Dear Defend Council Housing supporter ,
Lambeth councillors are pressing ahead with plans for a £12 per week rent rise on top of 130 job cuts to housing services due to the crisis in the Housing Revenue Account.
Lambeth tenants, leaseholders and trade unions are holding a protest at the full council meeting on FEBRUARY 9th at 7pm at Lambeth Town Hall against this latest attack on council tenants. Use the attached petition and return it to 56 Foxley Square SW97RY , or email me and I will arrange to collect from you.
Lambeth Defend Council Housing meeting February 14th at the Brixton Recreation Centre, Station Road, Social Rooms Level 5 from 1.30 pm -3.30 pm with speakers from DCH , Tenants Council and trade unions on the housing crisis plus election of DCH committee. All welcome.
If you would like to stand for election as secretary , chair or treasurer to the DCH committee please email me asap - you are also welcome to stand for the committee as a 'general member'. The committee meets about every three months , or as and when necessary.
The House of Commons Council Housing Group is holding an enquiry at the House of Commons on 25th Feb 12-8pm and is asking all tenants, leaseholders and councillors to give evidence about the current state of council housing. Lambeth DCH are organising a delegation - watch this space for more details.
Happy holiday to you all !
in solidarity
Stephen
Monday, 22 December 2008
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
Lambeth Living Chair arrested
Dear councillor
You may be aware that Asuman Ozkan, Chair of Lambeth Living, was arrested earlier today. The allegations against Ms Ozkan are to do with fraud.
We are not in a position to comment on the details of the case but wanted to let you know that she has been written to today by Lambeth Council asking her to step down as Chair of Lambeth Living. We do not wish to prejudge the case but in light of the arrest we believe that it is not appropriate for her to stay in post. If she does not step down we reserve our right under the management agreement to remove her from the role.
I would also like to make it clear that the issues involved do not relate to her role as Chair of Lambeth Living.
Regards
Derrick Anderson
Chief Executive
You may be aware that Asuman Ozkan, Chair of Lambeth Living, was arrested earlier today. The allegations against Ms Ozkan are to do with fraud.
We are not in a position to comment on the details of the case but wanted to let you know that she has been written to today by Lambeth Council asking her to step down as Chair of Lambeth Living. We do not wish to prejudge the case but in light of the arrest we believe that it is not appropriate for her to stay in post. If she does not step down we reserve our right under the management agreement to remove her from the role.
I would also like to make it clear that the issues involved do not relate to her role as Chair of Lambeth Living.
Regards
Derrick Anderson
Chief Executive
"Lambeth faces fraud inquiry into £22m housing black hole"
Yesterday's Evening Standard reports how council bosses are under investigation for the catalogue of cock-ups that have led to the massive projected overspend in Lambeth's housing department in the 2008/9 financial year.
Until now, it has been Lambeth tenants, leaseholders and staff who have paid the price - job cuts across the board, services cut back, repairs not done.
And of course, Council Leader Steve Reed is blaming the whole mess on the Lib Dems - how pathetic! Grow up, take some responsibility, have the decency to fall on your sword.
Click here for the full story
Until now, it has been Lambeth tenants, leaseholders and staff who have paid the price - job cuts across the board, services cut back, repairs not done.
And of course, Council Leader Steve Reed is blaming the whole mess on the Lib Dems - how pathetic! Grow up, take some responsibility, have the decency to fall on your sword.
Click here for the full story
Steve Reed, Leader of Lambeth Council...
…has been elected to the London Councils' Executive, with responsibility for housing! What a joke!!!
This is the same man who presided over the introduction of Lambeth's ALMO, "Lambeth Living", contrary to the wishes of tenants. The same man who is responsible for a deficit in housing of over £20 million, and the subsequent slashing of services and jobs. The same man who is trying to privatise even more council services by giving private contractors ten-year deals with no consideration for how those contracts will be monitored.
Click here to read the full story
This is the same man who presided over the introduction of Lambeth's ALMO, "Lambeth Living", contrary to the wishes of tenants. The same man who is responsible for a deficit in housing of over £20 million, and the subsequent slashing of services and jobs. The same man who is trying to privatise even more council services by giving private contractors ten-year deals with no consideration for how those contracts will be monitored.
Click here to read the full story
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Lambeth UNISON votes for solidarity with Adrian Swain
This motion was passed unanimously at our branch committee today:
This branch notes:
Adrian Swain is an NUT rep at St Paul’s Way School in Tower Hamlets. He is currently being disciplined by management for failing to comply with the school’s dress code. The code was imposed on staff in the autumn term with no consultation whatsoever. Adrian has been given a final written warning for misconduct (for failing to obey a “reasonable instruction” of the headteacher) and he faces a hearing in December which could result in his dismissal.
