From Cory Doctorow. The shape of things to come?
Homeowners in the region outside the town limits of South Fulton, TN, have to pay $75 to come under the protection of the town's firefighters. Late in September, the house of Gene Cranick, who had not paid his $75 for the year, caught fire. When the fire department arrived, they announced that since Cranick had not paid his fees, his house would be allowed to burn to the ground. Cranick offered to pay the $75, but the firefighters weren't having any of it. They eventually acted to put out the fire when it spread to the home of a neighbor who had previously paid. As the mayor said, " if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck."
The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.
"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.
It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.
We asked him why.
He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.
We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.
"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.
Unbelievable.
Note: more recent takes on the Tommy Sheridan trial here and here.
How many of us enjoy a trip down memory lane? Unfortunately, tomorrow's start of the trial of Tommy and Gail Sheridan on perjury charges is one blast from the recent past we could all do without. In the summer of 2006 when Tommy successfully sued Murdoch's News of the World for libel, I had a ring side seat via the UK Left Network of the pain, anger and tragedy the action brought down on the Scottish Socialist Party. Whatever one thinks of the SSP's politics and the various takes on the resulting split, Tommy's libel action tore apart a collective of dedicated class fighters who were tempered by the fight against the Poll Tax and whose hard work had built the most successful left-of-Labour socialist organisation since the Communist Party's heyday. And over the next 50-odd days we get to rake through it all again.
Regarding the trial itself, the Socialist Party is right to question the huge resources thrown into putting the case against the Sheridans together. But equally, the charge sheet (reproduced below via Lallands Peat Worrier) can hardly be described as a set of "trumped up" charges: all pertain to the specifics of the original trial itself.
Another depressing aspect of this trial, just like the civil suit, is the appearance of erstwhile comrades of Sheridan on the witness stand. Last time a number of SSP witnesses testifying against Sheridan were roundly denounced as class traitors and scabs by Tommy and his supporters. Those tempted to use their reappearance for more tired grand standing might like to reflect that as the state is prosecuting, anyone failing to respond to a citation could face a contempt of court charge with the prospect of getting banged up for two years. Not the same as going to prison for not paying your poll tax, is it?
The comments are open but will be very tightly moderated due to sub judice. Discussion of the wider context of the trial is fine, but comments on the details and/or expressions of opinion on Tommy and Gail's innocence or guilt are out of bounds. The trial is being blogged from an observer in the public gallery here, and the charge sheet is reproduced below for information purposes.
Thomas Sheridan, born 7 March 1964, whose domicile of citation has been specified as Paisley Road West, Glasgow, and Gail Sheridan, born 4 January 1964, whose domicile of citation has been specified as Paisley Road West, Glasgow, you are indicted at the instance of The Right Honourable Elish Angiolini, Queen's Counsel, Her Majesty's Advocate, and the charges against you are that
(1) you THOMAS SHERIDAN having raised an action of defamation in the Court of Session, Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh against News Group Newpapers Limited, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, being the publisher of the News of the World newspaper, in which you alleged that on 21 November 2004 the said newspaper had published an article communicating the false idea that you had visited a "swingers club" with Anvar Begum Khan, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh, and knowing that a civil jury trial had been fixed for the hearing of said action on 4 July 2006 and having on 9 November 2004 at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Scottish Socialist Party held at 70 Stanley Street, Glasgow, attended by, among others, Colin Fox, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh, admitted attending such a club and in particular Cupid's Healthclub, 13-17 Sutherland Street, Swinton, Manchester on two occasions in 1996 and 2002 and knowing that accurate minutes of the said meeting existed and had been lodged on 16 June 2006 at the said Court on behalf of the said defender and that said Colin Fox was to be called as a witness at said trial did on 18 June 2006 at the premises known as The Beanscene, 67 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh attempt to suborn said Colin Fox, to falsely depone as a witness that the minutes of said meeting were not accurate and you did thus attempt to suborn said Colin Fox to commit perjury;
