Newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA. Phone 0171 627 0599,
Return to Workers' Weekly Index Page
Tony Blair's Third Way: The Way to Disaster
Second 1998 National Consultative Conference of RCPB(ML)
Yugoslav Deal Imposed by Threat of Force: No To Big Power Intervention in the Balkans!
Youth Curfew in Hamilton – Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?
Interview with "Young Offender" Rehabilitation Worker
Militant Demonstration against Wandsworth Cuts
Post Office Review: Another Step Backward to Benefit the Rich
LHE 15th Anniversary
Rover Warns of Job Losses
Redundancies of Viasystems' Workers
Surge in Business Failures
Welsh Farmers Blame Government
International Days of Action against Iraq Sanctions
Message from Central Committee of RCPB(ML) to Comrade Kim Jong Il on 53rd Anniversary of WPK
Launch of Book of Progressive Poetry
| IT IS A VERY DANGEROUS DEVELOPMENT for the people that the Labour Party and Tony Blair are now pushing what they call the "Third Way" and are exhorting the country to follow it. In his keynote address to the Labour Party Conference, Tony Blair argued that with the world threatened with global economic crisis, with 25% of the world in recession, there are three choices – resist change, which he said was futile; let it happen and everyone look after themselves; or follow what he called a Third Way, to "manage change, together". This "Third Way" is being backed up with its ideological offensive, as evidenced by the book "The Third Way", published last month by the new director of the London School of Economics, Anthony Giddens, subtitled "The Renewal of Social Democracy". This "Third Way" of Tony Blair is his programme for "Making Britain Great Again" after 15 months in power. It is being put forward in the conditions whereby the opposition to the "reforms" which put the whole society in hock to the financial oligarchy is growing, but the working class has yet to take centre stage. It is being put forward in the conditions whereby the deepening international economic and financial crisis is demanding that the programme of "Making Britain Great Again" is intensified as competition for global markets intensifies. In fact, it is a call to rally the most backward sections in society around a retrogressive and reactionary programme for competition for global markets, redivision of the world and even war. The "Third Way" signals an intensification of the policies of gearing the entire economy to paying the rich, of striving to make Britain number one in the global market, of continued privatisation and cutting back of social provisions, the very policies which have deepened the crisis in the first place. Ominously, in his speech, Tony Blair arrogantly made clear that these policies would not be relinquished, whatever the accusations of betraying the poor, of affronting civil liberties and of destroying industry, not to speak of boasting that the Strategic Defence Review had given Britain rapid response forces for intervention abroad which he claimed put "the rest of the world to shame". This is the road of disaster for the working class and people. These are the policies adopted first on a world scale in the Thatcherite-Reaganite era and now being carried to a new stage by so-called Centre-Left governments in country after country, under the guise of "modernisation" and "reform", in order to manipulate and divert the people's opposition to those policies. It is these "neo-liberal" policies of privatisation and cutting social programmes, imposed on the peoples of virtually the entire world, which have led to financial havoc in what were known until recently as the Asian Tiger countries, to economic collapse in Japan, to chaos in Russia, and which now threaten a crash of the stock markets world-wide and to precipitate a devastating depression. And it is these policies of striving for domination in the global market which also threaten a new world war. Why else are the big powers exacerbating tensions, stirring up conflicts, but to position themselves militarily in strategic areas like the Balkans – Bosnia, Albania, Serbia – so as to dominate Europe as a stepping stone to domination of Asia and the rest of the world? Scientifically speaking, it can be shown that there is no "Third Way" between what is commonly known as "left" and "right"; that there is no "Third Way" between moving backward to economic chaos, medievalism and fascism and moving forward to a new society, to socialism. There is the way of capitalism and imperialism, of so-called "free market" reforms, of the contention of the big powers and the vast monopolies. And there is the way of increasing investments in social programmes, of developing an economy serving the interests of the people, of democratic renewal vesting sovereignty in the people, of democratisation of international relations. Tony Blair in putting forward the "Third Way" is paving the way for the former, possibly for some form of "national government" in the conditions of the intensifying crisis, whereby "Britain plc" becomes a reactionary financial and military machine in which everything is at the disposal of the monopolies, while the people are promised "reform" in glowing terms. It is in this fashion that Blair and Cook strut the world stage and bluster everywhere. But it will also be Tony Blair's downfall. Change is needed, yes! But the working class and people will not and cannot allow this headlong drive to medievalism as Blair strives might and main to take society backwards. They must take up the programme of opening the door to progress, to the new, to a socialist society and avert the disaster that the financial oligarchy and the reactionary bourgeoisie is heaping on them. |
