member of the No More War Movement suggested that the British Legion should be asked to imprint 'No More War' in the centre of the red poppies instead of ‘Haig Fund’ and failing this pacifists should make their own flowers.

The details of any discussion with the British Legion are unknown but as the centre of the red poppy displayed the ‘Haig Fund’ imprint until 1994 it was clearly not successful. A few years later the idea was again discussed by the Co-operative Women's Guild who in 1933 produced the first white poppies to be worn on Armistice Day (later called Remembrance Day). The Guild stressed that the white poppy was not intended as an insult to those who died in the First World War - a war in which many of the women lost husbands, brothers, sons and lovers. The following year the newly founded Peace Pledge Union joined the CWG in the distribution of the poppies and later took over their annual promotion.

--------------------------------------------------

THE GREAT WAR: COMRADE AND KAMERAD

Many of the soldiers who fought each other in the Great War recognised that they were all in the same grim situation. A spontaneous code of behaviour, sometimes even a code of honour, developed on both sides. The following extracts from letters and memoirs show how easily the men might have been friends instead of enemies, had it not been for the war they they were ordered to fight.

31 December 1914:
Dear Mother I haven't much news to tell you except an extraordinary thing which happened on Christmas Day. To begin with on Christmas Eve all the German trenches were lined with little lights, which we afterwards discovered were Christmas trees. Well next morning we heard them singing & shouting in their trenches, and about midday they began lifting hats on sticks & showing them above the trench, then they showed their heads, & then bodies & finally they climbed out of their trenches into the open! Of course one couldn't shoot them in cold blood like that, tho' one or two shots were fired, and after a bit we also scrambled out of our trenches, & for an hour both sides walked about in the space between the two lines of trenches, talking & laughing, swapping baccy & cigarettes, biscuits etc. They were quite friendly and genuine, & our Col. who talks German had a long conversation with them, & asked them how they were & everything & you would never believe we had been fighting for weeks. After about an hour their officers shoo'd them back to their trenches, & we came back to ours, but for the rest of Christmas Day & night, & all next day, 26th, I don't suppose 2 shots were fired hardly by either side. Wasn't it weird?

Your loving son,

Ted

31 December 1914:
On New Year's Eve we exchanged the time having agreed to fire some shots at midnight. The night was cold. We sang, they applauded (our lines were only some two hundred feet apart). We played the mouth organ, they sang to our music, and then we applauded. I called over to ask if they had some musical instruments, on which they produced a set of bagpipes (they were a Scots Guards regiment, with short kilts and bare legs). They played their poetic tunes and sang. At midnight both sides fired shots in the air. Our artillery too fired a few rounds; tracer bullets, usually so lethal, soared like harmless fireworks. Men were waving torches and cheering. We had prepared grog and drank a toast to Kaiser Wilhelm and the New Year.
German soldier.

More lettter's can be found here.

Feminism may not be about bettering men's lives, but there is no question it has improved them.

2009-11-04T10:59:00.000Z

Like many working class men of my generation, I reached adulthood as a fully formed sexist bigot. Looking back my attitude to women was appalling, which was hardly surprising if one takes into account the values of the society I was brought up in. We workers were exploited by just about all those who had an opportunity to do so, so many of us not knowing any better, behaved likewise to those whom we did not consider to be our equals.

There is absolutely no doubt the feminist movement which emerged in the 1960s, despite its weaknesses and class base, played an enormous role in changing my own attitude towards women; and helped me recognise when it came to my treatment of women, I was the weak individual and the women around me were strong and the backbone of my existence.

Once I recognized this fact, I realised on this issue, I had a life time of struggle in front of me if I were to ensure I did not revert back to being a selfish sexist bigot. Fortunately I have a daughter who speaks her mind and we struggled over my opposition to abortion until I finally conceded it is a woman’s right to choose, and we were then able to move forward from there.

Below is an article from Jim Jepps which looks at the impact feminism played in bettering the lives of not only women, but us Neanderthal men as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Gender politics: Equal, right!

By Jim Jepps.

Whenever I hear a bloke describe himself as a feminist I reach for the sick bucket.

I certainly wouldn't describe myself that way, despite believing in equality and having right-on positions on the major issues of day.

Sometimes labels don't get us very far.