Friday (2) on 21 July 2006 at the Court of Session, Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh you THOMAS SHERIDAN being affirmed as a witness in a civil jury trial of an action for defamation then proceeding there at your instance against the News Group Newspapers Limited, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow as publishers of the News of the World newspaper did falsely depone:
a) that at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Scottish Socialist Party held on 9 November 2004 at 70 Stanley Street, Glasgow you had not admitted you had attended Cupid's Healthclub, 13-17 Sutherland Street, Swinton, Manchester known as Cupid's on two occasions in 1996 and 2002 and that you had not admitted that you attended there with Anvar Begum Khan c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh;
b) that at said meeting on 9 November 2004 Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara, both c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh did not state that they had previously raised the issue with you of your visits to a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true;
c) that at said meeting you denied having visited a swingers' club in Manchester;
d) that Allison Kane, Keith Robert Baldassara, Alan William McCombes, Allan Green, Colin Anthony Fox, Barbara Jane Scott, Carolyn Leckie, Catriona Mary Grant, Joanna Harvie, and Rosemary Kane all c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh had lied in evidence during said civil jury trial when each gave evidence that: - they had heard you admit at said meeting on 9 November 2004 that you had visited said Cupid's in Manchester; and they heard it being stated at said meeting on 9 November 2004 that Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara had previously raised the issue with you of your visits to a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true;
e) that you had not admitted in 2002 to said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara that you had attended a sex club in Manchester;
f) that you did not say at the said meeting held on 9 November 2004 that you were not prepared to resign as convener of the Scottish Socialist Party unless there was proof that you had attended a sex club in Manchester and that you did not believe that there was any evidence to prove that you were lying about not attending said club;
g) that in a pub known as the Golden Pheasant,2 Stepps Road, Kirkintilloch on or around Friday 12 May 2006 you were not given the minutes of the said meeting of 9 November 2004 to read;
h) that said Alan Green lied during his evidence in said civil jury trial that in said pub known as the Golden Pheasant on or around 12 May 2006 he had shown you the minutes of the said meeting of 9 November 2004;
i) that there was not an event on 14 June 2002 or at any other time at the Moathouse Hotel, Congress Road, Glasgow organised by Matthew McColl, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh which you attended along with Andrew McFarlane, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh at which you and said Andrew McFarlane went into a bedroom with a girl and had sexual relations with said girl;
j) that Helen Todd Allison and Lily Anne Colvin both c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Road, Edinburgh lied in their evidence during said civil jury trial when each gave evidence that you were at the Moathouse hotel with said Andrew McFarlane;
k) that a conversation between you and said Keith Robert Baldassara had not taken place when said Keith Robert Baldassara had asked you about "madness" somewhere in a hotel in Glasgow and that you said to him that you did not participate, but were present at the event when a lady from Birmingham was brought in;
l) that said Keith Robert Baldassara lied in his evidence during said civil jury trial that he had asked you about "madness" somewhere in a hotel in Glasgow and that you said to him that you did not participate, but were present at the event when a lady from Birmingham was brought in;
m) that you had not attended said Cupid's in Manchester along with Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Begum Khan and Katrine Trolle all c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh towards the end of 2001, or had ever visited a swingers' club;
n) that you had an affair with said Anvar Begum Khan in late 1992 for six months only and that you did not have a sexual relationship with her from 1994 to 2002; and
o) you never had a sexual relationship with said Katrine Trolle and had never been with her in the house occupied by you at Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow or with her at Kingennie Court, Dundee; the truth being as you well knew, that on 9 November 2004 at the Executive Committee meeting of the Scottish Socialist Party held at 70 Stanley Street, Glasgow, you did admit to attending said Cupid's in Manchester on two occasions in 1996 and 2002 and that you had visited said club with said Anvar Begum Khan;
