Workers' Weekly V.28 No.2

TONY BLAIR began his national tour to "sell" his plan for "welfare reform" on Thursday, January 15. His first stop was Dudley in the West Midlands.

What is the aim of this national tour and what is the aim of the plan for "welfare reform"? The aim of the tour is to convince the electorate that the unthinkable should be thought. Objectively speaking, it is to attempt to pre-empt a tide of opposition to the attacks on the vulnerable as well as on the middle strata and to carry forward the Thatcherite plan of dismantling the welfare state and carry forward serving the rich in the conditions of the crisis of capitalism in this period.

The aim of Tony Blair's "welfare reform" is encapsulated in a passage in an article specially written for The Times as a broadside to launch the national tour. He writes: "First, those in genuine need will always be helped and supported by a Labour government… Second, anyone of working age who can work should work… Third, we believe in the responsibility of individuals to help provide for themselves where they can do so." First, who is to define who is in genuine need? This is a declaration that claims of people on society will not be met as of right. Second, where is work to be found for all those who can work? This is a declaration that the unemployed are to be made scapegoats and to drive down the overall level of wages and increase the amount of exploitation of those at work. Third, the Thatcherite nature of the reforms is laid bare. Thatcher declared that "there is no such thing as society, only individuals and family values". In putting forward that it is the responsibility of individuals to fend for themselves, Tony Blair shows that he is the eager servant of the rich in their drive to move society backwards towards medievalism and withdrawing the very notion of a society responsible for the well-being of its members. This is a notion the 20th century has objectively brought forth as the process of production is socialised to the maximum. However, the fruits of this socialised production are still pocketed and controlled by the few, the rich. On their behalf, Blair is setting out to "modernise" the welfare state, which means the very opposite.

The consensus Blair is hoping for will not come about. It cannot come about when society does not set its political aim of serving the well-being of the people and using the resources of the country for its general interest. When Tony Blair puts forward that his objectives are for the benefit of Britain, he is saying the welfare system should be "reformed" – so that public funds can be used for the benefit of the rich in the global market.

Return to Article Index

Editorial

Reaffirming the Party's Programme

WHAT THE PARTY and all its organisations have put on the agenda for 1998 is the question of restarting the work in earnest. This is objectively what is needed at this time, in the context of the plan that the Party has unfolded since January 1994 initiated at the Coventry International Seminar, and as the 21st century approaches. This is objectively what is needed to solve the problems the Party now faces and to meet the needs of the times in the workers' and people's movement.

This was the theme of the discussion on reaffirming the Party's programme at a recent meeting of the Central Committee of RCPB(ML).

It is not that the Party is setting a new programme for 1998, neither is there any question that there has been any deviation from the Party's line of march in 1997. What is the case is that at this stage of the Party's work there are possibilities to make advances precisely along the line of march that the Party has set, particularly with its core programme to Improve the Content, Extend the Readership of Workers' Weekly. But what is crucial at this stage is that these advances need to be worked for. They will not happen simply because the possibilities are there. However, there is a key to this work, and this key is not just that the Party members and activists work hard, but that they work on the basis of the strength of the collective. This is not only the lesson to be drawn from the Party's entire experience, but it presents itself as a crucial necessity that has to be taken up. In the course of implementing the Party's programme, the basic organisations have to pay constant attention to strengthening their collective work, and the Central Committee is also paying attention to strengthening itself on the basis of collective work and individual responsibility, in the course of leading the Party's entire work. In this way, the Party will strengthen itself on the basis of democratic centralism, and all the problems it faces will be solved on a collective basis by the comrades in the respective collectives under the leadership of the Central Committee and strengthening all the organisations of the Party. This presents a majestic perspective for the advance of the Party's work.

The whole work which is encapsulated in the slogan Improve the Content, Extend the Readership has to be taken up as collective work. This includes strengthening the editorial policy of Workers' Weekly, developing its journalism, the strengthening of the technical base and ensuring that the work which has been started on this front is carried through to its conclusion, the work to extend the readership of the newspaper, and the work to build and give consideration to building organisations amongst the working class. Without the Party membership themselves taking up these questions for solution it is idle simply to talk about them. When the problems are taken up for solution in this way, Workers' Weekly becomes in reality the scaffolding around which the Party is built and further strengthened and the Party will advance along its line of march in carrying out its present task of Improve the Content, Extending the Readership of the newspaper.