When men describe themselves as feminists they are telling us something about their politics, but that is not the same thing as actually having consistent positions on women's equality.

For every political stance you can think of there is someone who describes themselves as a feminist.

It can give an indication of how someone sees themselves but it doesn't tell us what they think about sex work, trade unions, abortion, marriage or a host of other issues.

Despite feminism's continued relevance, it has become so devalued as a term that it gets used to describe almost anything.

A recent piece in the Guardian, which should know better but never does, described fascist sympathiser Brigitte Bardot as a feminist because "she represents the power of women. What's iconic about her is her shape, the way she occupies space."

Was this what the pioneers of feminism were struggling for - to be defined by their "shape?"

There's a middle class version of feminism that focuses on language while ignoring social inequality.

I can't be the only person who has had a female manager who is more than relaxed about the all-female cleaning staff being paid a pittance and given no respect while insisting that the workplace uses bizarre jargon in order to avoid "sexist language."

It's enough to give equality a bad name.

However the feminist movement has brought enormous social advances - and not just for women.

Struggles led by feminists have brought about significant positive shifts over the decades, although no-one sensible would argue that these battles are over.

The break from the rigid moralism that kept people who didn't love each other within spitting distance provided a massive step forward in quality of life for millions of people. Divorce has saved countless couples from emotional disfigurement.

The right to an abortion, easily available contraception and sex education have not just been essential for a woman's right to control her own body but have been absolutely revolutionary in terms of how we all live our lives.

Family planning isn't just something that has enhanced people's sex lives or simply allowed them to have one, it's a social revolution allowing us to make choices about children, sexual health and orientation that simply were not open to us before.

I'm certain that the 17-year-old me would have been a pretty poor husband and father and I'm very glad that, due to the advances that feminism fought for, it never had to happen.

And feminism has broken down barriers to advancement for men and women. It may sound strange to some that allowing women to be promoted into positions previously the preserve of men should benefit both sexes, but it certainly seems that way.

When my mum was at school not only was she not allowed to take her best subject - maths - because it was not a "girl's subject," but she was all but forced to become a nurse, which did not suit her.

It was not in anyone's interest that the job of, say, a heart surgeon, did not go to the best person because gender roles forbade it.

The other side of the coin is that many men of my dad's generation simply never learned skills such as cooking because it was assumed that a woman would do it all for them. How many men have no confidence to do the simplest things around the home because they have been told it is "women's work?"

Feminism has gone a long way to making workplaces habitable too. My first job was in a lawnmower factory and I thought it was hell on Earth.

I found it difficult to cope with the constant use of the c-word, the misogynist tripe that my workmates came out with and the dull-as-ditch-water view on what was and was not "homosexual behaviour," even down to your choice of biscuit or how you wear your jacket.

These attitudes have now gone away but feminism should be heartily thanked for the progress made in workplaces in terms of how people behave with each other.

Feminism may not be about bettering men's lives but there is no question it has improved them.

The Red Poppy signifies the yearly charade of concern for the UK’s war dead and wounded is upon us.

2009-11-03T11:49:00.001Z

One again the yearly charade of concern for the UK’s war dead and wounded is upon us. Whether you wear one or not it is difficult to argue with the fact the ‘Red Poppy,’ and those like the British Legion who stand behind it, glorifies war in all its putridity. It is bad enough the ‘red poppy’ emerged after WW1* as a front for a charitable organization when the government of the day had all but forgotten the military victims of WW1. That such a charity exists today to meet the needs of the UK’s military dead and wounded is a national disgrace. For it means those who serve their country militarily, still have to rely on some form of charity if they are killed or badly wounded as the State and politicians who sent them to war have all but washed their hands of them.

This ‘charity,’ status just about sums up why one should not wear a red poppy, it sends out all the wrong messages about warfare and those like David Lloyd George and Tony Blair who send young people to war on a wicked lie.

If you doubt me I suggest you go along and watch the Central London remembrance parade on Nov 11, and you will see the great and good, the heirs of those who glorified WW1, troop out in all their hypocrisy. They will prattle on about 'our lads' dying for the rest of us in places like Afghanistan to protect our freedoms. When in reality this is absolute hogwash, as these young squadies are having they're lives stolen by the greedy no good human garbage who send them into other peoples countries, where they are not welcome, on the lie of combatting terrorism at home.

