Talking to Tony Benn

Tony Benn was out there at the head of the TUC march last weekend arguing for an alternative to the cuts. In many ways the theme of the march provided a good subtitle for Mr Benn’s life, staying strong to his principles, arguing for a fairer and more just way of organising society. “Every generation has to fight the same battles, again and again,” says Mr Benn who still speaks three or four times a week at meetings around the country. At 86, it is not unreasonable to say that the former Labour cabinet minister has seen it all before. As such he remains dubious about the so called allies’ intervention in Libya. “The West has decided to intervene supposedly to stop civilians from dying. Yet in Bahrain they have sent troops into crush the revolt and Yemen is also using force against demonstrators,” said Mr Benn. “It is not logical and it means in effect we have gone to war with Libya. Not that this is anything new, Britain used to run Libya.” As a former energy minister in the Labour Government, Mr Benn has always been concerned about nuclear power. He does not believe the industry is trustworthy and will repeatedly lie to protect its own interests. He recalls when in office not being told that plutonium was being exported from British power stations to the US to be used in nuclear weapons. “We were effectively running bomb factories for the Pentagon,” recalled Mr Benn, who believes the destabilisation of the Japanese power station Fukishima provides a timely reminder of the danger of nuclear power production. “The earthquake provided a reminder that nature is our master. I hope and believe it will make people ask questions about the nuclear industry. It is dangerous and when I was in charge of it I realised I could never believe a word those running the industry said,” said Mr Benn. What the industry is good at is reinventing itself. Most recently this has seen the nuclear industry gaining a rebirth as a means to cut carbon emissions in the fight against global warming. Mr Benn points out that this has happened before, some 10 years after the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “Then it was sold as cheap, safe and for peace. But this was false; it is not cheap once the cost of clear up is taken into account. It is not safe as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and now Fukishima show and it does not promote peace,” said Mr Benn, who does not believe the public are being told the truth about the nuclear damage being done in Japan now. The former energy minister hopes that the tragedy in Japan will cut short any plans in Britain to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. Mr Benn believes that David Cameron is a straightforward neo-liberal Thatcherite. “The attack on the NHS is something Mrs Thatcher would not have dreamed of,” said Mr Benn, who can never recall a time of such public anger. The fact that the mass of people are now being made to pay for the irresponsibility of the banks is fuelling much of that anger. He is though optimistic about the prospects of the Labour Party under Ed Miliband, which he sees getting more back to its fundamentals after the New Labour neo-liberal experiment foundered. He believes that Mr Miliband will be more respectful of the trade unions and the people who they represent remembering that it was the unions which put him in place. “It is going to be the popular movement that shapes how the Labour Party reacts,” said Mr Benn, who remains loyal to his democratic socialist principles. He quotes the creation of the National Health Service as one of the most socialist things ever done by a Labour Government. “The NHS remains the most popular institution. People won’t accept a world dominated by wealth and money, a world where the rich benefit at the expense of everyone else,” said Mr Benn. “Socialism is about democracy, people taking control.” Mr Benn still believes in the programme of industrial democracy that he put forward in the early 1970s, which would have seen 25 areas taken into state ownership remains a useful blueprint for today. Today, these would include banking, health, education, energy resources and railways. “The government plays a very important role in shaping the economic policy. It has to do more than manage how capitalism runs,” said Mr Benn. The state of the traditional media is not something that inspires hope in Mr Benn, though he does take heart from the different sources of information now made available through the internet. This has helped inspire some of the popular revolts in the Middle East and North Africa. In Britain, Rupert Murdoch’s interests dominate broadcast and print media. Meanwhile, the BBC represents the British establishment. “There is no trade union news, it is all about the financial markets, it is a view from a rich man’s world,” said Mr Benn. “The BBC refuses to mention the Morning Star which carries trade union and international news.” He is though keen that the BBC is not sold off to Mr Murdoch. The arrival of Wikileaks on the scene has also helped to set many people free. “Wikileaks is important because information is a source of power. In the old days governments wanted to know everything about everyone with no one knowing what they did. Wikileaks has changed all of that, bringing a transformation of power to the people,” said Mr Benn, who believes Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and US military source Bradley Manning are important figures in helping to liberate us. It has been a long held theory of Mr Benn that there are real radical reforms every 40 years. The last big change came in 1980 when Thatcher came to power bringing the neo-liberal capitalist model. Previously there was the Labour Government of 1945 and the reforms of the Liberal Government of 1906 and formation of the Labour Party. So there should be major change coming over the next few years, whether it will be caused by economic meltdown, global warming or a combination of the two no one knows. What Mr Benn though is sure of is that if the change is to be for the betterment of humanity it is likely to come from the struggle of the mass of people for justice and democracy. Who knows, maybe the changes have already started with the popular revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, where next London?