B) that at said meeting it was stated by said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara that they had previously raised the issue of you attending a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true; that at said meeting you did not deny having visited a swingers' club in Manchester; that said Allison Kane, Keith Robert Baldassara, Alan William McCombes, Allan Green, Colin Anthony Fox, Barbara Jane Scott, Carolyn Leckie, Catriona Mary Grant, Joanna Harvie and Rosemary Kane had not lied in evidence during the said trial when they each gave evidence that:
i) they had heard you admit at said meeting on 9 November 2004 that you had visited the said Cupid's in Manchester on two occasions and ii) they had heard it being stated that said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara had previously raised the issue with you of your visits to a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true; that:
ii) on 3 November 2002 in the course of a journey between Glasgow and Edinburgh you did admit to said Keith Robert Baldassara that you had attended a sex club in Manchester; ii) on an occasion between 4 November 2002 and 31 December 2002, at the City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, you did admit to said Alan William McCombes that you had visited a club for swingers in Manchester and
iii) on 1 November 2004 at the City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, you did admit to said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara that you were the MSP referred to in the News of the World article published on 31 October 2004 and that you had attended said Cupid's in Manchester with said Anvar Begum Khan; that you did state at the said meeting held on the 9 November 2004 that you were not prepared to resign as convener of the Scottish Socialist Party unless there was proof that you had attended the said Cupid's in Manchester and that you did not believe that there was any evidence to prove that you were lying about not attending said club;
G)/ that on 12 May 2006 at the premises known asThe Golden Pheasant, 2 Stepps Road, Kirkintilloch said Allan Green did show you the minutes of the said meeting of the 9 November 2004; that said Allan Green had not lied during his evidence during said civil jury trial that on 12 May 2006 he had shown you the minutes from the said meeting on 9 November 2004 at said premises known as The Golden Pheasant, 2 Stepps Road, Kirkintilloch; that you did attend the said Moathouse Hotel on 14 June 2002 at an event organised by said Matthew McColl along with said Andrew McFarlane at which you and said Andrew McFarlane went into a bedroom with Beverly Anthea Dixon, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh and you did have sexual intercourse with said Beverly Anthea Dixon; that said Helen Todd Allison and Lily Anne Colvin had not lied during their evidence during said civil jury trial when they said that they had seen you at the said Moathouse Hotel with said Andrew McFarlane; that between 15 June and 15 July 2002, both dates inclusive, at the City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, said Keith Robert Baldassara did ask you about "madness" somewhere in a hotel in Glasgow and you stated to said Keith Robert Baldassara that you had been present at said Moathouse Hotel when a lady from Birmingham had been present and that this event had been organised by said Matthew McColl for said Andrew McFarlane; that said Keith Robert Baldassara did not lie in evidence during said civil jury trial that between 15 June and 15 July 2002, both dates inclusive, at the said City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, that he had asked you about "madness" in a hotel in Glasgow and that you had said to him that you had been present at the Moathouse Hotel when a lady from Birmingham had been present and that this event had been organised by said Matthew McColl for said Andrew McFarlane; that on 27 September 2002 you did attend said Cupid's in Manchester with said Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Begum Khan and Katrine Trolle and that you had visited a club for swingers; that between 1 January 1994 and 28 September 2002 you did have a sexual relationship with said Anvar Begum Khan; and
O)/ that between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2005, both dates inclusive, you did have a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle, that she had been in the house occupied by you at Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow with you and that you had stayed overnight with her at 16 Kingennie Court, Dundee.
And the charges against Gail Sheridan:
Monday (3) on 31 July 2006 at the Court of Session, Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh, you GAIL SHERIDAN being sworn as a witness in a civil jury trial of an action for defamation then proceeding there at the instance of Thomas Sheridan, MSP, your husband, residing at Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow against News Group Newspapers Limited, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow as publishers of the News of the World newspaper did falsely depone:
that you saw and spoke to Katrine Trolle, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh, at the Scottish Socialist Party Conference held in Perth in 2005, and that said Katrine Trolle told you there that the News of the World had been at her door, asking her if she had had an affair with Tommy Sheridan and had offered her money and that she hugged and kissed you and touched your "tummy";