The important thing about war is to remember the living, those who survive, that is what the war dead would want. It was not a coincidence in the three decades that followed WW2, when there were hundreds of thousands of ex service personnel living, remembrance parades were often sparsely attended. The best thing we could do is push the charity collecting tins down the toilet where they belong; and demand of our politicians they stop sending the UK military overseas to engage in hopeless wars, that cost a kings ransom of tax payers coin; and bring absolutely no benefit to the ordinary people of the UK and cost young men and women their lives.

The government should also be forced to fund the widows and orphans they have created, plus give adequate medical care for those who returned as broken beings. Instead of wearing their heart on there’re sleeves, perhaps those who attend this Sundays remembrance parades would have done better to have travelled to London last weekend and marched alongside serving solders to bring the troops home from Afghanistan.

I will be blunt, those who wear the red poppy and attend any of these remembrance parades are glorifying war, the military life and encouraging todays politicians to steal other peoples sons and daughters lives. True this may not be what motivates them to attend, but without a doubt this will be the outcome of their attendance at a parade, not least because this is how the media will play it out. Let the families remember their dead, the living need to look to the future.

It is impossible to be neutral over this ‘thing’, the more so as whether you like it or not, the UK is once again involved in what can loosely be described as post imperialist wars. If we are to pay respect as a nation to any peoples, we should bow our heads in shame towards the graves of 600,000 Iraqi’s and god knows how many Afghan’s

Another reason why it is impossible to be neutral on this; is because the British State and its institutions are not, they push the poppy every were, to the extent that no one can appear prominently on UK TV during this period without agreeing to wear the wretched symbol of war, the red poppy.

As to charity, the very word makes me want to spit, if the British Legion is so good, how come they fail to help so many former squadies who end up sleeping rough, or fill the jails, often for comparatively trivial offenses, or suffer from drug, alcohol and mental health problems.

There is far to much of,

For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!

* Probably the most unnecessary and obscene war in history.

** The photo above and others can be found here

The Prohibition of illicit drugs is a foolish and non winnable war against comparatively harmless substances.

2009-11-02T01:33:00.008Z

Otherwise intelligent people, on reaching high political office, often seem pre-programmed to abandon independent thought and end up behaving like imbeciles; others might be less generous and regard such folk as lackeys of powerful forces with the power to lobby central government successfully.

Members of Tony Blair’s cabinet acted in this way when in 2003 they overwhelmingly supported Blair’s infantile and criminal decision to support President G.W.Bush illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. A decision which they must have known was against the wishes of a majority of those they represented and also against the advice of the UK’s main European allies.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson’s recent decision to fire Professor David Nutt, his senior adviser on illicit drugs and chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs(ACMD) also falls into this category. Prof Nutt was sacked because he made the decision to go public after the Blue Labour Government, without any scientific evidence, reclassified Cannabis from class C back to class B, only a short time after they had previously reclassified it from class B to class C.

By taking this decision, Professor Nutt accused ministers of "devaluing and distorting" the scientific evidence available about Cannabis, and ignoring the advice of the ACMD. It is impossible to argue with Nutt’s point here, for no new scientific evidence was brought forward during the short period of time Cannabis was classified as class C.

Although at that time, the British media was suddenly full of scare stories about skunk and cannabis use being linked to mental health problems. Some newspapers went as far as to say that heavy users ‘may’ become schizophrenic, despite not providing a shred of medical evidence to back up this claim. But then they didn’t need it with Blue Labour in power, for when the Murdoch press says jump, both the Blair and Brown governments have always replied, “How high.”

Just because Cannabis is involved here, which 90% plus of the UK population consider comparatively harmless, this does not mean this is a tale without victims and lives ruined. For the reclassification of Cannabis will mean ever more users and small dealers will end up in jail. The reclassification of Cannabis, once again means if a user comes before a beak who is having a bad day, they can under the new legislation be sentenced for a single spliff to upwards of five years imprisonment.