This branch expresses its solidarity with Adrian Swain and agrees that:
• The head teacher at St Paul’s Way School should stop the victimisation of Adrian Swain, halt the disciplinary procedures and reverse the previous decision to discipline Adrian Swain.
• We offer our full and unconditional solidarity to Adrian Swain and the NUT group at the school in resisting this victimisation.
Friday, 12 December 2008
ROUND 2 to the residents and campaigners
Dear all,
Last night campaigners had a victory when the 'call-in' (when a decision is looked at by scrutiny) was successful. This means that the decision to put an Academy as well as the primary school on the current Fenstanton site will need to be looked at again by Cabinet.
We will have one more chance to put in our objections. This will probably be heard at a special cabinet meeting so we will need to act swiftly to get people to attend the meeting and protest. As soon as I know the date I will let you know but it will be within the next 10 days.
Thanks
Sara Tomlinson
Lambeth NUT, on behalf of campaigners.
Last night campaigners had a victory when the 'call-in' (when a decision is looked at by scrutiny) was successful. This means that the decision to put an Academy as well as the primary school on the current Fenstanton site will need to be looked at again by Cabinet.
We will have one more chance to put in our objections. This will probably be heard at a special cabinet meeting so we will need to act swiftly to get people to attend the meeting and protest. As soon as I know the date I will let you know but it will be within the next 10 days.
Thanks
Sara Tomlinson
Lambeth NUT, on behalf of campaigners.
Lambeth Council tenants face 'appalling' 17.5% rent hike
This week's Streatham Guardian features a story about the massive rent rises facing council tenants in Lambeth from April 2009.
Click here to read it
Today's South London Press features a similar story: Lambeth rent-hike is 'crushing blow'
With "Lambeth Living", the council's ALMO, already cutting services and making staff redundant, it's clear that tenants are going to be forced to pay more - for less.
Time after time council tenants have to pay for the mistakes made by senior managers who can't manage their budgets properly, while contractors rip off the council and the fat cats responsible for this mess get juicy bonuses.
Enough is enough! Tenants, working with the trade unions representing council staff, need to seize control of council housing and run it properly: for the benefit of Lambeth's 30,000 council tenants and leaseholders, not the greedy bosses.
Click here to read it
Today's South London Press features a similar story: Lambeth rent-hike is 'crushing blow'
With "Lambeth Living", the council's ALMO, already cutting services and making staff redundant, it's clear that tenants are going to be forced to pay more - for less.
Time after time council tenants have to pay for the mistakes made by senior managers who can't manage their budgets properly, while contractors rip off the council and the fat cats responsible for this mess get juicy bonuses.
Enough is enough! Tenants, working with the trade unions representing council staff, need to seize control of council housing and run it properly: for the benefit of Lambeth's 30,000 council tenants and leaseholders, not the greedy bosses.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
South and South West London Anti-Fascist Group
Labour movement and anti-racist activists in south London have recently founded this group, which is sponsored by Battersea & Wandsworth and Croydon trades councils. It will be organising a lot of campaigning work, producing literature etc in the coming months. More information soon!
Email southlondon-antifascists@aktivix.org
The founding statement is below
**
We are a labour movement and community-based campaign against the BNP and other fascist, racist and far-right parties.
The group will be comprised of activists and delegates to a range of national anti-fascist and anti-racist organisations like Unite Against Fascism and Searchlight and to events co-ordinated by SERTUC. It will be committed to non-sectarian unity and to working with all political parties against fascism.
We oppose the BNP and parties like them because they stand against the interests and traditions of the labour movement. They are fundamentally anti-working class, racist, sexist and homophobic. The BNP has grown in the recent past. At the last elections they won a further ten council seats (in areas within the lowest 10% for all socio-economic indicators) and Richard Barnbrook was elected to the Greater London Assembly.
They have grown by relating to the very real crises facing working-class communities: the problems in housing, hospitals, education and public services. The BNP also exploits the attacks on immigrants and asylum-seekers from all sides of the political spectrum and the press.
We seek to build links between the labour movement and community groups in order to:
1. Mobilise the labour movement and communities to campaign against local fascist activity;
2. Mobilise against the fascists and for the defence of communities targeted by fascists eg. supporting postal workers who refuse to deliver BNP election material and organising demonstrations to stop BNP activity;
3. Expose the bigoted lies of groups like the BNP for what they are and work to extend anti-racism and other liberation campaigns within our movement;
4. Educate the community, and in particular young people, about the nature of groups like the BNP;
5. Oppose all forms of racism, including the demonisation of immigrants;
6. Develop materials and campaigns that contest the political terrain adopted by the far right - counterposing working-class solidarity to their politics of race hate;
7. Organise workers and communities, black and white, British-born and migrant, to fight back against cuts and privatisation - for decent jobs, homes, education, services and democratic rights for all.