In that context, the Party can reaffirm its own history, implement all the programmes the Party has set for itself and the working class, and re-establish the work in earnest on the basis of the work of the collectives and the leadership of the Central Committee.

Return to Article Index

Northern Ireland Peace Talks:

Basis for Discussion Can Only Be Sovereignty and Right of National Self-Determination

ON JANUARY 12, the British and Irish governments issued a joint document entitled "Propositions on Heads of Agreement" to be presented to the multi-party talks taking place in Belfast, which they said was to provide a basis for discussion. Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam described it as a "breakthrough" which both governments hoped would enable progress. The hurried presentation of this document with its target of agreement by May follows months of organised mayhem on the streets of the north of Ireland and a spate of killings which bear all the hallmarks of the work of the secret agencies of the British state, whether carried out in "Loyalist" or other garb. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that a climate of anxiety and tension has been deliberately created in which a new arrangement can be railroaded through which is favourable to the interests of English and other capital whatever further disasters ensue for the people.

The proposals put forward as the basis of discussion – what the two governments say is a "best guess at what could be a generally acceptable outcome" – include the setting up of a devolved Northern Ireland Assembly elected by proportional representation; a so-called "Council of the Isles" involving the two governments, the Northern Ireland administration and the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales; a North-South Ministerial Council involving the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish government; and British-Irish intergovernmental machinery; as well as a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The proposals also include constitutional changes concerning Ireland's claim to its north-eastern territory and Britain's readiness to cede its rule over this territory with "majority consent".

But how can these proposals be the basis for discussion? How can the starting point be a proposal for a Northern Ireland Assembly which assumes the continuing partition of Ireland, something which for 75 years has brought nothing but division, injustice and bloodshed? How can the starting point be a proposal for a "Council of the Isles" which assumes the continued rule of part of Ireland by Britain, not to speak of the participation of three institutions – Scottish, Welsh and northern Irish – all subservient to the Westminster parliament? How can the starting point be proposals for constitutional change which also tacitly accept British sovereignty over the same part of Ireland?

In the Downing Street Declaration of December 1993 John Major's government acknowledged for the first time the "right of self-determination of the people of the island of Ireland". These words were never followed by deeds. Now Tony Blair's government seems to have forgotten them altogether. The Framework Document of 1995 setting up the multi-party talks stated that there would be no matters excluded and no pre-conceived conclusions. This too seems to be forgotten.

The working class and progressive people in Britain cannot accept that such proposals can be the basis of discussion for a settlement in the north of Ireland, or that a new arrangement can be pushed through in the way it is. Such a new arrangement as proposed does not address the root of the problem and will bring only continued disaster for the people both of Ireland and of Britain.

The basis of discussion can only be the sovereignty of the Irish people in their own territory and the right of self-determination of the Irish people as a whole. Such sovereignty and right will only be frustrated, to say the least, by continued British annexation of part of their territory and interference in their affairs. The demand of the working class must be that the number one item must be immediate steps towards British withdrawal and an end to British interference in the affairs of the Irish people. This would be the road to peace and the best assistance to the Irish people healing the divisions resulting from centuries of foreign rule, reuniting their country and enabling good neighbourly relations to be developed between Britain and Ireland on a free and equal basis.

Bloody Sunday Demonstration

SATURDAY JANUARY 24, LONDON

Assemble: Highbury Fields (Highbury & Islington Tube) at 12 noon March leaves at 1 pm for rally at Caxton House, 129 St Johns Way (Archway Tube)

Return to Article Index

Scotland Bill Published

FOLLOWING THE referendum last September in which the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly for a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, the government on December 17 published the Scotland Bill in which it sets out its proposals for the establishment and functioning of such a Parliament. The Bill is now progressing through its various stages at Westminster.