Second 1998 National Consultative Conference of RCPB(ML)IN ACCORDANCE WITH the resolution passed at the Party's National Consultative Conference in July, the Central Committee of RCPB(ML) has announced that it is to organise a second National Consultative Conference this year. It will take place on the weekend of November 28-29. The significance of the November Conference is that it will be a stepping stone in preparation for the Party's Third Congress, which will take place by the 20th anniversary of RCPB(ML), March 16, 1999. The essence of this Congress is that it will set the seal on the work of the Party since January 1994, place the Party in a strong position to enter the 21st century, and set the tasks which need to be carried out by the Party and the class as the new millennium is ushered in. What makes the November Consultative Conference so important, therefore, is that in the conditions of the world capitalist crisis and the impending world recession, the Party is being pro-active and dealing with the objective conditions within the context of its forward march. And the Conference will provide the opportunity for the widest possible sections of the Party and the people to discuss the significance of the Congress, what its agenda must be and what steps must be taken to ensure that it is a profound success. Within that framework the Conference will provide the opportunity for the Central Committee, taking up the recommendations of the resolution carried at the July Consultative Conference, to report on the progress of its work of preparing a summation of the current period with New Labour as the government, of working to elaborate the Party's programme for the working class to Stop Paying the Rich – Increase Investments in Social Programmes, and of summarising the line of march of the Party in this present period of its work. One very important focus of the November Consultative Conference will be the Party's newspaper Workers' Weekly. The July Conference underlined to the utmost the significance of the cutting edge work of the Party to Improve the Content, Extend the Readership of the newspaper. Furthermore, the resolutions of the Conference spelt out the necessity of focusing on this key task in preparation for the Third Congress. Accordingly, the Central Committee has proposed and the Preparatory Committee for the November Conference has endorsed that a vigorous discussion on the newspaper and its editorial policy be carried on at the Conference, and that the whole Party is to start preparing forthwith for this discussion. The basic organisations are already reporting on their plans to prepare for such a discussion at the Conference. A new level of organisational strength and collective consciousness emerged out of the July National Consultative Conference of RCPB(ML). Workers' Weekly is confident that that will be built on by the November Consultative Conference and more circles drawn into its political deliberations and participate in arriving at its conclusions. To receive an invitation, please write to the CC of RCPB(ML) at 170 Wandsworth Road, London SW8 2LA, telephone 0171-627 0599, fax 0171-498 5407 or e-mail jbbooks@lineone.net. All Out for the Success of the Second 1998 National Consultative Conference! |
Yugoslav Deal Imposed by Threat of Force:
| THE BIG POWERS have never stopped interfering in the Balkans for their own
ends, creating a situation which is unstable and fraught with danger, a
situation which they are continuing to exploit.
|
| AS part of the overall move to retrogression by the Labour government, blocking in the youth on all sides and blaming the victims of the vicious anti-social offensive in society for its problems, the Crime and Disorder Act came into force on October 1. Among its central provisions are those relating to "youth crime and disorder", to removal of the presumption that a child aged ten to 14 is incapable of committing an offence (and, as a consequence, that such a child's silence in court has the same incriminating implications as does an adult's), and provision relating to "young offenders" (such as setting up "youth offending teams" and ensuring the so-called "fast-track sentencing"). The Act also contains provisions for "local child curfew schemes" in England and Wales to ban children unattended by adults from "public places" for specified hours (for example, from 9 pm to 6 am for children under 10). It was of this last provision that Tony Blair said in his speech to the Labour Party Conference on September 29: "From tomorrow, thanks to new laws passed by this Government: Kids can be picked up for truancy. Young children alone on the streets can be subject to curfews. Parents made responsible for their children's behaviour." He declared: "Don't show zero imagination. Help us to have zero tolerance of crime." Workers' Weekly vigorously condemns this latest attack against the youth, the government's Crime and Disorder Act. We are publishing below two articles as a contribution to exposing the nature of these attacks on the rights of the youth and the responsibility of the society into which they are born in this regard. One is a report of a study into the youth curfew in Hamilton, Lanarkshire. Donald Dewar, the Scottish Secretary, has described the scheme as "a happy example of sensitive community policing" and indicated he was in favour of its extension throughout Scotland. Secondly, an interview with a "young offender" rehabilitation worker in South London, on their experience with so-called "problem youth" in an area which includes Brixton. |
| THE SCOTTISH HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE has undertaken a study of the experience
of the youth curfew imposed on three poor neighbourhoods of Hamilton,
Lanarkshire. The Centre produced the report in the context of developing a
modern human rights agenda for Scotland and "to contribute to the growing
global movement to place what it means to be human at the centre of development
of society".