FIS urge Irish to register on census

The Federation of Irish Societies (FIS)is keen that Catholic churches play a major role in its campaign to get Irish people resident in Britain to register on the census.
The census which takes place on 27 March could be the last such count as the government has suggested it may do away with the process.
At the time of the last census in 2001 there was a major undercounting with just 670,000 people registering as Irish. It is believed that the Irish community amounts to well over 2 million in Britain.
The campaign organisers suggest that if the number counted in any one given area last time is multiplied by 2.5 that would give a more accurate representation.
FIS chief executive Jenny McShannon pointed out that public bodies like the local and health authorities make decisions on community needs based on what comes out of the census. A failure to accurately represent the number of Irish people can have serious detrimental effects on later resourcing decisions. “For example there are higher incidences of cancer among Irish people, a higher mortality rate generally and a genetic disease that can hit one in five of the Irish population – these are things the authorities need to know,” said Ms McShannon.
The genetic disorder is the liver disease known as haemochromatosis which involves an iron overload in the system. If left undiagnosed it can lead to diabetes and heart problems. Ms McShannon points out that what can happen is an Irish man comes into a hospital drunk suffering with haemochromatosis but the staff put it down to the alcohol and miss the underlying condition altogether. A better understanding of the Irish community would stop this type of problem occurring.
A combination of reasons are thought likely to have contributed to the failure of the Irish to register in the census last time. These include a misunderstanding between nationality (national identity) and ethnicity, confusion over the eligibility of recording other household members as having Irish ethnicity and people not reading the question properly.
Significantly while 90 per cent of first generation Irish people registered on the census in 2001, just nine per cent of second generation registered.
One second generation Irish man backing the campaign is TV presenter Terry Christian who explained that last time he did not realise he could register as Irish. “This time I will be ticking the box, as will all of the rest of my family,” said Mr Christian.
Among high profile Catholics backing the campaign are chairman of Sunderland FC Niall Quinn and former Northern Ireland Secretary Paul Murphy, MP. Other high profile supporters include Wolves football manager Mick McCarthy, footballer Kevin Kilbane, Sir Terry Wogan and Big Issue founder John Bird.
The FIS are hoping to reach the second generation Irish group through the Catholic Church and a number of public meetings around the country. After a House of Commons launch in January, there have been meetings in Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham and at the Welsh Assembly.
Former Labour Mp Kevin McNamara was part of the original campaign to get Irish as a separate ethnic group on the census. “It is important for the Irish to stand up and be counted, particularly at this time with the government saying this might be the last census,” said Mr McNamara, who is keen that the Catholic churches play an active role in pushing out the message to register for the census. “It would be great if the churches could have the leaflet in the porches.”
Mr McNamara, who spoke at the Liverpool meeting, believes there is a real danger that integration can lead to sameness. “Multiculturalism is not about separation but celebrating diversity. It is important for people to say where they come from otherwise they won’t know where they are going to,” said Mr McNamara.

Is Red Nose Day just about cheap publicity for desperate celebrities?