that you had checked your diaries and the diaries of said Thomas Sheridan for November 2001 and November 2002 and that the entries confirmed that you had been at home overnight during every weekend in November 2001 and November 2002;
that you could recall that you spent every weekend in November 2001 and November 2002 with said Thomas Sheridan; that you were present and witnessed said Thomas Sheridan on an occasion telephoning Directory Enquiries and asking for the telephone number of Cupid's Health Club, 13-17 Sutherland Street, Swinton, Manchester known as Cupid's and said Thomas Sheridan telephoning the said Cupid's;
that your aunt, Annie Healy c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh arrived into Scotland from the United States of America on 14 June 2002; that said Thomas Sheridan was in your company during the whole of the evening of the 14 June 2002 and returned home with you after midnight on 15 June 2002;
and g)/ that you and said Thomas Sheridan visited Andrew McFarlane c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh, at his home at 216 Tweedmuir Road, Glasgow after 10pm on the 14 June 2002 when said Andrew McFarlane and James McManus c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh were present there between that time and when you left with said Thomas Sheridan after midnight on the 15 June 2002;
the truth being as you well knew, that you did not see or speak to said Katrine Trolle at the Scottish Socialist Party Conference held in Perth between 11 and 13 February 2005 and that the said Katrine Trolle did not tell you that the News of the World had been at her door asking her if she had an affair with Tommy Sheridan and had offered her money and said Katrine Trolle did not hug and kiss you and touch your "tummy";
that you had recorded in your diary that you had travelled to Miami on Tuesday 20 November 2001 and you were in Miami on the weekend of 24 and 25 November 2001 and that said Thomas Sheridan had recorded in his diary that you were away between 21 and 28 November 2001;
that you were in Miami on 24 and 25 November 2001 and you did thus not spend every weekend in November 2001 with said Thomas Sheridan; that on 23 November 2001 you were not present on the occasion when said Thomas Sheridan phoned directory enquiries and said Cupid's in Manchester;
that your aunt, said Annie Healy arrived in Scotland from the United States of America on 12 June 2002; that you were not with said Thomas Sheridan during the whole of the evening of 14 June 2002;
and that you were not in the company of said Thomas Sheridan, Andrew McFarlane and James McManus within 216 Tweedmuir Road, Glasgow continuously between 10pm on 14 June and 1am on 15 June 2002.
There's been a bumper crop this month! Many thanks to Cath Elliott for her list of of 80 feminist blogs, many of which are new and haven't previously featured on the monthly round up - so think of this collection as something of a feminist special. There's the usual list of new left, Labour, socialist, green and what have you in the mix too. Also note Tommy Sheridan has entered the world of blogging.
1. 2me2you (Labour) (Twitter)
2. Bankraub (Unaligned/Green) (Twitter)
3. Beyond Retrograde (Unaligned/Feminist) (Twitter)
4. Burn the Bankers (Unaligned) (Twitter)
5. Cardiff Feminist Network (Cardiff Feminist Network) (Twitter)
6. Daily Feminist Action (Unaligned/Feminist)
7. Delilah (Labour) (Twitter)
8. Everybody Hates a Tourist (Unaligned)
9. Feminist Memory (Unaligned/Feminist)
10. George Bloggs (Labour)
11. Graham Jones MP (Labour) (Twitter)
12. London Anti-Street Harassment Campaign (Unaligned/Feminist) (Twitter)
13. Lee's Random Blog (Unaligned/Feminist) (Twitter)
14. Liztopia (Unaligned/Feminist) (Twitter)
15. Malatesta's Blog (Unaligned/Anti-Fascist)
16. My Fault, I'm Female (Unaligned/Feminist) (Twitter)
17. No to Hooters in the UK (Unaligned/Feminist)
18. Notes from a Femme (Unaligned/Feminist)
19. Obliged to Offend (Unaligned)
20. Political Blonde (Labour)
21. rmott62 (Unaligned/Feminist)
22. Rob Jackson's Blog (Labour) (Twitter)
23. Sarah Hayward's Blog (Labour) (Twitter)
24. SplottDadRants's Blog (Unaligned/Disabilities activism) (Twitter)
25. Stubborn Dogs (Unaligned/Trans activism) (Twitter)
26. Tales of a Bad Feminist (Unaligned/Feminist) (Twitter)
27. The Bearded Lady (Unaligned/Feminist)
28. The Fourth Dimension (Unaligned/Feminist)
29. The Luxemburgist (Unaligned)
30. Tommy Sheridan's Blog (Solidarity)
31. Trafford Rape Crisis Blog (Unaligned/Feminist)
32. Vicky Simister (Unaligned/Feminist)
33. We Won't Submit (Unaligned/Feminist)
34. Woman on the Edge of Time (Unaligned/Feminist) (Twitter)
35. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things (Unaligned/Feminist)
36. Young Lefty Kid (Greens)
That's it for September/October. If you know of any new blogs (a year or less old) that haven't been featured before, drop me a line via email, the comments or on Twitter. The new blog round up is posted on the first Sunday of every month.