The Bill makes clear that the proposed Scottish Parliament will have powers only over local Scottish affairs of a limited type. Included among what are termed "reserved matters", that is, matters over which the Scottish Parliament will have no authority and over which the Westminster Parliament will have sole power, are the following: (1) constitutional matters, including the Crown and the United Kingdom Parliament; (2) fiscal, economic and monetary policy; (3) home affairs, including national security; (4) trade and industry; (5) energy; (6) transport; (7) social security; (8) the professions; (9) employment; (10) health and medicines; (11) media and culture, including broadcasting. The Bill also makes clear that the Scottish Parliament is not a sovereign body but that sovereignty lies with the Royal Prerogative and the UK Parliament at Westminster. It speaks of the "ultimate superiority of the Crown" over the Scottish Parliament and stipulates that all appointments, etc., are "at Her Majesty's pleasure".

What is apparent is that, when the times cry out for people to be empowered and nations to determine their own futures, when the demand for national self-determination has been growing not only among the Scots but among all nations, and when the Scots people have for some time made a specific demand for their own Parliament which could no longer be ignored, then the type of Scottish Parliament proposed by the Labour government is designed not to satisfy but to divert and block the national aspiration of the Scots to fully exercise their inalienable right of self-determination. By stipulating a parliament subservient to the archaic institution at Westminster where Cabinet rule and the Royal Prerogative deny the people a say in governance and keep power in the hands of the financial oligarchy, by maintaining a Union based on the suppression of national aspirations and the rule of English capital, then sovereignty and empowerment are denied to the Scottish people.

What is also apparent, however, is that this type of Parliament will not satisfy the Scottish people or any other people for that matter, and that they will continue their struggle until their just demands and aspirations are achieved.

Progress will only be made on the basis of independent sovereign states for Scotland, Wales and England too, each with their own Parliaments in which the people themselves hold power, and with a free and equal union between them and an independent sovereign Ireland, if so desired by each. This must be the demand of the working class.

Return to Article Index

Britain's Presidency of the EU:

Full of its Own Self-Importance

During its presidency of the EU the British government will be chairing several meetings of the Council of Ministers. At the end of its six-month presidency in June the government will host a European Council meeting in Cardiff. The government is already making much of its new role and the Foreign Secretary Robin Cook recently referred to one of these meetings – the European Conference which is due to be held in March – as "an historic milestone on the creation of a larger, stronger EU and a more united Europe".

The government is also making much of the fact that it will be chairing a special Council meeting on European monetary union, which takes place in Brussels in May. On that occasion Britain and other member states will consider which countries should participate in the next stage towards a single currency. The Prime Minister has stated that not only does Britain want "a successful launch of monetary union" but also that the government "will play again a good and constructive role very much as honest broker". Full of its own self-importance the government is attempting to pursue its aim to be at the centre of European affairs by meddling in the affairs of other countries on behalf of the monopolies and financial circles which it represents, and to strengthen the EU, the reactionary organisation of the European monopolies, as part of its plans to re-establish Britain as a world power. The working class must vigorously oppose the policies and actions of the government, realising that in none of these meetings will the interests of the people of Britain or of Europe be represented. It must raise its voice and demand that Britain withdraw from the EU.

Return to Article Index

7th Anniversary of Gulf War

Down with Imperialist Intervention in Iraq!

SATURDAY, JANUARY 17, is the seventh anniversary of the Gulf War. This was the occasion, not of resolving the issue of Kuwait, which could have been sorted out peacefully; but of the massive and brutal use of military force in the interests of enforcing the US dictate. Since then US imperialists have never stopped making threats against Iraq, carrying out sanctions, violating its sovereignty and even launching missile attacks. Their logic is and has been that they always have the right to threaten and launch military attacks not only against Iraq but against any country which does not buckle under to their dictate or which they perceive to threaten American interests.

These US threats have once again intensified in the last week over the issue of what Iraq sees as the dubious activities of a "weapons inspection teams" acting under the auspices of the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). Iraq's decision to stop the work of this one team has brought threats of large-scale US military action. Throwing off the pretext of the "international community" the US imperialists have declared their willingness to carry this out unilaterally. "It is always better to act in concert with others when we can, but there is never any reluctance to act alone if we must," White House spokesman Mike McCurry declared. In marked contrast to the restrained tone of other non-US members of the UN Security Council, the British government has reflected this belligerent tone, accusing Iraq of "defying the will of the international community". This reflects the British government's position in the crisis at the end of last year where Robin Cook specifically said that "no option is ruled out".