The population has over recent weeks had to endure the irritating build up to Comic Relief’s Red Nose Day.
The event offers an opportunity for comedians and entertainers to do something to help the poor of the world – both at home and abroad. The event has been supported by the public in their millions, since its inception in 1988.
Red Nose Day sits together with Sport Aid, Children in Need and other great charitable fests organised to help the less well off.
Charitable activities to help the poor are ofcourse most laudable and to be encouraged.
One of the problems though with events like Red Nose Day is the crass celebrity led nature of the process.
One programme in the lead up to Red Nose Day was titled Famous, Rich and in the Slums featuring comedic actor Lenny Henry , Eastenders actress Samantha Womack and former newsreader Angela Rippon visiting poor people in the slums of Africa. Can it get much more patronising?
The celebrities are lauded for giving their time and taking the trouble to find out what is going on. Another side is that this is easy cheap positive publicity for the celebrity class. It is a sad society that can only understand poverty and suffering viewed through the lens of their own priveliged rich celebrities.
These fundraising fests in the main simply reinforce the stereotypes about poverty in the world. The subjects are victims to be showered with pity. They pull on the heart strings, people react and give generously. They do not address the real causes of poverty and what can be done to eliminate it.
In this country, what of the structures that mean one in five live under the poverty line? The fact that 9,000 elderly people died over the past year due to the cold. And that it is the poor and vulnerable who are being hit by the austerity budget to cut the deficit. These questions do not arise as part of Red Nose Day.
These TV celebrity led charitable affairs in the main simply reinforce unhelpful stereotypes about the poor.
The people who contribute are made to believe they are really making a difference, while reinforcing their generally negative views about the helplessness of the poor.
They give no dignity to the victims, simply providing them with a bit part in a warped soap opera of suffering.
The all important element missing is justice. If justice were part of these events, then the links that keep so much of the world - at home and abroad - poor would become apparent.
The fact that many in this country could not enjoy the lifestyles that they do, were it not for the suffering of others, needs to be pointed out. The economic system that dominates throughout the world demands that so many people remain poor.
If some of these points were made and a vision for real change offered then there would be a point to these fundraising affairs.
At present they are at best band aids for suffering, at worst a means to massage celebrity egos and reinforce unhelpful stereotypes of the poor.
If the celebrity class want to do something useful then they should learn about the causes of poverty at home and abroad. Then they could use their positions to inform about these matters. It would be interesting to see because no doubt were they to move out of the passive self publicising charitable role then they would soon find demand for such appearances would drop off. Imagine, the arguments about too little tax being imposed on the rich in this country (a subject close to home for many celebrities) or the need to curb arms exports to Africa.
These various fundraising events have gone on for decades now but how much difference have they made? The world is more unequal than ever. No doubt there have been important changes made at individual level by much of the work done by these events but do they not just obfuscate the whole injustice of the bigger picture.
Giving to charity is a very simple way to feel good and salve consciences. Questioning why the world is set up in such an unjust way is a much more difficult challenge to undertake. This requires that justice be put to the forefront and that charity does not replace it.

Faith and unions must unite against cuts

The Trade Union Congress is organising a march against the Coalition Government’s cuts agenda on 26 March.
The TUC have called on faith communities to join the March for the Alternative and be part of that movement but how do they intend to engage with those people in order to get them onto the streets.
So far the approach seems to be one of follow us. This is an approach last deployed by the Stop the War Coalition at the time of the protests against the Iraq war.
On that occasion, there was a genuine opportunity to form a mass movement to not only stop the war but to become something else that would unite all of those groups which have become so disenfranchised over the years. Stop the War failed in this respect but could have gone so much further than just marching, marching, marching.
The question now is will the TUC and others seeking to create a proper movement against the cuts agenda have learned any lessons? Simply telling the faith communities to follow the unions will not work.
Many in the faith communities are ofcourse members of trade unions. There has though been a parting of the ways on a number of narrow issues.
In any coalition of interests there are going to be differences of opinion but these need to be accommodated in favour of the common good. Catholic Labour MP Jon Cruddas has outlined the need to recreate the broad Church concept of the labour movement bringing together faith groups, trade unions, the charitable sector and Labour Party supporters under the banner of commonality that unites.
For this to happen though there needs to be some genuine outreach on both sides.
The example of the Catholic Church and the unions does not offer much encouragement of any outreach going on from either side.
On the Church side, while the hierarchy seem quite happy to conduct meetings with bankers in the City of London and sign up to the Coalition Government’s Big Society, they do not meet with the representatives of the trade unions
On the union side, a number of leaders who were Catholics positively disavow their faith roots. One leader of a major union was keen that his name did not appear in a list of the top 100 Catholics in a Catholic magazine. Others simply don’t seem to want to speak to the Catholic audience. There are exceptions. The general secretary of the Communication Workers Union Billy Hayes has spoken out about his Catholic roots and how they led him to trade unionism.
The reservations of both faith and union leaders are understandable but they need to be overcome and a dialogue established. Most faiths do not believe in a society where a small number of people keep all the wealth for themselves – it runs contrary to the common good.
In the Catholic case, how can the Church be making a preferential option for the poor if it will not speak to those bodies that play an active part in ensuring a more equitable division of resources in that society?
The unions too need to drop their hostility to faith. Many trade union leaders developed the very values that led them into union work from their faith formation. It is particularly surprising the number of union leaders who are Catholics.
It is no good for those who are committed to change and want to build broad coalitions for the purpose to shut themselves off in isolated silos. This is what is happening at the moment in the case of the leaderships of the trade unions and faith communities.
There are though some encouraging signs. The National Justice and Peace Network has embraced the TUC’s campaign and encouraged its members to come out and join the march on 26 March. The annual conference in July is about Justice at Work, bringing together Frances O’Grady, deputy general secretary of the TUC, Jon Cruddas, John Battle and the Movement of Christian Workers.
Community organisers London Citizens have been the most successful body in bringing together faith, unions and educational bodies to work for social change. Their work is the best sign of the broad movement being recreated.
So there are some encouraging developments but much more needs to happen if faith groups and the labour movement are to truly mould into a much larger body for real change based on justice. The barriers need to be broken down, with the common good becoming the aim that can unite all.