In what might become a semi-regular feature, I'll be casting my eye over the exaggerations and official optimism that frequently peppers the left press. For example, who can forget Gerry Healy's classic predictions that the ruling class would shortly be readying concentration camps ready for trade unionists? How about the SWP's claim that the 90s was like the "1930s in slow motion"? That apartheid could only be overthrown by socialist revolution. Or Workers' Power's stubborn refusal to recognise Russia as anything but a workers' state for some years after the collapse of the USSR? The SP/CWI's "Red 90s" is another never-to-be-forgotten gem. And of course the week-in week-out predictions of capitalism's imminent meltdown and the overblown reporting of sparsely-attended demonstrations. Silly shibboleths and self-serving short sightedness are the hallmarks of what passes for Marxism on the left.
Hyperbole Watch's first outing was spoiled for choice by this week's issue of The Socialist. The Socialist Party has a well deserved reputation for sobriety and seriousness: that was one reason why I found them attractive as opposed to the fly by night SWP. And despite producing a paper so dull that the bulk of its regular readers are party members, it is usually a level-headed read. I say 'usually' because issue #640 carries a couple of whoppers. The editorial's claim that the high number of spoiled trade union ballot papers in the Labour leadership election is most likely due to an absence of anyone pushing "radical socialist policies" (a more mundane explanation here) almost clinched, if it wasn't for Peter Taaffe's latest essay on the cuts.
Enticingly titled 'Britain on the Brink', he argues that the working class will be made to pay for the crisis unless a socialist alternative barges onto the stage of history. Pretty much uncontentious stuff. But then the prospects of mass opposition allow the comrade to get carried away and his pen goes off the deep end. Following an (unattributed) quote of the head of the German Institute for Economic Research, Brother Taaffe writes "... a remarkable confession of bankruptcy. In effect what is promised is a civil war against everything the British working class has built up through struggle. It is a replay of the 1930s on a much higher level." [my emphasis]. Yes, that's exactly what the British working class is facing. The 1930s.
Many congratulations to Peter for winning Hyperbole Watch on its launch in the face of stiff competition from his own comrades. I'm sure the award will be winging its way to you again in the not too distant future.
It suits the coalition's agenda to oppose the private to the public sector. Never mind the public sector provides the essential social and institutional core functions private capital depends on, as far as the Tories and the LibDems are concerned it is economically unproductive and represents an overall drain on the British economy. A recent letter from a Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells-type on the ever-awful Ceefax letters page illustrates coalition thinking perfectly. The gist of it went something like this:
Making civil servants redundant is a good thing. If the taxpayer has to pay out Job Seekers' Allowance instead of exorbitant salaries then this is a worthwhile cut.
Leaving aside the lazy and ideological assumption that public sector work is all waste and produces nothing, it demonstrates the coalition's compartmentalised understanding of how capitalism works. The private sector is the source of wealth, and the public sector via the state drains it away. There is no recognition of how the two are conjoined and mutually reinforce one another.
Profits, salaries and wages are taxed to pay for a number of state functions, be it the cost of politics, welfare, hospitals, military, quangos, administration and what have you. That money percolates out the other end in the form of salaries and wages. After this too has been taxed the money is recycled back into the private sector when public sector employees do their shopping, go out, buy luxury goods, head off on holiday, get their hair done and so on. This is then transformed into the wages and profits of the private sector. And as for that little bit left over that some public sector employees squirrel away in savings, this is invested by their bank or building society. And don't forget the private sector firms whose existence heavily depends on public sector contracts too: their activities pay out wages to their employees and allows them to accumulate capital.
I think readers might see what I'm getting at. The relationship between the private and public sectors are a continuum, an intertwined metabolism that helps keep the wheels from falling off British capitalism. If we took the advice of our Ceefax correspondent above, less civil servants and more unemployed depresses spending power and with it the amount of money cycling back into the private sector, which means a lower tax take, redundancies, and so on.
Once you start picking apart the public sector, which is just what the Tories and LibDems are hellbent on doing, the fabric of capital's public-private partnership starts to unravel and the likelihood of renewed recession grows ever greater.
There's been some confusion about the Trade Union section vote in Labour's leadership contest quite apart from mendacious attempts by Tories, Blairites and sundry ignoramuses to turn it against Ed Miliband. And that confusion is about the low turn out. I believe that while the turn out was abysmally low and is a cause for concern, it isn't particularly surprising.