These events followed the previous weeks declaration by the US that it would retain its massive military presence including two aircraft carriers, permanently poised near Iraq.

In the meantime the inhuman embargo imposed on Iraq under the US domination of the Security Council is continuing to reap death, disease and the misery of thousands.

The US is continuing to use the UN Security Council to give its interests, as well as those of other imperialist powers, in the Gulf region the veneer of legality. Iraq in this context is defending its sovereignty. This is the context in which it has withdrawn permission for the "weapons inspection" team headed by the American Scott Ritter to undertake any activities on its territory. It states that Ritter, a US Marine Corps captain during the Gulf War, is a spy whilst of the sixteen members of the team nine are Americans whilst five come from the US's prime collaborator Britain. Iraq has consistently objected to what it calls the "American hegemony" over the United Nations Special Commission charged with weapons inspections. Under this hegemony activities have been carried out which are, under the constant US military threat, intolerably intrusive, whilst serving as a pretext to increase tension whilst justifying the embargo. An Iraqi spokesman said his government did not want to dictate the make-up of the inspection teams but was merely seeking a balanced composition, "Iraq is not asking during this crisis or previous ones to choose the members of the Special Commission or its inspection teams but requests ... that the Special Commission and its inspection teams should be balanced in their composition," Iraq has continually said that it has met all its obligations under the UN Security Council's resolutions, that there are no banned weapons in Iraq and that the UN sanctions imposed in August 1990 should be lifted.

With respect to the issue of "weapons of mass destruction" as the pretext of US activities against Iraq it has to be asked who has weapons of mass destruction and threatens peace around the world? None other than US imperialism. Nor are Britain's hands clean. What is Trident, for example, but a weapon of mass destruction? Britain is very jealous of the situation of nuclear monopoly of the big powers and in its own right has developed biological weapons at Porton Down and other places.

The working class and people should understand that the issue is not so much that US imperialism is hostile to Iraq and to Saddam Hussein, but its actions and rhetoric are aimed against all the peoples and governments of the world, that they must pay the price if they do not toe the line, if they adopt their own path or if they threaten American imperialist interests. Furthermore, it is a disgrace that the British government should be such lickspittles, and become such a mouthpiece for US imperialist logic.

As for the talk of the "international community", in the mouths of Bill Clinton, and seemingly the British government too, the "international community" are those allies of the US which will agree with the big power logic in laying down the law for the entire world. No country or group of states has the right to usurp and manipulate the competence of the UN General Assembly in laying down the law in international affairs, still less use its Security Council as a cloak for international aggression. Thus they make the dividing line for the "international community" those that will agree with the "western" values and imperialist dictate. Workers' Weekly emphasises the just position that in international affairs all nations, big or small, must be recognised as equal, and that all peoples of the world have the right to live according to the system of their choice. No intervention in the internal affairs of other countries can be justified. All countries have a right for their voice to be heard in the affairs which truly concern the international community.

At any rate the increasing US talk of acting alone "if necessary" indicates the developing isolation of the US position and throws into sharper relief the ignominy of the British government's subservience to this.

On the seventh anniversary of the Gulf War it is incumbent upon all peace-loving and progressive forces in Britain to condemn and oppose the criminal belligerence and superpower logic of US imperialism against Iraq and to demand that the British government stop their 100 per cent backing for this logic in words and in deeds and take a stand for justice, peace and the sovereignty of nations.

Hands Off Iraq!

7th Anniversary of the Gulf War

Demonstrate outside Number 10 Downing Street

Saturday, January 17, 1998 6.00 to 8.00 p.m.