Stability in the Middle East demands more than cheap oil for the West

The various popular uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa have been a cause of real hope for change in the region.
The protests began in Tunisia and spread like wildfire, with the biggest scalp claimed thus far being that of Egyptian Hosni Mubarak. At time of writing popular revolt has begun in Libya, with things unclear as to what will happen in that country and others beyond, such as Saudi Arabia.
The popular revolts are to be welcomed in countries where the mass of people just struggle to survive while a small number enjoy opulent wealth.
The rheoric of Britain and America has been all about the need for law and order, stability and democracy in that order,. There has been support for the protesters in a real politic sense, namely it would be silly to get the wrong side of people who could be about to take over the government of these countries in a very short space of time. Concerns though have been expressed regarding the overall question of stability in the Middle East.
Stability in this context is an interesting concept, because when decoded what it really means is that the arrangements to get cheap oil out of the region be maintained. Oil is the essential concern of the developed world when it comes to matters in the Middle East. The duplicitous role of Britain and America in calling for democracy in these situation, given their joint histories in supporting and underwriting brutal dictators across the region, should be clear for all to see.
President Mubarak would not have survived as long as he did in Egypt had American aid not been underwriting his tyrannous behaviour. Saddam Hussein was another friend supported by Britain and America with arms and aid in order that he would provide the sort of brutal order required in Iraq to secure oil for the west. America and Britain had heavily supported the Shah in Iran before his fall in 1979, giving way to the islamic fundamentalist regime of the ayatollahs. The likelihood of an Iranian style scenario is now one that clearly worries the developed world countries.
The pattern of powerful developed world countries supporting tyrants who keep their people down and deliver for First World corporations is a well trod path. On those few occasions when an alternative system that promised a more equal distribution of wealth, education and health care for the masses does surface, America in particular has often reacted with great brutality to stamp it out. Cuba, and Nicaragua in the 1980s, provide good examples of this policy in action.
It should though be added that developments over recent years in Venezuela, Boilivia and a number of other Latin American countries in establishing independence and sovereignty over their own raw materials has proved a cause for hope. New models of development delivering for the mass of people in those countries appear to be functioning well.
Countries like Britain and America profit hugely not just from the cheap oil received but from the whole paraphanalia of repression put in place to maintain this status quo. Both countries are major players in the arms industry, selling into conflict situations and making huge profits as a result.
These corrupt and unjust arrangements should cause real concern because our governments are effectively doing these things in order that we can have cheap oil. There are many direct links between the poverty suffered by two thirds of the world and the relative prosperity of those in the other rich third.
The popular uprisings must be supported, with the people allowed to elect their own leaders who will deliver for the people.

Second class treatment for the elderly has to stop

The report of the health service ombudsman showing that elderly people are being mistreated in hospital recently hit the headlines.
One patient who was transferred by ambulance to a care home arrived bruised, soaked in urine, dishevelled and wearing someone else's clothes. In another case, a man's life support system was switched off despite a request from his family to delay doing so for a short time.
Other cases told of a person denied a bath or shower for a number of weeks and another not given water.
While the report is shocking it should not come as any surprise. For a number of years now elderly people have complained about the second class treatment they routinely receive from the NHS.
A growing concern is just how frightened many elderly people are about going into hospital, not due to any illness but for fear of not coming out. The simple failure to feed and water people when in hospital can cause real problems, especially when ill.
There are already increasing reports of what could be called an informal policy of euthanasia operating across the land. This does not involve any direct intervention to kill people off but amounts to simple neglect to intervene and provide the support needed.
My own experiences with elderly parents have taught that whether dealing with health, social services or the care home sector there is need for a strong advocate looking out for the interests of loved ones. There is no doubt that elderly people who are regularly visited in hospital or care home, with a relative or friend looking out for their interests is less likely to be abused. Indeed, given the content of the ombudsman’s report one has to fear for the elderly person alone without support.
So why have things come to this sorry state? One problem put forward by some health professionals is the targets and box ticking mentality that has developed over recent years. The nurses are drawn between providing the care required and the need to reach targets. Maybe our hospitals have changed from centres of care to conveyor belts of process? There is no doubt a pressure to clear beds quickly.
The danger in the present climate is that any criticism of the sort to be found in the Ombudsman’s report will be seized upon by those in government as an excuse to privatise the NHS. However, the politicians really need to look a bit closer to home.
Many of the problems of the NHS and other public services emanate from the politicians. They do not seem to understand the processes of how things work. The constant setting of targets is something taken from the business world, yet successive governments have attempted to apply it across the public services from cutting cancer waiting lists to exam tables in schools.
The populist call is for more nurses and doctors, get rid of the managers and bureaucracy. The reality is that there needs to be logistical support to keep frontline staff in place and functioning.
What all of this indicates is a political class detached from reality in many cases and taking the populist drivel of the tabloid media as a basis for creating policy.
If a politician has come down the now well trodden path of researcher, political advisor, MP and then minister, what experience do they have of running anything?
This inexperience in how things work has caused many of the problems of our public services today.
The reality is that there are no doubt too many managers and bureaucrats in some services. There could be change and reform but dare anyone think the unthinkable that actually some things might have worked better the way they were before all the interference began.
The education and health system of the past may have needed changes but it did not need to be butchered by ideologically driven market obsessed governments.
The report of the health ombudsman should give serious pause for thought. There no doubt needs to be change but prior to action being taken the question needs to be asked as to how we reached this sorry state in the first place.
What has happened to so empty the NHS of the caring, dedicated culture that has been its hallmark since inception? How do we get it back? Perhaps it is time to take rather more notice of those working in our public services, rather than continually devalue them by seeking to measure and cost everything they do. Certainly the ombudsman’s report is a sad reflection on a service that has lost its way.