Political science makes a distinction between first and second order elections. Here in Britain the one election widely perceived "to matter" is the general election, simply because it determines who runs the government for x number of years. Other elections to council, devolved parliaments/assemblies, the European parliament, and referenda are second order because they are not perceived to matter so much. Hence their turn out is much depressed (which is why it's generally a good thing to run second order elections on the day of the general, if at all possible).
A similar process is at work in our trade unions. Firstly most union members do not join because they want to participate in its decision-making structures. Finding a member who's been to a regular branch meeting is a rarity. They join because of the protections unions offer at work. As a consequence the votes that tend to matter for most members are those relating to industrial action of some kind. This is the unions' 'first order' election.
The second order elections, from the standpoint of everyday workers' relationships to their union do not matter. In this category falls general secretary, officers', executive committee and, of course, Labour leadership elections. So quite how the Socialist Party comes to the absurd conclusion that the low turn out and high spoiled ballot paper rate is "because none of the candidates reflected their urge for radical socialist policies to meet the challenge of the current devastating economic crisis" is beyond me, especially when Roger Bannister, standing in this year's Unison general secretary's election, could only persuade 2.76% of the entire membership to vote for his "radical socialist policies".
The low turn outs for all second order elections reflect the weakness of the labour movement as a whole. Now is not the time to moan about how members should "take an interest". Instead the labour movement has to make more effort to listen and speak to their concerns.
Another guest post from Brother G.
It can’t be easy being Ed Miliband. Having won the leadership election (hurrah!) by the narrowest of margins, he has within days been maligned by the press as a secret commie and overshadowed by his brothers resignation from frontline politics.
It now seems that he has managed to unnerve some pro-Israel supporters by speaking at a Labour Friends of Palestine event. Ed had the audacity to voice such shockingly anti-semitic intentions as an ‘interest in visiting the region and espousing British values in order to bring about peace in the region’. As a lobby group containing individuals such as Andy Burnham MP and Richard Howitt MEP, the organisation itself isn’t exactly Hamas.
It is disappointing that the mere act of displaying solidarity with a people currently living under occupation in increasingly desperate conditions is enough to send vested interests into a self-righteous hissy fit. Such reactions are particularly stupid given Ed Miliband’s background as the son of Jewish refugees.
In a conflict where the line between nationalist, religious and cultural concerns have become intertwined, Ed Miliband’s measured approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict, along with his brother's objections to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon during his time in the cabinet, should be welcomed as evidence that people of Jewish heritage, and indeed anyone with a concern for international affairs, can and should defend Israel’s right to exist without acting as apologists for its worst offenses. In a week which has seen Israel’s actions against the Gaza Aid flotilla deemed illegal by the UN and the resumption of settlement building on occupied land, this issue remains as pertinent as ever.
In his speech on Tuesday, Ed Miliband called for a foreign policy dictated by our values and not our allies. Nowhere is this more important that in the region of the Middle East.
It was inevitable cracks would start showing in the coalition as the Autumn Spending Review loomed ever more menacingly on the horizon, though some might be surprised the first significant public difference of opinion is between the Tories instead of their yellow bellied LibDem satraps. But given the nature of the first fracture I suppose it was inevitable.
One of the Tories' strongest suits has been their unqualified support for British militarism. Whereas Labour's record has never been one of principled anti-imperialist internationalism given the nature of the party and its support base, the influence of pacifistic, unilateralist and anti-militarist positions have ebbed and flowed and have tended to be (rightly or wrongly) associated with Labour's "ideological family".
This is not the case with the Tories. Where there has been episodic opposition to particular military adventures, such as Iraq, it has tended to be qualified in terms of pragmatic considerations rather than overarching principles. This is after all the party who last exercised an "independent" foreign policy by taking Britain to war over the Falklands, are most associated with Britain's nuclear deterrent, aggressively prosecuted the Cold War to its conclusion, and enthusiastically joined in America's assault on Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War. And that's just the recent history.
So cuts to the military budget was always going to be a hot potato for the Tory party. This is the context for the leak of defence minister Liam Fox's letter to David Cameron. In the piece, Fox opines that big cuts could threaten front line morale and hit the Tories themselves: "I am concerned that we do not have a narrative that we can communicate clearly", he moans.