Return to Article Index

2.7 Million Workers Face Growing Exploitation

A NEW TUC report issued on Thursday, January 15, "Job and Go!", shows that 2.7 million UK workers – more than 1 in 10 – do not have a permanent contract of employment. The report shows that these workers, employed on a short term contract or on a contract of service, are routinely denied compensation for unfair dismissal and redundancy, and do not receive pay for holidays, sickness, or maternity leave. The reports says that they are often paid less than their permanent colleagues while doing an equivalent job. Many short-term employees are on "zero hour" contracts and are only paid for the hours that they are called in for.

This report raises the important issue of the way in which the bourgeoisie is maximising the exploitation of the labour power of the workers and developing further this system of exploitation. Today, the bourgeoisie is increasingly subjecting millions to job insecurity – more than ever before – with its casualisation of the workers and mass unemployment as a permanent feature. Such a situation cannot be dealt with by urging the government to pass a "Fairness at Work" law, but only by establishing a society without exploitation of persons by persons. The important feature of such a society is that it is a society where a livelihood is recognised as a human right guaranteed in the fundamental law of the land, and where the workers are able to determine the direction of the economy. To say that the issue is one of "restoring employment rights" is a travesty suggesting that such rights are recognised to varying degrees and that workers should rely on convincing employers to be "fair". All instances of "zero hour contracts", the casualisation of the workers should be fought against, but they represent not unfairness in employment rights but the denial of human rights and the drive to exploitation of the present system to increase profits to the maximum.

Return to Article Index

Privatisation of the Nuclear Industry

A RECENT REPORT highlighted that the government is to continue the privatisation process of the British nuclear industry started by the Conservative government. BNFL and Magnox Electric, the two remaining state owned nuclear companies, are to be merged early this year when the government transfers its share holding in Magnox Electric to BNFL. The new group will have a combined turnover of £1.8 billion and will continue nuclear fuel recycling, nuclear waste management and electricity production. BNFL runs two nuclear power stations and currently employs 12,977 people at five sites around the UK. Magnox Electric runs six of Britain's oldest nuclear power stations, has three stations currently being decommissioned, and employs 3,700 people at its 12 sites. Magnox Electric, which only has a 7% share of the electricity market in England and Wales, is faced with large decommissioning costs. Energy Minister John Battle announced that the take-over by BNFL would involve a £3.7 billion "sweetener" to cover the liabilities at Magnox. The group's chief executive designate John Taylor said that he hoped to cut costs by a quarter over the next four years. He also indicated that staff cuts would be in the order of 10%.

The state owned British nuclear programme was organised in 1946. To date this programme has had the central role in Britain's nuclear bomb programme. It is the cause of many nuclear accidents and incalculable dangers to the environment and to the people. Now the state is to abrogate its responsibility for this programme and its consequences. It is to be handed over to the private sector completely with billions of pounds of "sweeteners". This is being done when no solution has been found to the problem of dealing with high level nuclear waste, which needs to be contained for 100,000 years. It is also being done at a time when there is no safe method of disposing of redundant nuclear power stations and nuclear submarines. According to the report the new group will seize upon the great profitability of this venture and is already planning to cut costs and staffing levels to increase profits. In other words, this development will be very profitable for the capitalists but increase the dangers for the people still further.

Return to Article Index

STRUGGLES AGAINST CUTS IN HEALTH CARE

Successful Early Morning Vigil

A VERY SUCCESSFUL candlelit vigil was held at the Main Gates of Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, South London, at the break of dawn on January 13. It was organised by the campaign London Health Emergency. More than 70 people gathered to protest against the recommendations of the South West London Health Services Review Group to transfer the majority of acute services to Kingston Hospital and to demand that the hospital serve the needs of the health care of people in the locality as well as providing specialist services. The vigil was held on the final day of the "consultation" which has been held on the future of the hospital by the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Healthcare NHS Trust.

The people know only too well the nature of the kind of "consultation" which takes place. It is one where the question of "funding" determines the final outcome and not the voice of the people or their needs and well-being. And it is taking place in a situation where beds, wards and units are closing all over London, not to mention the rest of the country. The number of people that turned out represent the depth of feeling and the broad opposition to the plan to move services away from Queen Mary's. Speaking to Workers' Weekly, the London Health Emergency Campaigns Director, Geoff Martin, said that the fight to save the services at Queen Mary's goes on, and that the vigil had given local people the opportunity to voice their opposition to the closure of services. He also pointed out that the Health Authorities had wanted to smuggle the changes through quietly, and they have not been able to do that.