A young acquaintance of mine was recently sentenced to 18 years for conspiracy to import Cannabis. True he new what he was doing, he bet the house and lost, nevertheless, when you look at the lesser sentences handed down for far more serious offenses, rape, manslaughter and child molestation. Eighteen years for attempting to import what the majority of the population and the governments own scientists and medics regard as a comparatively harmless drug, seems to me to be a major crime in itself. Shame on the judge who sent this young man away for the best years of his life, (The more so if he himself smoked cannabis whilst at university) and shame on the politicians for giving him the power to do so.

One of the points Pro Nutt has repeatedly made of late, and which undoubtedly played a major role in him becoming persona non grata at the top table. Was he was not prepared to mislead the public about the harmfulness of drugs, he believed strongly illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause; and he pointed out that drugs like alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

As I wrote in a previous article on this subject, powerful forces are at work opposing those who wish to see the UK’s draconian drug laws liberalized. Sadly, because the media and their political gofers have managed to mire almost all public debate about illicit drugs around the simplistic formula of good and evil. (Illicit drugs and those who have anything to do with them evil, those who support and enforce prohibition, good) Thus with this sacking, Alan Johnson has bowed without a fight before the powerful tobacco and alcohol lobby, which is linked through self interest to big media interests, especially the reactionary Tanoys known as The Sun and Sky News.

If you add in the Police Federation, whose members, perhaps understandable, prefer to be members of a drug squad , etc, rather than walk the beat on a Friday and Saturday night in a UK town or city, which is full of helpless and often violent drunks. The legal profession which these days gets a great deal of work from those who are charged with illicit drugs crimes. Those who work in the often fraudulent drug treatment industry, the majority of whom are tied to the governments purse. The jailers who lock up otherwise law abiding people who have been convicted of drug offences. Customs and security service officers. The Royal Navy personnel who have a comfortable tour in the warm Caribbean waters on the pretext of searching for 'drug running boats.' The Squadies who are charged with burning the only cash crop produced by many Afghan peasants. Plus the countless other professions who gain they're living from the flotsam of the illegal drugs trade and of course the government of the USA.

When you take all this into account, you get an idea why 'lazy and venal' politicians are willing to sacrifice the ‘collateral damage’ caused by the illegal status of otherwise comparatively harmless drugs.

By the way, I have not even mentioned the enormous sums the big South American drug cartels set aside to corupt politicians around the world to keep legalization off the statute books. It is said to be equivalent to that paid by the alcohol and tobacco industry to lobbyists. But that is where we came in.

Obituary: Redmond O'Neill: Trotskyist, administrator, agitator and anti imperialist.

2009-10-29T01:30:00.002Z

Obituary: Redmond O'Neill

By Andrew Murray.

The death of Redmond O'Neill last week deprives the socialist movement in Britain and internationally - and above all in London - of one of its most staunch and principled activists.

Redmond was best known for his central role in Ken Livingstone's administration of the capital between 2000 and 2008. His title of deputy chief of staff understated his importance to Livingstone's mayoralty.

Redmond was in charge of the Greater London Authority's transport policy, which included the successful congestion charging scheme and the great extension of bus usage.

On issues perhaps dearer to his heart, he also took the lead in solidarity with the Muslim community, reflecting his lifelong opposition to racism, and in building links between London and President Chavez's Venezuela.

Indeed, it seems likely that what will be recalled as the most successful aspects of Ken Livingstone's mayoralty were those in which Redmond played the leading part alongside the mayor himself.

Many activists on the left will have first encountered Redmond through his leadership of Socialist Action, one of the groups which trace their lineage back to the International Marxist Group, the British affiliate of the Fourth International, which he joined in the 1970s.

Unlike most other groups from the Trotskyist tradition, Socialist Action maintained a clear focus on working within the labour movement and eschewed anything that could be regarded as ultra-leftism.

Under Redmond's leadership, it also had the wit to recognise that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the other socialist systems in Europe was a bad thing for the international working class.

His consistent anti-imperialism and anti-racism, grasping the central changes in world politics, also helped his organisation to play an important part in the campaign against the 1991 Gulf war and in the formation of the Anti-Racist Alliance a little later.

Of course there were controversies too, including Socialist Action's involvement in the disputes around the Morning Star in the 1990s culminating in the journalists' strike against the editor's dismissal in 1998, but they are dwarfed in significance by the major issues Redmond got right.

Sectarianism and posturing, so endemic on the far left, were anathema to Redmond, for whom political leadership was about struggling to make a positive difference to working people's lives, however difficult the conditions under which socialists had to operate.