Email southlondon-antifascists@aktivix.org
The founding statement is below
**
We are a labour movement and community-based campaign against the BNP and other fascist, racist and far-right parties.
The group will be comprised of activists and delegates to a range of national anti-fascist and anti-racist organisations like Unite Against Fascism and Searchlight and to events co-ordinated by SERTUC. It will be committed to non-sectarian unity and to working with all political parties against fascism.
We oppose the BNP and parties like them because they stand against the interests and traditions of the labour movement. They are fundamentally anti-working class, racist, sexist and homophobic. The BNP has grown in the recent past. At the last elections they won a further ten council seats (in areas within the lowest 10% for all socio-economic indicators) and Richard Barnbrook was elected to the Greater London Assembly.
They have grown by relating to the very real crises facing working-class communities: the problems in housing, hospitals, education and public services. The BNP also exploits the attacks on immigrants and asylum-seekers from all sides of the political spectrum and the press.
We seek to build links between the labour movement and community groups in order to:
1. Mobilise the labour movement and communities to campaign against local fascist activity;
2. Mobilise against the fascists and for the defence of communities targeted by fascists eg. supporting postal workers who refuse to deliver BNP election material and organising demonstrations to stop BNP activity;
3. Expose the bigoted lies of groups like the BNP for what they are and work to extend anti-racism and other liberation campaigns within our movement;
4. Educate the community, and in particular young people, about the nature of groups like the BNP;
5. Oppose all forms of racism, including the demonisation of immigrants;
6. Develop materials and campaigns that contest the political terrain adopted by the far right - counterposing working-class solidarity to their politics of race hate;
7. Organise workers and communities, black and white, British-born and migrant, to fight back against cuts and privatisation - for decent jobs, homes, education, services and democratic rights for all.
Sunday, 7 December 2008
Lambeth UNISON AGM time and venue
Dear all
I've recently received the notification for the AGM: 1:00pm, 13 January 2009, Town Hall. I'm sure the reason for this is to try and maximise attendance from Unison members in core services and functions.
However, it is very bad for others: for example, support staff in schools, many of whom cannot get paid time off and are pretty low paid. I will try to get there, but I think most members will not. Not only is this bad for branch democracy, it sends out a signal that the branch is only really interested in those core, mainly white collar sections.
When I was branch secretary at Companies House, Cardiff, we recruited the evening shift: mainly low paid women, who worked 6-midnight. So we held two AGMs, afternoon and evening. This had drawbacks: not everyone could hear all the arguments during contentious debates, for example. But it worked in keeping everyone feeling they were a valued part of the branch.
What can we do? Are there others in the same position?
Jeremy Drinkall
Learning Support Assistant
Lilian Baylis
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
Climate change or climate disaster? - Wednesday 3rd December
Members of Permanent Revolution and Green Left discuss the ever more dramatic threat to the planet and whether “ecosocialism” can provide an answer to the oncoming crisis.
Upstairs at the Ship Pub, 68 Borough Road (corner with Newington Causeway) London SE1. Starting time 7.30.pm (nearest tube Elephant & Castle or Borough).
PCS dispute - a defeat?
Some of the Lambeth Housing stewards recently said that they thought the PCS (the civil service union) had made a tactical error in calling off the strike when the government had promised the PCS nothing other than talks.
It now seems that the PCS has settled the dispute and the outcome is as some of the housing stewards had feared. See here:
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/national-pay-campaign/pay-campaign--members-briefings/joint-pcs-and-government-statement.cfm
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/national-pay-campaign/pay-campaign--members-briefings/
This seems to say that there might be some extra pay in exchange for “efficiency savings” and “significant workforce reform”. Neither of those phrases will be a positive thing for PCS members and probably mean job cuts. The PCS mentions in its statement that this means cut backs in consultants but I find it hard to believe that this is what the management and government have in mind.
A couple of quotes from a trade union web board I go on (from PCS members):
“it seems there has been a decision to settle the dispute in return for nothing at all. There are some words on 'recyclables' but these are not commitments and are linked to job cuts and performance pay. Far worse than anything I expected.”
and
“The government has avoided strike actions for some pretty vague and intangible reassurances”
The PCS statements ends by saying:
"Since 2004 we have protected pensions, won agreements on avoiding compulsory redundancies and on privatisation, and stopped attacks on sick pay.
Members should feel proud that we have now made this breakthrough on pay."
However while I can understand the PCS wanting to be positive this just isn't a rounded assessment. With pensions the PCS agreed to a two tier pension deal where new members now have a significantly worse pension, and is a recipe for weakness in future industrial disputes over pensions. Also while it is good that compulsory redundancies have generally been avoided it is the case that a huge swathe of the work force has been cut back and that has put a lot more pressure on work loads and services. And now with the pay dispute I'm not convinced there has been a breakthrough. There are no guarantees here and the underlying message seems to be that management might consider some pay increases in return for job cuts. I hope I'm wrong on this, but I can't see how else it can be read. I really don't think this should be dressed up as a victory just as UNISON tried to dress the pensions defeat up as a victory.