The report, which was released in June, is entitled Time to Go Home -
Says Who? It analyses the curfew imposed on the youth of the Fairhill,
Hillhouse and Whitehill areas of Hamilton. In these areas the police and local
council instituted, on October 23, 1997, a "Child Safety Initiative"
ostensibly to "protect the safety of young people, cut down on youth
disorder, reduce crime concern and decrease the opportunities for young people
to become involved in crime". Police patrols take place on Thursdays,
Fridays and Saturdays between the hours of 7:30 and 11 pm. On a case by case
basis, the police decide whether it is appropriate for children under 16 to be
out on the streets. If it is determined that the youth should not be out he or
she is either told to go home or taken home. According to figures provided by
the police in a press conference after six months of the "Child Safety
Initiative", 63 percent of the 229 youth who were the subject of police
activity were not engaged in or suspected of any criminal activity but were
targeted for "loitering", i.e. being out in the street. In only .02
percent of police interventions with youth were charges laid.
The report analyses both the justification and the legality of the police
initiative, as well as the conditions in the communities targeted. The police
and council claimed that their initiative was launched in response to demands
from the communities reflected in independent opinion polls, citing three
different sources. In fact, none of these suggested a curfew for youth nor were
those surveyed asked if they would approve it. What was common to the views of
the residents, both adults and youth, in all three surveys was concern about
social issues including unemployment, crime and vandalism, lack of facilities
for children and youth, the need for counselling for young people, etc. The
real reason for the curfew was not public demand but an attempt on the part of
the police to deal with the problem of responding to complaints by adults of
youths hanging around in the streets. The report also shows that the police
activity cannot be justified under any Scottish law which existed and is a
violation of the rights of the youth and families who are subjected to intense
police scrutiny and intervention and does not conform to the European
Convention on Human Rights. Far from solving any problem, the police action is
increasing youth hostility to the police and contributing to the creation of an
atmosphere that youth who are on the streets when the police say they should
not be are "problem" kids and that youth in groups are trouble by
definition, thereby increasing tensions between adults and youth.
The foreword to the report, which sets out the context for its analysis, points
out: "Firstly, the 'Curfew' represents what appears to be a growing trend
reflected both in the government's Crime and Disorder Bill [now an Act], which
provides criminal sanctions against so-called 'anti-social behaviour', as well
as in a number of 'zero-tolerance' policing pilot projects. Secondly, does
society have a problem with our youth or it is our youth who have a problem
with society? Recent surveys have shown Scottish youth to be at the bottom of
European league tables in terms of their self-esteem and expectations of life
and, consequently, their vulnerability to drug and alcohol abuse. Would
extending the Hamilton Curfew nation-wide, as is currently under serious
consideration by the Scottish Office, be part of the problem or part of the
solution in this context? Just who and what should be considered 'anti-social',
the youth and their problems or those in authority who fail in their duty to
provide a society which offers youth a future?" The report concludes:
"We do not have all the answers, and we do accept that certain communities
have some difficulties, not just between youngsters and adults, but also
between adults themselves. However, we are concerned that initiatives such as
the one in Hamilton may in the long term do more harm than good. We hope that
this report makes a useful contribution to this difficult and important
debate." Below we are reprinting Section 6 of the report entitled
"Legal Issues".