Redmond died aged 55 while undergoing surgery for a recurrence of the cancer from which he had suffered for the last three years.

He is survived by his wife, CND chairwoman Kate Hudson, and by his sisters Ann, Fidelma and Tara. Another sister, Una, predeceased him.

Tributes have been paid from across the left, including by George Galloway - "when so many of his generation were happy to bend to Tony Blair's reheated liberal imperialism and its concomitant, virulent Islamophobia, Redmond was one of those who saw his duty to stand as a comrade with nations under great power bombardment and people under the lash of bigotry and racism" - and the Socialist Workers Party, as well as by Ken Livingstone and other colleagues from City Hall.

British Muslim Initiative president Mohammed Sawalha spoke for many Muslims in Britain, describing Redmond's death as "a loss not only to those who were close to him but to the entire Muslim community whom he served with care, diligence and dedication."

A particularly warm appreciation was paid by Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, reflecting Redmond's consistent support for the republican cause in his native Ireland.

"Redmond was a kind, generous, and courageous comrade. These qualities are reflected in how well liked and loved he was by those who he met in both his political and personal life. He will be remembered by all those who had the privilege to work alongside him," Adams wrote.

And last weekend's anti-war demonstration in Trafalgar Square stood silent in his memory. Few activists on the left can have earned such respect, stretching far beyond the membership of his own particular organisation.

My last encounter with Redmond was a meal with him, Kate and other comrades in one of his favourite restaurants in Camden Town, just 10 days before his death.

He was ebullient - humorous, lively, particularly when the conversation turned to political controversy, challenging, engaged. Optimistic. Everything a socialist should be, in fact.

He will be long remembered by thousands of comrades but, as with all those who set their shoulder to the wheel of human liberation, his memorial will be found in the future he helped to shape.

First published in the Morning Star.

Disability living Allowance saved for some, but not for OAP's.

2009-10-28T12:01:00.000Z

I received the article below from Steve Donnison, of the campaigning web site Benefits and Work, it is self explanatory and highlights the doubly dealing of Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for Health, when it comes to Benefits for the disabled. For those who are unaware of it, both New Labour and the Tories if they have their way, intend to abolish Attendance Allowance (AA) and in all probability Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and turn over to local councils all funding for disabled people.

Activists have for some time been lobbying the charities who work with the disabled to oppose the abolition of these vitally important benefits. Which play a major role in allowing disabled people to live a life which is not permanently mired in the poverty zone; and the depths of despair as to where the next shilling is coming from. Do not be mistaken here, these benefits are comparatively small, but for example DLA does give many disabled people the mobility to get around and live a reasonably active life.

Whilst Burnham will not budge on AA, he has said he has no plans to abolish DLA for the under 65's and there's the rub and the New Labour sleight of hand. For many of the charities have brought into this and are totally ignoring the fact the over 65's will no longer receive this benefit. When you take into account many of those who claim DLA are over 65, as you would expect as old age clocks in, his guarantee not to abolish the benefit is for some, worthless in the extreme.

As Steve Donnison points out, with a green paper in the works it is imperative the major charities keep the pressure on the Government, not as some have begun to do, accept Burnham's weasel words at face value and take the peddle of the gas.

Please read Steve's piece, and as he ask's, contact your MP and any charities you have had contact with and finally if you have not already done so, sigh this petition.

MH

-----------------------------------------------------

It’s a start, but nowhere near enough.

Health secretary Andy Burnham has said that he has ‘heard the concerns and worries about disability living allowance’. As a result, he has announced that:

“I can state categorically that we have now ruled out any suggestion that DLA for under-65s will be brought into the new National Care Service.”

Good news indeed . . . for some . . . for the moment.

But definitely not for the one and a half million people who depend on AA.
Nor for the for the three quarters of a million people aged 65 and over who receive DLA.
Not even for the 400,000 DLA claimants currently aged between 60 and 64, many of whom will have reached the age of 65 by the time labour’s proposed National Care Service is introduced.

Because, of course, DLA is not just paid to people under 65. You have to make your claim before you are 65, but you can then go on claiming indefinitely if your needs do not change.

Unfortunately, many organisations who should know better seem to have forgotten that – perhaps just as the government hoped.