While the PCS has one of the best union leaderships (along with the RMT) that doesn't mean it should be beyond criticism.
I’m not pointing this out to be “sectarian” but just because I think the PCS leadership made a tactical mistake here and I think the whole union membership (no matter what union they’re in) has to look at what can be done so we can win future disputes. We can’t carry on with the current strategies as they clearly aren’t working in terms of winning disputes.
This is not meant to be uncomradely in terms of the PCS or anyone else but we can’t avoid these kinds of discussions as all union members are facing job cuts and pay cuts, and with the recession getting worse these attacks are likely to get worse.
It now seems that the PCS has settled the dispute and the outcome is as some of the housing stewards had feared. See here:
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/national-pay-campaign/pay-campaign--members-briefings/joint-pcs-and-government-statement.cfm
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/national-pay-campaign/pay-campaign--members-briefings/
This seems to say that there might be some extra pay in exchange for “efficiency savings” and “significant workforce reform”. Neither of those phrases will be a positive thing for PCS members and probably mean job cuts. The PCS mentions in its statement that this means cut backs in consultants but I find it hard to believe that this is what the management and government have in mind.
A couple of quotes from a trade union web board I go on (from PCS members):
“it seems there has been a decision to settle the dispute in return for nothing at all. There are some words on 'recyclables' but these are not commitments and are linked to job cuts and performance pay. Far worse than anything I expected.”
and
“The government has avoided strike actions for some pretty vague and intangible reassurances”
The PCS statements ends by saying:
"Since 2004 we have protected pensions, won agreements on avoiding compulsory redundancies and on privatisation, and stopped attacks on sick pay.
Members should feel proud that we have now made this breakthrough on pay."
However while I can understand the PCS wanting to be positive this just isn't a rounded assessment. With pensions the PCS agreed to a two tier pension deal where new members now have a significantly worse pension, and is a recipe for weakness in future industrial disputes over pensions. Also while it is good that compulsory redundancies have generally been avoided it is the case that a huge swathe of the work force has been cut back and that has put a lot more pressure on work loads and services. And now with the pay dispute I'm not convinced there has been a breakthrough. There are no guarantees here and the underlying message seems to be that management might consider some pay increases in return for job cuts. I hope I'm wrong on this, but I can't see how else it can be read. I really don't think this should be dressed up as a victory just as UNISON tried to dress the pensions defeat up as a victory.
While the PCS has one of the best union leaderships (along with the RMT) that doesn't mean it should be beyond criticism.
I’m not pointing this out to be “sectarian” but just because I think the PCS leadership made a tactical mistake here and I think the whole union membership (no matter what union they’re in) has to look at what can be done so we can win future disputes. We can’t carry on with the current strategies as they clearly aren’t working in terms of winning disputes.
This is not meant to be uncomradely in terms of the PCS or anyone else but we can’t avoid these kinds of discussions as all union members are facing job cuts and pay cuts, and with the recession getting worse these attacks are likely to get worse.
Why we need a "workers' plan for the crisis" and a "workers' government": 11 December public meeting
7.30pm, Thursday 11 December
The Calthorpe Arms, 252 Grays Inn Road, Kings Cross, London
Organised by London Workers' Liberty
As the bosses seek to make workers pay for their crisis through wage cuts, job losses, cuts in services and repossessions, how should the labour movement respond? How do we effectively defend ourselves, and what should our broader goals be? We will be putting forward our workers' plan for the crisis and arguing that the labour movement should aim for a "workers' government", while also considering other responses on the left.
Speakers: Maria Exall (CWU national executive, pc), Steve Hedley (RMT London Transport Region secretary, pc), Sacha Ismail (Workers' Liberty)
Plus a speaker on the upcoming student national demonstration
Chair: Christine Hulme (PCS DWP West London, Labour Repesentation Committee national committee, pc)
All welcome
The Calthorpe Arms, 252 Grays Inn Road, Kings Cross, London
Organised by London Workers' Liberty
As the bosses seek to make workers pay for their crisis through wage cuts, job losses, cuts in services and repossessions, how should the labour movement respond? How do we effectively defend ourselves, and what should our broader goals be? We will be putting forward our workers' plan for the crisis and arguing that the labour movement should aim for a "workers' government", while also considering other responses on the left.