Time to Go Home - Who Says? An Analysis of the Hamilton Curfew Experience Section 6 - Legal Issues As we have seen above, police activity has taken various forms; they may take the child home, tell them to go home, tell them to move on elsewhere or do nothing. In Scotland, the police do not have a general power to stop people who are going about their lawful business. Generally, the police power to stop and question individuals arises where the officer suspects that someone has committed or is committing an offence.(1) However, as we have seen(2), the Child safety initiative is not primarily concerned with the detection of crime. So if officers are not involved in the detection of crime, what powers are they exercising to justify questioning children or even detaining them and removing them home or to a police station? A number of statutes have been cited by the police as justifying their actions in Hamilton, namely the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Police (Scotland) Act 1997. Taking each of these in turn, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (s. 12) provides that it is an offence on the part of a parent to neglect his child. It does not give the police the right to remove a child. As far as we are aware, there have been no prosecutions of parents in Hamilton for having neglected their child under this legislation. The relevant part of the Social Work (Scotland) Act I 968 was repealed by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and replaced by provisions (S. 61) which allow the removal of a child to a place of safety by a constable in order to protect the child from 'significant harm', provided grounds exist for the granting of a children protection order. Again, we are not aware of these provisions having been implemented as part of the initiative. Finally, reference has been made to the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. However, it contains nothing which specifically allows the police to stop someone who is not suspected of committing an offence, or to remove them to their home or to a police station. Some reference has been made to the general duty of the police to protect life and property(3), but this is only likely to justify police intervention where the child concerned is clearly in danger.It would therefore appear that the police activity cannot be justified in terms of the above statutory provisions. The question which then arises is whether a child who was taken home or to a police station would be able to complain that the police action was illegal. In this context, it is significant that, as far as we know, no child who has been taken home has actually refused to go with the officers concerned. In those circumstances in law there is no detention since the person has gone with the officers voluntarily. It has to be accepted, however, that it is highly unlikely that in these circumstances any child would deliberately refuse to do as the police asked and go along with them. It could be argued that the child was in fact being detained since there was no real consent. Such an argument might be sustainable in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights(4) where judges seek to interpret the Convention in a purposive way, looking behind outward appearances. It might also be possible to argue that the police activity breaches the right to respect for family life, which is protected by article 8 of the Convention. It might well be accepted that the rights of parents in the curfew areas are being interfered with, since they are not being allowed to make decisions about their children. They are not being allowed to decide when their children can be out and where they are allowed to go. Although the state could seek to justify the interference, it would seem impossible for the initiative to be justified under article 8(2), as being for example necessary for the protection of health or morals, or for the prevention of disorder or crime, quite simply because the interference with parental rights would have to be done in accordance with the law. As we have indicated, we can find no law which would legitimise the police activities. In any event, even if the police activity was in accordance with the law, it is possible that any such law would be considered as not satisfying the requirement that there was a 'pressing social need' and that the law was proportionate in the sense of being the least interventionist way of responding to any such need. It should also be borne in mind that the Fourth Protocol to the Convention protects the right to liberty of movement. Although signed by the United Kingdom in 1963, it has not yet been ratified and so is not binding on the UK government. However, in the White Paper Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill(5), the government indicated that it would like to see the rights contained in the Fourth Protocol being given formal recognition. Clearly, the police activity in Hamilton has infringed liberty of movement. Although freedom of movement can be interfered with in certain circumstances, we consider that there would be the same difficulties as outlined in relation to article 8. Further, there are other international obligations which the UK could be considered to have breached. For example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the right of children to associate freely, and also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which contains binding obligations on the UK to guarantee freedom of movement as well as to ensure protection of the family. We therefore come to the conclusion that the police actions in Hamilton cannot be justified under Scots law, for the reasons outlined earlier. In addition, there appear to be breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is currently being incorporated in to UK law. 1. Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, s.113. 2. See above, where we noted that 0.02% of police interventions resulted in criminal charges. 3. Section 17 (1)(a)(iii) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. 4. By reference to article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 5. 1997, Cmnd 3782. |