Because Mr Burnham made no secret about why he made this announcement: he wants to shut people up. He said in his speech, given at a conference in Harrogate on 22nd October and also published on the Big Care Debate website:

"One avenue I do want to close down, however, is the debate and controversy over Disability Living Allowance.”"

In that ambition, he seems to have succeeded, at least so far as some disability charities are concerned.
Immediately following Burnham’s speech, Disability Alliance sent out a press release stating that:

“. . . the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) benefit will not be affected by Government plans to merge some benefits with social care funding . . . Andy Burnham's announcement will reassure disabled people that DLA is safe – for now at least.”

The Disability Charities Consortium told the media:
"This represents a real victory for disabled people who felt very strongly that the DLA should be retained and made their collective voice heard on this issue. "

Macmillan Cancer Support also issued a press release saying that:
"“Whilst we are pleased the Government has said Disability Living Allowance (DLA) will not be used to meet the shortfall in social care funding, we remain deeply concerned that Attendance Allowance (AA) is still under threat."”

But that isn’t what Andy Burnham said at all. He said DLA for under 65’s is not being considered.
This was echoed by Yvette Cooper, the DWP secretary of state who told a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on ME on 21st October that DLA for people of ‘working age’ is not under review.

It was also made clear by Burnham that there will be no transitional protection of existing awards for current claimants. Instead, ‘an equivalent 'level of support' will be provided by your local authority.

Burnham’s announcement seems to have had the desired effect, however – the ‘debate and controversy’ over DLA appears to be over as far as some disability charities are concerned. Yet, in a little over two weeks time the deadline for submissions on the green paper ends.

It’s vital that the case for saving DLA for all claimants is still made. Only now there is a real worry that not only have the disability charities relaxed, but also that Burnham will claim that because 3,000 submissions to the Big Care Debate were made before his announcement that DLA for under 65s is safe, they should mostly be discounted.

If you don’t want the government to get away with closing down ‘the debate and controversy over Disability Living Allowance’ there are things you can do.

Contact disability groups you have a connection with and warn them that they still need to respond to the green paper in relation to both DLA and AA.

Respond to the Care Green paper yourself, again if necessary, making it clear that you are aware that DLA for under 65s is not under consideration and giving your views on axing AA and DLA for people aged 65 and over.
http://careandsupport.direct.gov.uk/greenpaper/execsum/
Email: careandsupport@dh.gsi.gov.uk

Rouse people to sign the No 10 petition, which is gathering real momentum again: it now has over 19,000 signatures and is at number 8 out of over four and a half thousand petitions on the site. Not bad going for a petition that has been running for less than two months.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AttendanceA/

Tell your MP what you think or, better still, go and visit them and tell them face-to-face.
One final thought. The revelation that the government is considering slashing the income of 2.5 million older disabled claimants was made by Andy Burnham in a keynote speech last week.
The subject of that speech?

Outlawing ageism in the NHS.

Good luck,

Steve Donnison
------------------------------------
Tony Greenstein has a post about this here.

Cartoon: Trafic stopper!

2009-10-28T01:53:00.001Z

If only?

MH

A Blair EU Presidency would be a disaster: It would send out all the wrong signals.

2009-10-27T09:43:00.003Z

Now the Irish electorate has voted in favor of the Lisbon Treaty, it seems it will be ratified soon, even though the southern Irish electorate are the only citizens of the EU to have had a say on its suitability. Having once again overcome by sleight of hand the EU’s democratic deficit, its political elite in Brussels and the 27 member States can start sharing out the goodies. It is hardly surprising a man who knows all about enriching himself, is in line to become the EU’s first unelected president. Tony Blair, who since he stepped down as the UK’s prime minister has made a fortune from mockney speaking tours to the USA and Far-east, where his audience mainly consisted of the CEO's of Multi national corporations or there hirelings who acted as seat fillers.

The British foreign secretary David Miliband, only this week declared that the EU needed as its President, a big hitter who could stop the traffic in world capitals. Tony Blair certainly has experience of that, for with his co-conspirator G.W. Bush, he not only stopped the traffic of Bagdad, between them they destroyed much of Iraq’s transport infrastructure. However opposition to Blair becoming EU president is much wider than the fact over Iraq he lied to his cabinet, and government and deceived the British people on weapons of mass destruction and took the UK to war on a wicked lie.