Speakers: Maria Exall (CWU national executive, pc), Steve Hedley (RMT London Transport Region secretary, pc), Sacha Ismail (Workers' Liberty)
Plus a speaker on the upcoming student national demonstration
Chair: Christine Hulme (PCS DWP West London, Labour Repesentation Committee national committee, pc)
All welcome
Don't suppport "Progressive London"!
By Sacha Ismail
Ken Livingstone has launched an organisation called "Progressive London", backed by a "broad alliance of individuals, campaigns, communities, artists, trade unions, environmentalists, political parties and groups". It is for "all those who believe in social justice, environmental protection, good community relations, cultural innovation and the many other areas in which London has made a contribution recognised throughout the world."
The CWU, GMB, Unison and Unite - or at least senior figures from these unions - seem to be backing this "campaign", and it is starting to be raised in trade union branches. Socialists should oppose support for it wherever we can (members of Workers' Liberty will certainly be doing so).
In the first instance, this is quite transparently a vehicle for Ken Livingstone to return to City Hall in 2012. In this year's election we called for a second preference vote for Livingstone on the grounds of Labour's residual links to the trade unions; but that is no reason for us to positively support the electoral ambitions of this fake left careerist. Particularly not when his fake left coat of paint is such a pale one, as the politics of "Progressive London" demonstrate.
This is a classic - though rather weedy! - example of what Marxists have called a "popular front": an alliance which ties the labour movement to sections of the ruling class in the name of "progressive", non-working class, ie capitalist goals. By doing so such alliances stifle the development of the class struggle and independent working-class politics. In some cases (eg France in 1936 and '68, Spain in 1936-7) this has meant saving capitalism's skin from the threat of working-class revolution; in Britain today it means a roadblock to the labour movement rebuilding itself after a long period of defeat.
Who could be against "social justice", "cultural innovation" and so on? The question is from what standpoint, with what class perspective, such abstractions are approached. Thus, for instance, the founding statement talks about "investment in good public services", but says nothing about the cuts and privatisation that not only Boris Johnson's administration but the Labour government are liberally doling out; it talks about anti-racism, but will criticise neither the immigration laws nor the racist brutality of London's police (who, remember, Livingstone has sought to defend from Johnson's criticism). It talks about "employment rights", but naturally says nothing about Livingstone's union-busting on London Underground.
The organisation's first "campaign" is against Boris Johnson's above-inflation increases in Tube and bus fares; no mention of the fact that Livingstone did the same thing while he was in office.
Of course, "Progressive London" cannot and has no wish to raise substantive working-class demands, being made up as it is of mildly dissident New Labour loyalists, Lib Dems, right-wing Greens and other community respectables.
Shortly after his defeat in May, Livingstone wrote an article in the Guardian that reveals the underlying character of his new organisation:
Following May 1 some people are posing the choice as between moving "to the left" or "to the right". This is not the right question. Labour must place itself at the centre of a progressive alliance that can solve the problems facing the country.
What are the key elements of this? There are three tasks for a government and a mayor - to ensure the country and London are an economic success; to ensure everyone shares in that success; and to ensure that success is sustainable in the long run through improving the environment.
Labour's campaign in London gained major support from business. The Financial Times concluded that the majority of big business in London supported my re-election. There is no way to check that, but I know from meetings that very large sections of big business supported my campaign.
No surprise, given Livingstone's record, his love in with the City and property developers etc. "Progressive London" is the organisational expression of this "progressive" business-based alliance. Livingstone must be hoping that in a few years enough London capitalists will have tired of Boris Johnson's quirkiness and unpredictability to swing a substantial section of business behind his campaign. He can then return to power on the same basis that he held it from 2000 to 2008: an unabashedly pro-business and anti-working class politician.
All genuine socialists must oppose labour movement involvement in this scheme. Instead we should fight for a labour movement alliance which campaigns to defend and extend the rights of working-class Londoners in the current crisis, and uses the 2012 elections as a platform to rebuild working-class political representation. (For some ideas see the motion calling for independent working-class candidates passed by the RMT's London Transport Region in September 2007 here.)
Ken Livingstone has launched an organisation called "Progressive London", backed by a "broad alliance of individuals, campaigns, communities, artists, trade unions, environmentalists, political parties and groups". It is for "all those who believe in social justice, environmental protection, good community relations, cultural innovation and the many other areas in which London has made a contribution recognised throughout the world."
The CWU, GMB, Unison and Unite - or at least senior figures from these unions - seem to be backing this "campaign", and it is starting to be raised in trade union branches. Socialists should oppose support for it wherever we can (members of Workers' Liberty will certainly be doing so).
In the first instance, this is quite transparently a vehicle for Ken Livingstone to return to City Hall in 2012. In this year's election we called for a second preference vote for Livingstone on the grounds of Labour's residual links to the trade unions; but that is no reason for us to positively support the electoral ambitions of this fake left careerist. Particularly not when his fake left coat of paint is such a pale one, as the politics of "Progressive London" demonstrate.