Placards held up by the demonstrators spelled out: "Return All Services to Queen Mary's", "Who Is Gambling With Our Lives?", "Cuts and Closures Endanger Life and Limb", "Closure by Stealth Must Be Reversed", "Health Authority Decisions May Seriously Damage Your Health", "Roehampton Needs Queen Mary's" and "Save Queen Mary's!". Participating on the vigil were health workers, voluntary workers at the hospital, trade union activists, local councillors and people from the local community, and other concerned people, as well as Wandsworth Council leader Edward Lister and the shadow health secretary John Maples. There was clearly widespread support for the campaign, as many people in cars and other vehicles honked their horns as they passed on the busy road.

The following day, a meeting of the UNISON Kingston Health Branch and representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association condemned the proposals as a "nightmare", pointing out that the only thing which made them "inevitable" was the way the services at Queen Mary's have been run down over the past 12 months. It warned that the plans to close services at Queen Mary's have been made without any adequate level of reprovision at the Kingston Hospital.

The run-down of services at Queen Mary's Hospital is one more confirmation of the necessity for people to take up the issue of fighting for a society where the well-being of the people is put at the centre of all developments.

Campaign against Healthcare Cuts in Waltham Forest, East London

WORKERS' WEEKLY has received a copy of the Newsletter No. 2, dated January 7, 1998, of the Forest Healthcare Trust Staff Against Cuts.

Under the headline Campaign Gathers Momentum, it points out the opposition to the devastating cuts threatening the healthcare services has gathered a powerful momentum, following the first week in December when staff at an open meeting decided on their action plan. The newsletter reports that about 40 staff and members of the public held a picket outside the local Health Authority's headquarters and attended the meeting on December 18 at which cuts were to be decided. This action followed a lunchtime protest on the same day outside Whipps Cross main gates attended by a large group of staff, teachers union and local authority workers representatives, in defiance of pouring rain. The previous week, 150 staff and member of the public had gone to the Health Authority's annual public meeting with the Community Health Council. People from almost every field affected by the cuts spoke and challenged the rationale the Health Authority were using, the lack of information and understanding, and described the services that would be lost, asking how the needs of their patients would be met. The Bishop of Barking called for a broad-based campaign for adequate funding for local health services, a call welcomed by staff side and other health campaigners. Many people signed up to be part of the campaign. A public meeting is being organised for January 21. This will take place at Elim Church at the corner of Fairlop Road and Hainault Road, Leytonstone, London E11, at 7.30pm.

The newsletter also reports on a number of other actions in opposition to the cuts and in support of the campaign in Waltham Forest against the cuts in the health service.

Workers' Weekly wishes the campaign every success.

Campaign to Save St. Bartholomew's Hospital

THE Save Bart's (Patients) Campaign is organising a London-wide referendum on the future of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, universally known as Bart's. The Labour government is due to decide this month whether to close Bart's, the oldest hospital in Britain, and the only hospital in the City of London. The campaign to keep open St. Bartholomew's is one of so many directed against the effects of the anti-social offensive on the health care of the people.

Return to Article Index

North Korea Welcomes World Food Programme Appeal

THE World Food Programme officially made public an appeal on January 6 concerning another aid programme of some 657,000 tons of food worth US$378 million to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea this year. The spokesman for the DPRK Committee for Measures for Recovering from Flood Damage said: "We feel grateful to the WFP and other international organizations, various countries and non-governmental organizations for their sympathy with and humanitarian assistance including food to the Korean people, who have temporarily suffered food shortage caused by natural disasters which have hit the country repeatedly in the last few years. This year's humanitarian food aid by the WFP's appeal will encourage the Korean people in their efforts for recovering from the disasters as early as possible. Though the damage and its consequences are serious, we will make all efforts to fully solve the acute food problem by ourselves by doing farming well this year." (Korean Central News Agency, January 12, 1998)

Return to Article Index