It is based on his record as an anti European, on becoming prime minister in 1997, Blair said one of his main priorities would be to return the UK to the heart of Europe. Far from carrying out this promise which was then supported by a majority of the British people, he parked the United Kingdom on Capital Hill, Washington DC. In the process he encouraged the most reactionary US president in decades to view the UK as his very own plaything.

Blair refused to opt the UK into the Schengen agreement which governs Europe's borders and frontiers and defiantly kept Britain out of the Eurozone against sound economic advice. The consequences of both of these decisions today should be obvious to all, with the fascist BNP having received over 300,000 votes at the last EU elections; and unlike the UK, the main EU nations are out of recession, with the value of the Euro now almost equal to the Pound, the latter having lost a third of its value.

If all this were not enough Blair consistently opposed the ‘Social EU’ which is founded on the principle of social rights advancing alongside economic growth and sustainable development and which has improved the working conditions for millions of European workers and played a role in at least attempting to create a Europe of harmony and equality. Not in the UK though, where whilst Blair was in power, the gap between the economically rich and poor slewed into the realms of the ridiculous and obscene. Thus not eligible for the many benefits of the EU which are available to their EU counterparts, it is hardly surprising many UK workers have become hostile to the European Union as they have seen their living standards and working conditions stagnate and tumble downwards.

Below are the basic demands of a Social EU, when one reads them it is obvious to me that Tony Blair spent his period in office opposing all of these most basic of demands.* If you add in 600.000 Iraqi dead then any one who believes in a social Europe must oppose with all there might Blair gaining this post.

It seems some middle class liberals never fail to disappoint, when asked whether Blair should hold the post of President of the EU, the left economist Will Hutton said yes, for not better reason that my country right or wrong, his precise words were “It is better to back our man, however imperfect than refuse a prize that may not come our way again for decades.”

Left Laborite columnist Jackie Ashley is even worse, writing in the Guardian, she wrote.

“There should be some mistakes too big to recover from. But while that is satisfying to say, it is not quite the end of the matter. If politicians have to struggle with competing evils in an untidy world, so should the rest of us. The truth is that with a weakened economy, and in a declining quarter of a world menaced by global warming, terrorism and instability, Britain needs the EU – and needs it to work.”

So Jackie, a man who did all he could as PM to oppose and disrupt the EU and fought tooth and nail against a social Europe, let alone who has the blood of 600.000 dead Iraqis on his hands, is suddenly going to morph into a man who has the best interest of Europe at heart, when in actuality he was and is nothing more than a multi national clone.

When the people of Gaza were being murdered by Israeli troops and shells, Blair, the big powers envoy to the middle east with special responsibility for Palestine, said not a word in their support, indeed he placed himself firmly in the camp of Israel and their US armorers and financiers, despite Israel breaking a shed full of UN resolutions and international laws.

For Jackie Ashley, Tony Blair would be “A persuader and a deal-maker only. On climate change, the Middle East peace process and Africa, he is on the right side of the argument.” “I conclude he comes out, on balance, just ahead.”

Pass the sick bucket is about all one can say to this.

Tony Blair disgraced himself over Iraq, when he refused to remove Thatchers anti trade union legislation from the Statute book he sided with the bosses and against a Social Europe. By refuses to opt into the Schengen agreement and the Eurozone he deliberately drove a wedge between the UK and the rest of the EU. If you add in Iraq and his refusal to condemn Israel outright over its war on Gaza, it makes him an implacable enemy of freedom and progress, especially for the dispossessed and economically poor.

He should be before the international Court at the Hague not in a palace in Brussels. The fact the political elite is seriously suggesting he should be a candidate for the EU presidency just shows, despite the expenses scandal, the gap between the UK’s politicians and the electorate is growing by the day.

Without any doubt, this media and political elite simply have no idea what makes the majority of the UK’s population tick.

* Fundamental social rights, including freedom of association and the right to strike;

Social protection and wealth redistribution measures;

Social dialogue and consultation with workers;

Social and employment regulation;

State responsibility for full employment, services of general interest, and economic and social cohesion.

Please sign this petition against the nomination of Tony Blair as 'President of the EU.'