He is right to be worried. Since Blair's invasion of Iraq the Tories have opportunistically jumped on every logistical problem for political advantage. Not enough flak jackets to go around? A shortage of helicopters? Inadequate armour on APCs? No matter the issue, the Tories were over them like a rash trying to tap into the latent but widespread support for "Our Boys". So to be seen dismembering the armed forces is very dangerous for the Tories short and medium term electoral prospects.
But the issues Fox highlights are potentially more catastrophic than a set back at the polls. The Tories' obsession with the deficit was bound to cause ructions within capital itself. The financiers and their lackeys in the City were never going to be too concerned. Despite Dave's Big Society rhetoric it remains responsibility-free business as usual. On the other hand, for manufacturing and construction capital the Coalition's subordination of economic policy to deficit reduction was always going to drive parts of this sector, especially that dependent directly or indirectly on public sector spending, into some form of opposition. These cuts however are different. Not only do they threaten to upset British arms companies grown fat on decades of military Keynesianism, but shake up one of the key organic props of Toryism itself: the officers' establishment.
This is akin to New Labour's ill-thought attacks on its core support. By slashing spending here not only are the numbers of officers under threat but so are the cosy careers many can assume upon retirement in the arms industry. Tory MPs from a military background will not be pleased and many beyond their numbers will be subject to the high society pressure of esteemed brigadiers and colonels. While by itself it won't be enough to split the party, it could mobilise a back bench rebellion of sufficient magnitude to scupper Osborne's military spending plans and with it the whole edifice of the cuts programme. Using his own rhetoric against him, will party interest come before national interest?
Not many on the left will lose sleep over this. Despite claiming to be opposed to all cuts I can't see many Trotskyists marching for Trident or demanding the aircraft carrier programme goes ahead. And yes, one can sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude of the Tories fragmenting at the rate of their beloved cluster bombs. But we need to make clear our own positions on what is to be done about "defence": calling for the army's abolition and a workers' militia just won't cut it if we want to exploit the Tories' divisions to the full, let alone effectively tackle the persistent roots of British militarism.
Update: Duncan recommends Eric Joyce's shadow cabinet pitch as a means of thinking about Labour and the labour movement's relationship to "defence".
Someone has been reading Lord Ashcroft's recent report. Given the nature of stupid red-baiting criticisms leveled at Ed Miliband since his victory in the Labour leadership contest, today's speech was never going to include the nationalisation of the top 100 monopolies. It struck a broadly social democratic tone while simultaneously appealing to the Middle England that obsesses the media and the triangulators alike. It was replete with buzzwords - new generation, good society, fairness, opposing new thinking to old thinking - and delivered with a conviction (whatever one may think of its content) that Blair's speeches often lacked. No, he didn't walk around the stage, and no he didn't speak without notes, but who really cares?
The key talking points were:
* The dogmatism of New Labour and its transformation from a "radical" and "establishment-challenging" force into a remote and out of touch establishment itself.
* The need to reduce the deficit with Alistair Darling's four year plan as a starting point. Neither was he necessarily opposed to every cut, accepted that certain things cut by Cameron would not be reinstated by a future Labour government, and was concerned with rebuilding Labour's "fiscal responsibility". He also attacked the Tories' lack of a plan for growth.
* Labour must understand why many voters are exercised by immigration. But instead of using it as a cue to start bashing them, he argued that employers should not be able to play different nationalities off on one another to undercut wages (when was the last time any mainstream politician fielded such an argument?)
* Unsurprisingly, Ed Miliband distinguished between responsible trade unionism for ensuring "decency" and "fairness" at work and the more militant kind. But also argued for a "disciplined" campaign against the coalition, one which does not see "irresponsible strike action" against the cuts for fear of alienating public support.
* While stressing the unions' responsibility, he also said business and the rich had their own. He reiterated his commitment to the living wage and to incentivise the tax system to encourage it.
* The ritual (coded) pledge to get tough on benefit claimants but again, using careful language to avoid demonising welfare recipients and speaking of a "benefits trap".
* Reinforced his commitment to civil liberties, wanting to reclaim this ground from the Tories and LibDems.
* A "values-based" foreign policy.