This is a classic - though rather weedy! - example of what Marxists have called a "popular front": an alliance which ties the labour movement to sections of the ruling class in the name of "progressive", non-working class, ie capitalist goals. By doing so such alliances stifle the development of the class struggle and independent working-class politics. In some cases (eg France in 1936 and '68, Spain in 1936-7) this has meant saving capitalism's skin from the threat of working-class revolution; in Britain today it means a roadblock to the labour movement rebuilding itself after a long period of defeat.
Who could be against "social justice", "cultural innovation" and so on? The question is from what standpoint, with what class perspective, such abstractions are approached. Thus, for instance, the founding statement talks about "investment in good public services", but says nothing about the cuts and privatisation that not only Boris Johnson's administration but the Labour government are liberally doling out; it talks about anti-racism, but will criticise neither the immigration laws nor the racist brutality of London's police (who, remember, Livingstone has sought to defend from Johnson's criticism). It talks about "employment rights", but naturally says nothing about Livingstone's union-busting on London Underground.
The organisation's first "campaign" is against Boris Johnson's above-inflation increases in Tube and bus fares; no mention of the fact that Livingstone did the same thing while he was in office.
Of course, "Progressive London" cannot and has no wish to raise substantive working-class demands, being made up as it is of mildly dissident New Labour loyalists, Lib Dems, right-wing Greens and other community respectables.
Shortly after his defeat in May, Livingstone wrote an article in the Guardian that reveals the underlying character of his new organisation:
Following May 1 some people are posing the choice as between moving "to the left" or "to the right". This is not the right question. Labour must place itself at the centre of a progressive alliance that can solve the problems facing the country.
What are the key elements of this? There are three tasks for a government and a mayor - to ensure the country and London are an economic success; to ensure everyone shares in that success; and to ensure that success is sustainable in the long run through improving the environment.
Labour's campaign in London gained major support from business. The Financial Times concluded that the majority of big business in London supported my re-election. There is no way to check that, but I know from meetings that very large sections of big business supported my campaign.
No surprise, given Livingstone's record, his love in with the City and property developers etc. "Progressive London" is the organisational expression of this "progressive" business-based alliance. Livingstone must be hoping that in a few years enough London capitalists will have tired of Boris Johnson's quirkiness and unpredictability to swing a substantial section of business behind his campaign. He can then return to power on the same basis that he held it from 2000 to 2008: an unabashedly pro-business and anti-working class politician.
All genuine socialists must oppose labour movement involvement in this scheme. Instead we should fight for a labour movement alliance which campaigns to defend and extend the rights of working-class Londoners in the current crisis, and uses the 2012 elections as a platform to rebuild working-class political representation. (For some ideas see the motion calling for independent working-class candidates passed by the RMT's London Transport Region in September 2007 here.)
Thursday, 27 November 2008
National Climate March, Saturday December 6th 2008
March on Parliament to demand that the government acts on climate now !
Part of a Global Day of Action - see www.globalclimatecampaign.org - last year 70+ countries were involved !
The march this year goes to Parliament Square to demand that the government act now on climate. The march will now start at Grosvenor Square (5 mins from Speakers Corner, Hyde Park - Bond Street or Marble Arch tube. Apologies for any confusion over starting point see more here) - assemble 12 noon. Full schedule here
Speakers will include Caroline Lucas (Leader, Green party), Michael Meacher (ex-Environment Minister) and George Monbiot (Honorary President, Campaign against Climate Change).
The march will be preceeded by a climate protest bike ride starting from Lincoln's Inn Fields at 10.30 am: see more here.
There will be a Climate Change Service at Hinde Street church at 11.30 am - worshippers will join the march afterwards. See more here.
There will be an After-Party in the Synergy Centre from 5.00 pm till late.
Part of a Global Day of Action - see www.globalclimatecampaign.org - last year 70+ countries were involved !
The march this year goes to Parliament Square to demand that the government act now on climate. The march will now start at Grosvenor Square (5 mins from Speakers Corner, Hyde Park - Bond Street or Marble Arch tube. Apologies for any confusion over starting point see more here) - assemble 12 noon. Full schedule here
Speakers will include Caroline Lucas (Leader, Green party), Michael Meacher (ex-Environment Minister) and George Monbiot (Honorary President, Campaign against Climate Change).
The march will be preceeded by a climate protest bike ride starting from Lincoln's Inn Fields at 10.30 am: see more here.
There will be a Climate Change Service at Hinde Street church at 11.30 am - worshippers will join the march afterwards. See more here.
There will be an After-Party in the Synergy Centre from 5.00 pm till late.
Are we really fighting in UNISON?