| Question: What generally are the basic circumstances that make for a young offender? Answer: I believe disparity between rich and poor is the bottom line, and anything else that contributes to delinquency comes after that. For instance, there have been no rich youth in my case histories of care of young offenders, and that's going back quite a few years. Question: Well, in an area of South London that includes Brixton, are there so many rich that you can make that kind of comparison? Answer: Maybe we first have to define rich. Rich doesn't mean only the very wealthy; it means the very comfortably off, and there are enough of these in South London to justify my claim that there is not even an observable percentage of youth from that class in need of rehabilitation from delinquency. Just look at the prison populations throughout Britain, let alone South London and ask yourself how many youth from the rich are serving sentences for theft, and theft is the main offence of the youth I have to deal with. Question: Apart from what you've already said, what else do you think starts them off on that road? Answer: Ha, I wish there was a simple answer to that. But for me the main prompt to theft by youth, that is if we except to some extent those supporting a habit (that is drug addiction) is their response to the glittering display in shops or on tele' adverts of accessories they find desirable, and which seeing in others, and having no means to get honestly, take to dishonest ways of getting them. That may sound a bit simplistic, but it is definitely a main cause among other social forces at work, urging the deprived to try to get by any means what they see advertised as the desirable things of life. The designer label has a lot to answer for. Question: What about the critics of young offenders, who say why don't they get jobs and work to earn enough to pay for these accessories etc, or do without— Answer: What jobs? The majority of the young offenders I deal with have long lost, if they ever had, a realistic vision of a future with sustained work that would pay reasonable wages. Besides, many of them have such low self-esteem they can't see themselves as ever being capable of getting or keeping a worthwhile job. One of my aims is to try to put into them what society has crushed out of them; that is a realisation that with training they can achieve at least some of their goals, and without the risk of repeated prison sentences if they continue to buck a system where the odds are so heavy against their being long at freedom. Question: What do you think of the opinion, say, of Jack Straw on problem youth? Answer: Is there anything new in that? The high moral ground has always been the position of that kind of politician. Besides, who or what is the problem? Is Society to be exempt from guilt? Hasn't deprived youth itself a case against the system? But what redress does it have? With no legitimate avenue, some are going to take the wrong road in protest. Question: But we do read of some dreadful crimes committed by criminal youth who may be very young indeed; don't you agree they have to be punished? Answer: They are such the exception that the media makes a kind of sensational history of their crimes and leave the impression that youth itself is running criminally wild. As to punishment: one has only to recall a report on the public hanging of pickpockets at Newgate some two centuries or more ago. While the crowds who attended were enjoying the spectacle of men (and youth) being hanged, pickpockets were busy picking the pockets of the crowd. Rehabilitation, not punishment, should be the basic way to deal with young offenders: it may not work with them all, given the conditions and forces that shape them, but it does with some, and it's a great personal satisfaction to me where it succeeds. Question: You speak of the forces that shape them: could you go into that a bit? Answer: The classical conditions are so evident that when one hears them being denied by some fool who implies that it's something bad in the child, to throw up all over such a guy would be a great temptation. That kind of person loves to point out that not everyone from bad social conditions takes to crime, as if that proved his case. Yet the evidence is so overwhelming: poverty; broken homes; abuse; denial of opportunity to develop into the wholesome kind of being every youth deserves to be, and who is too often denied a role model of constraint and self discipline. Question: Does that mean the male missing say in a single parent household? Answer: It could mean that. Single mothers, if they depend on Social Security only, have never enough to make their child or children feel on equal terms with children of working parents which is the norm today. Yet both parents working in a system where there are no facilities for caring for children on reasonable economic terms while they are at work, often have the same effect as that of a single parent family where the mother works and necessarily leaves the child or children to their own deserts, so it can be six of one and half a dozen of the other. I have a case in hand where the mother, a nurse, to provide her child with better economic conditions, worked on permanent night shift with the result her child, a boy, was alone every night she was at work, and so was free to spend time in the late hours with the kind of company that thought of petty crime as an adventurous way of getting money. That's an example of good intentions leading to bad results. I cite that as a specific example of one cause perhaps among several, and no doubt the company he kept had home conditions with their own specific problems. Question: What part, if any, do you think education plays in failing what is