* The need to make politics more responsive via vote reform, an elected Lords, more local democracy, and a vague demand politicians have to speak to the issues and not focus group talking points.
Obviously this will be filled out with detail over the coming weeks. Who he appoints shadow chancellor will demonstrate the line of march on the deficit issue: his brother if he wishes to stick fairly closely to the Darling plan, Ed Balls/Yvette Cooper if he wants to assume a more combative approach (given his comments about strike action and "responsibility", he's more likely to go with the former, with qualifications). And of course there's the Autumn Spending Review: he has previously pledged to have ready an alternative to the coalition's demented slash and burn policies. But will it be that much of one?
It wasn't radical but it was something of a break with Blair/Brownism. And it did what it set out to do, stake out a new centre ground of mainstream politics and pitch a tent there. As he said himself, "Red Ed? Come off it ..."
This short report comes from Campaign for a New Workers' Party secretary Pete McLaren via the Independent Socialist List. It seems after years of prevarication, sectarian squabbles, and a general passing up of opportunities, the far left could finally be getting its act together. And in typical fashion, it happens to do so in the least auspicious of circumstances to found a party to Labour's left in a generation. Let's just say if all the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition can boast about is a £20k donation from the Rail, Maritime and Transport union and a national vote of 15,580 then prospects are grim to non-existent. As always this blog will cover interesting developments on the far left, even if they're on the road to nowhere.
Comrades
A very brief report from today's CNWP Open Steering Committee. A full report will be available in the next few days.
There were 22 present, including members of the Socialist Party, Socialist Alliance, Communist Party of Great Britain and a number of independents
Hannah Sell's political introduction laid out the tone for the meeting - anti cuts campaigns were growing, and a number would want to stand candidates in next year's local elections. TUSC welcomed that and would endorse any such candidates who wanted to stand under its umbrella. There would be a Conference for all such TUSC anti cuts candidates on January 15th. She accepted TUSC was not the finished article, let alone a new Party, hence the need to continue promoting the CNWP. However, she argued that TUSC had laid down a marker with its TU support, the RMT having donated over £20,000 to general election candidates which was a first in terms of a national TU promoting non Labour candidates. She accepted that the election of Milliband would galvanise the TU leadership and the labour party, but not the rank and file - and Labour Councils were already pushing cuts through.
Dave Nellist, in the chair, added that the next TUSC Steering Committee on October 13th was discussing how to broaden the structure of TUSC, including how to involve independent socialists which Nick Wrack was delivering a Paper upon. There followed a wide ranging discussion on the possibilities arising out of TUSC, its limitations, how we should learn from the anti poll tax campaign, the role and potential to grow of the Labour Party under Ed Milliband, the serious effects the cuts would have on benefit claimants as well as public services.
It was agreed that the next CNWP Conference, initially scheduled for March 2011, might have to be delayed until June to avoid any clash with a national anti cuts demonstration which the TUC was at present suggesting should be in March. It was noted that there would almost certainly be anti cuts demos before then, locally and nationally, with the Fire Brigades' Union, RMT and Public and Commercial Services union giving serious considersation to a national demonstration on Sat Oct 23, three days after the Public Services Review, itself a day earmarked for local and national demonstrations.
After a break, the SP and SA resolutions were debated at length, most of the discussion centering around the SA resolution, but not in a particularly negative way. Both were passed without any votes against (one abstention to the SP resolution)
As a result, the CNWP is now committed, amongst other things, to establish the prototype of a new Left Party before the end of 2011 at the latest. This process will include a specific session at the CNWP 2011 conference which will consider an outline draft constitution for consideration by a future founding conference which includes:
* The long term aims of the Party
* A federal structure recognizing the rights of both affiliating organisations and individuals,
* A mechanism to ensure that no single affiliated organisation can impose its views on the Party as a whole
* Clear democratic structures to ensure that any internal Party body is representative of the Party as a whole,
* Recognition that affiliated organisations remain free to campaign externally to the Party
* Recognition that members are entitled to form open political factions able to campaign both internally within and externally to the Party.
So at least there will now be discussion about how a new Left Party should look - that surely is a start, and could be the blueprint, dare I say, for the creation of such a Party in the forseeable future. But I don't think I will hold my breath!
Comrades should join the CNWP to help us in any discussions that do take place
In unity
Pete