By James Caspell, Lambeth UNISON
Earlier this year, local government workers in UNISON voted for sustained industrial action in support of their claim to "catch up and match up" their salaries with the level of inflation over the last two years, and reject yet another pay cut being imposed by a Labour Government.
Despite this, after just two days of strike action, UNISON’s national bureaucracy decided to suspend all further threats of industrial action, without consultation, before even entering formal negotiations with the employer, therefore undermining the only tactic we had strong enough to win our demands – the collective withdrawal of our labour power.
Since then negotiations have ensued behind closed doors with little obvious progress. Inflation has continually risen, reaching 5.2% last month using the Governments own measure, whilst Labour continues to expect local government workers to accept a 2.75 % pay cut in real terms. The logical step for UNISON would have been be to actually demand more than the original 6% claim, and continue to seek inflation proofing for the two year period, backed up with hard-hitting and sustained industrial action as demanded by the membership, yet instead we have seen total capitulation from our national leadership – and not for the first time.
The national bureaucracy cited low turnout as a reason for suspending the campaign for industrial action and it is true that the union was not as solid as it could have been had the workforce been more confident.
Yet many grassroots activists report that the reason for widespread apathy within trade unions is that members know that whatever they "threaten" with regards to collective action, it will be compromised by weak "leadership" and selling out at the earliest possible opportunity. Such compromises are subsequently sold to the membership as a “victory” when they are nothing of the sort.
It is indeed a vicious circle in terms of rebuilding strong fighting unions, but one which can only be broken by rebuilding the trade union movement from the bottom up.
The real solution is to wrestle power and focus away from the unelected bureaucrats and put it back in the hands of rank-and-file workers. The only way of doing that is to organise and empower workers at a shop level upwards, encompassing the "bread and butter" issues which affect them; fighting local injustice and broadening the scope out to wider issues on the back of real successes, rather than empty promises.
Unions need to spell a vision not simply of "nationalising" organisations and bringing them into “public ownership”, but exemplifying what workers-control and co-operation looks like. This requires not only widespread local activism, but political education and encouraging the energy and enthusiasm of workers to participate, instead of pacifying them and seeking to win demands without workers taking part. It is the task of socialists to organise, educate and agitate the working class, not get elected and try and change the system from within devoid of tangible real mass activism.
Why are we calling for hollow demands of "nationalisation" and "public ownership" without any explanation of what that would entail in a way that would benefit the working class? As a result of the credit crunch, the ideology of capitalism has taken a blow which needs to be exploited by painting a picture of what a socialist alternative looks like. The fact that evictions have increased since the “nationalisation” of Northern Rock exemplifies how vacuous it is to repeat the same tired transitional demands at a point when even the three bourgeois parties accept he need for state intervention in the banking sector.
Similarly "planning" should not be centralised by default, but by exception. The only way plans based on socialism and co-operation will be receptive to the needs of people and their communities is if they are the driving force behind them and have control over them collectively, not a centralised bureaucracy, whether it be under a capitalist or "workers" government. The same applies to trade unions.
However, there are as many political and legislative obstacles within our unions, especially at branch level, as there are imposed by central government. Last year UNISON’s bureaucracy launched a disciplinary investigation into five union officers for printing and publishing a leaflet attacking the leadership for blocking the union conference's right to debate issues such as the funding of the Labour Party, the election of fulltime officials and control over strike action. A third of all motions were ruled out of order last year and nearly half of all motions have been ruled out for this year's conference, seemingly for political reasons. Who needs bosses with union bureaucrats like these?
There is a need to reclaim the union, but this cannot be done through regional and national elections alone. UNISON United Left are perhaps admirable in seeking to achieve electoral gains from above, but any effort to win the union at the top will remain vacuous whilst the membership remains almost entirely disengaged at a grassroots level.
Institutionally, the bureaucracy is a cancer of the workers movement rife with material and political privilege for those at the top, and must eventually be swept aside. Through the process of building a rank-and-file union movement is the need to encourage, even demand, that members take ownership over the decision making process and participate in the running of their union in their shops and branches.
There is a lot of room for manoeuvre in the strength of collective action to initiate socialist ideas within the trade union movement, but it requires a fundamental change of approach. Activists need to rid themselves of the default mindset of "what can we do for our members" to encouraging and facilitating workers to take action for themselves and demonstrate what can be achieved through collective action. Representation and workers participation and control are not mutually exclusive, but the former is entirely meaningless, from a socialist perspective, without the latter.
Ultimately for trade unions to be at the forefront of a socialist transformation of society, it will be necessary to break the law. However, in the interim, activists can work to energise workers at a local level and demonstrate that collective action can achieve outcomes from which everyone benefits. For trade unions to pose a socialist, revolutionary alternative, it is essential for activists to organise, educate and agitate alongside and amongst workers, not in place of them.