conveniently termed problem children from whom it seems delinquent youth tend to evolve? Answer: In a system of preference for the so-called bright child, the not so bright child, or disturbed child who doesn't respond well to teaching, loses out, and again we have this syndrome of low self esteem emerging out of the comparison of self with who is obviously preferred as a pupil. Not all teachers fail in boosting the morale of a child with emotional or learning difficulties, but there are too few of those who can and do succeed in helping to repair some of the damage conditions outside of school do to the child. This damage is a kind of spiritual devastation that leaves a vacuum for all kinds of negative forces that can come out later in some youth with the highly destructive behaviour termed serious crime. Question: What do you think of the numerous police claims of a disproportionate incidence of crime among black youth; that is in relation to their population ratio? Answer: Yes, and what about the disproportionate incidence of discrimination among black youth in relation to their population ratio? If we have a social problem due to the experience some white youth suffer as a result of social inadequacies, what's to be said of the problem generated in the black community by similar though worse inadequacies, aggravated by racism? Racism as evident in police attitudes, which statistics bear out in that a black youth is sixty to seventy per cent more likely to be harassed with stop and search and general suspicion of being criminal than white youth. And worse, where white murderers of black youth have been all but protected by police investigators, as has been evident in recent exposures due to the determined efforts of parents and their black and white supporters. Question: What about the broadcast on television by a police spokesman that great efforts are being made to eradicate racism in the force? Answer: Why does racism exist in the force in the first place? Shouldn't attempts to eradicate take place at the recruiting stage? Still, if efforts to eradicate it should succeed, nobody would be happier than I who work with both youth and police, speaking of which, we are now expected to work in the same office as police. You can imagine what that's going to do to my cred. with the youth I'll be involved with. As to the general attitude to 'problem youth', a phrase current in police courts and circles dealing with them is—'disposal of..' a seemingly unconscious connotation of how 'problem' youth are seen as something to dispose of. This brings to mind a risk assessment form the police issued to us and posing as scientific, but actually it's pure claptrap. The questions are subjective, not objective concern for children at risk of becoming offenders, itemising already known basic factors and from the answers estimating this child or that youth more likely to persist in crime. It's dangerous; with no concern for the victims of social deprivation, and with a complete absence of interest in possible remedies. Question: Are there remedies, I mean in a general way? Answer: Well, in a general way, better social conditions, but each child or youth has particular problems for themselves and for us as workers. Some you find more difficult to help, acting as they do as if they were adults but unaware of their total lack of adult nous, and unaware that their adult aspirations guarantee them sure prison terms. Often their models are adult criminals. This brings us to one problem of black youth and children. With a few exceptions they see around them whites in positions of control; the very few black policemen and officials are seen as Uncle Toms; at least black policemen are, so what do they do for social models? Some few politicians and Council officials are not viewed as models. There are athletes and entertainers, but how can they offer anything but encouragement to those few who have that kind of potential ability? Comment: You paint a grim picture. I wonder that you persist in what seems to me to be a losing battle. Answer: Not always, and the occasional success has its own reward. Until social conditions that give rise to crime on the scale of today's level are altered for the better, there will be not just the current incidence of young offenders, but a higher incidence as we move into the next century. In the meantime we do our best and hope for the best in what we do. And for me the great hope is not the few successes I have, but in the great majority of youth who don't betray themselves in a social system that tends to betray so many of them. Comment: This has been a most enlightening interview. Thank you for your time and breakdown of the problems you have to deal with. |
| A LARGE MILITANT DEMONSTRATION, including children and teenagers, gathered outside Wandsworth Town Hall, South London, on the evening of Wednesday, October 14. They were protesting against the cuts being pushed through in the Social Services budget of Wandsworth Council which will cause great hardship to the vulnerable and the community at large, which were to be endorsed by a full council meeting that evening. The total package of cuts is around £5.9 million, including £2.6 in Social Services, a further £0.9 million in Social Services for children and £0.6 million in libraries, youth clubs and the Wandsworth Asian Community Centre. A further £1.8 million cuts in Social Services is mooted for next February, according to Battersea and Wandsworth TUC. Wandsworth social workers have already voted eight to one in favour of industrial action in protest at the expected sacking of 87 posts, which amount to one third of those social workers dealing with children at risk of abuse. The social workers point out that as many as 400 families and children currently cared for will lose the support of social services. The demonstration on October 14 showed the anger among those directly affected in the community. A deafening noise was kept up by the