Time to resist onslaught on worker's rights

The latest attempt by the Coalition Government to get everyone else to pay for the deficit caused by the bankers seems to be manifesting itself in an attack on the working conditions of ordinary working people.It would seem, the cutting of the jobs, wages and pensions of those working in the public sector, is but the start. Other moves intended to make life easier for capital include changing rules for employment tribunals so that employees have to have been employed for two years not the present one before they have right of recourse. They will also have to come up with a fee. This is intended to dissuade people from going to tribunal, the potential wrong doing of an employer is apparently to be protected because it will make him or her more profitable.Then there is talk of cutting health and safety laws. Whilst the tabloid press regularly drag out the most ludicrous example of health and safety practices that it can find in order to attack the whole concept of safety at work, there are people dying due to employer negligence. An average of 220 people have died each year at work for the past five years. This figure though was down to 152 for 2009/10 no doubt due to a stronger safety culture. The industries with the worst records are construction (42 in 2009/10), services (41) and agriculture (38). Health and Safety laws are there to protect people's lives in many cases, not some fluffy soft option to make employers lives more difficult.The idea of relaxing these rules is negligent in the extreme. Indeed the whole attitude of the Coalition Government to regulation is reckless. This was recently epitomised by Environment minister Chris Huhne declaring that no new regulations will be brought in without an old regulation going out. How ludicrous? Regulation ofcourse is something else that makes life more difficult for capital. Again, regulations come in for a reason, namely because there has been some abuse going on. And if anyone needs an example of what happens when an industry is not regulated properly, look no further than banking. It was so called ‘light touch’ regulation that enabled the banking crisis to happen.Then there is talk of strengthening laws to make taking strike action more difficult, a flashback here to the early Thatcherite days of the 1980s when the law was used as a means to outlaw much industrial action.In Ireland, they have cut the level of the minimum wage to help business become more competitive. Surely it can only be a matter of time before such a move comes to this country.
A major change in favour of employers has been the switching in April of the indexation of increases in benefits, tax credits and public service pensions from the Retail Price Index (RPI) to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI will always be lower as it does not include elements like morgage interest payments and council tax. This will cost workers dearly while presenting billions in savings for companies. This will be especially true in the area of pensions.
What all of these moves betray is the latest restructuring of the capitalist system in favour of the employer and against the worker. In specific terms it proves that despite the banking crisis the fundamentalist neo-liberal market system continues to dominate.
The banking crisis may have brought the whole system to the brink of collapse in the autumn of 2008 but never mind that is all a long time ago now. The taxpayer has bailed out the banks, the bankers continue drawing huge bonuses whilst everyone else pays for the consequences. Basically the wheels have been put back on the busted neo-liberal market wagon, so that it can trundle on to the next great crisis destroying more lives along the way. Given that governments still seem unaware of just how much debt the banks are still hiding and that many of these debts appear larger than the countries where they reside, the next crisis maybe a lot closer than many realise.
It is time for working people to say enough is enough and demand justice in the workplace. The TUC is organising opposition with the big march in London on 26 March. Other community groups have raised some protest but with this onslaught on the lives of working people continuing unabated by this government needs to be resisted. It is time those who caused the crisis started paying a lot more of the cost for its resolution. If we are all in this together, then surely capital has to take accepting some of the pain, instead of offsetting it against those who create the wealth. The common good demands no less.