Earlier this year, local government workers in UNISON voted for sustained industrial action in support of their claim to "catch up and match up" their salaries with the level of inflation over the last two years, and reject yet another pay cut being imposed by a Labour Government.
Despite this, after just two days of strike action, UNISON’s national bureaucracy decided to suspend all further threats of industrial action, without consultation, before even entering formal negotiations with the employer, therefore undermining the only tactic we had strong enough to win our demands – the collective withdrawal of our labour power.
Since then negotiations have ensued behind closed doors with little obvious progress. Inflation has continually risen, reaching 5.2% last month using the Governments own measure, whilst Labour continues to expect local government workers to accept a 2.75 % pay cut in real terms. The logical step for UNISON would have been be to actually demand more than the original 6% claim, and continue to seek inflation proofing for the two year period, backed up with hard-hitting and sustained industrial action as demanded by the membership, yet instead we have seen total capitulation from our national leadership – and not for the first time.
The national bureaucracy cited low turnout as a reason for suspending the campaign for industrial action and it is true that the union was not as solid as it could have been had the workforce been more confident.
Yet many grassroots activists report that the reason for widespread apathy within trade unions is that members know that whatever they "threaten" with regards to collective action, it will be compromised by weak "leadership" and selling out at the earliest possible opportunity. Such compromises are subsequently sold to the membership as a “victory” when they are nothing of the sort.
It is indeed a vicious circle in terms of rebuilding strong fighting unions, but one which can only be broken by rebuilding the trade union movement from the bottom up.
The real solution is to wrestle power and focus away from the unelected bureaucrats and put it back in the hands of rank-and-file workers. The only way of doing that is to organise and empower workers at a shop level upwards, encompassing the "bread and butter" issues which affect them; fighting local injustice and broadening the scope out to wider issues on the back of real successes, rather than empty promises.
Unions need to spell a vision not simply of "nationalising" organisations and bringing them into “public ownership”, but exemplifying what workers-control and co-operation looks like. This requires not only widespread local activism, but political education and encouraging the energy and enthusiasm of workers to participate, instead of pacifying them and seeking to win demands without workers taking part. It is the task of socialists to organise, educate and agitate the working class, not get elected and try and change the system from within devoid of tangible real mass activism.
Why are we calling for hollow demands of "nationalisation" and "public ownership" without any explanation of what that would entail in a way that would benefit the working class? As a result of the credit crunch, the ideology of capitalism has taken a blow which needs to be exploited by painting a picture of what a socialist alternative looks like. The fact that evictions have increased since the “nationalisation” of Northern Rock exemplifies how vacuous it is to repeat the same tired transitional demands at a point when even the three bourgeois parties accept he need for state intervention in the banking sector.
Similarly "planning" should not be centralised by default, but by exception. The only way plans based on socialism and co-operation will be receptive to the needs of people and their communities is if they are the driving force behind them and have control over them collectively, not a centralised bureaucracy, whether it be under a capitalist or "workers" government. The same applies to trade unions.
However, there are as many political and legislative obstacles within our unions, especially at branch level, as there are imposed by central government. Last year UNISON’s bureaucracy launched a disciplinary investigation into five union officers for printing and publishing a leaflet attacking the leadership for blocking the union conference's right to debate issues such as the funding of the Labour Party, the election of fulltime officials and control over strike action. A third of all motions were ruled out of order last year and nearly half of all motions have been ruled out for this year's conference, seemingly for political reasons. Who needs bosses with union bureaucrats like these?
There is a need to reclaim the union, but this cannot be done through regional and national elections alone. UNISON United Left are perhaps admirable in seeking to achieve electoral gains from above, but any effort to win the union at the top will remain vacuous whilst the membership remains almost entirely disengaged at a grassroots level.
Institutionally, the bureaucracy is a cancer of the workers movement rife with material and political privilege for those at the top, and must eventually be swept aside. Through the process of building a rank-and-file union movement is the need to encourage, even demand, that members take ownership over the decision making process and participate in the running of their union in their shops and branches.
There is a lot of room for manoeuvre in the strength of collective action to initiate socialist ideas within the trade union movement, but it requires a fundamental change of approach. Activists need to rid themselves of the default mindset of "what can we do for our members" to encouraging and facilitating workers to take action for themselves and demonstrate what can be achieved through collective action. Representation and workers participation and control are not mutually exclusive, but the former is entirely meaningless, from a socialist perspective, without the latter.
Ultimately for trade unions to be at the forefront of a socialist transformation of society, it will be necessary to break the law. However, in the interim, activists can work to energise workers at a local level and demonstrate that collective action can achieve outcomes from which everyone benefits. For trade unions to pose a socialist, revolutionary alternative, it is essential for activists to organise, educate and agitate alongside and amongst workers, not in place of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