children who blew shrill whistles. The heavy traffic round Wandsworth Town Hall kept up a continuous accompaniment as car and lorry drivers sounded their horns in support. Many of those who are to suffer the effects of the cuts went up to the microphone and spoke with feeling. These included women from the Wandsworth Foster Carers Association, from the Wandsworth Asian Community Centre, Sarah Clark who is Deputy Manager of St Margaret's Children Centre which will be forced to close, as well as others. Representatives of Battersea and Wandsworth TUC, and of the local Unison and GMB union branches also spoke. Two women stood in front of the mayoral car as it tried to enter the main gates, blocking its way, and leaving no doubt about their feelings. Brightly painted banners were displayed demanding "Hands Off St. Margaret's Children's Centre", as well as many placards held by the children protesting against the difficulties that will face foster carers. "Did You Ask Us?" read one placard. Deirdre and Toni, of the Wandsworth Foster Carers Association (WFCA), talking to Workers' Weekly, explained that foster carers rely on social workers' support and if these are cut it will make the job they should be doing very difficult, if not impossible. They explained that this is so because the conditions in society mean that the children they foster are faced with problems, for example being very violent. If then the children cannot be placed with foster carers, they will have to go into institutional care because of their background. But they, and other women from the WFCA who militantly wanted to make their views known, pledged to keep on fighting as long as they could to oppose the cuts. Another woman, who was campaigning against the closure of library facilities, said that the effect of the cuts will be deprivation for the most vulnerable people, such as young children, national minorities and pensioners. Referring to the Council, she said that while they have responsibility for all, they are not caring for the people as a whole. Leaflets being handed out denounced the effects of the Council "balancing its budget". First the Council sets the lowest council tax level in the country, then it makes cuts so that the budget will balance. It might also be pointed out that this is the problem which is writ large in the country as a whole, in the sense that the government is cutting back on social spending, yet is only too willing to meet the claims of the financiers on the budget and, as in Wandsworth, is privatising or subjecting essential social services to PFI while the claims of the people are considered expendable. As the September 19 Call of the South London Branch of RCPB(ML), which was distributed at the demonstration, points out: "The conclusion is that the working class and people must put forward a pro-social programme to articulate and defend their rights and increase spending in health, education and social services." |
| ONE MORE protest against the closure of the Kent & Canterbury Hospital
is being organised while Health Secretary Frank Dobson is considering the
proposals of the East Kent Health Authority. He is expected to make a decision
before the end of October.
The Health Secretary is to receive a flood of letters and petitions which have
been gathered in Canterbury by members of CHEK (Concern for Hospitals in East
Kent). CHEK wants Frank Dobson to be in no doubt about the strength of feeling
in Canterbury and the surrounding areas against the proposed downgrading of the
K&C. The CHEK campaign is being financially supported by the Royal College
of Nursing. Peggy Pryer, secretary of the Canterbury branch, said the RSN saw
itself as the patients' advocate and was glad to support the initiative. Such organisations as "Save Our Hospitals" have been campaigning by leafleting and other methods for many months and during this time pickets and demonstrations have been held both large and small, which have all demonstrated the determination of hospital workers, medical staff and the people in the community that health care should be regarded as a right, available to all without discrimination. |
Post Office Review:
| THE government's review of the Post Office is set to conclude in October. A
review began in July 1992 under the Conservatives who proposed the
privatisation of Royal Mail and Parcel Force in June 1994. This proposal was
withdrawn in November 1994 following a campaign against privatisation involving
postal workers and their unions. New Labour had positioned itself accordingly
as part of its pre-election strategy. Tony Blair denounced the Tories saying,
"Labour will ... turn up the heat on the Conservatives and mobilise public
opposition to halt privatisation." In March 1995, the Tory government
proposed converting the Post Office into a publicly owned PLC to get around
opposition to privatisation. Shortly after the Labour Party came to office, the
DTI Minister Ian McCartney announced the Labour government's review of options
for the Post Office, including the suspension of converting Crown post offices
to agency status. Discussions then took place with the Post Office, the Post
Office Users Council (POUNC), the Communication Workers Union (CWU), the Direct
Mail Users' Association (DMA) and some other organisations.
Firstly, it may be asked, what has been the background to the present state of
the Post Office which the government is reviewing? For the past 22 years, the
Post Office has produced profits without receiving government subsidies. In
1997/98 pre-tax profits rose £74 million to £651 million. On average,
four-fifths of net profits have been paid to the Treasury over the last four
years, through the External Financing Limit. In 1997/98, Royal Mail accounted
for £547 million of pre-tax profits. Turnover was over £6 billion,
some 79% from Royal Mail. In reality, postal workers could be said to be
subsidising the Post Office. Their low wages are barely enough to exist on. In
1996/97, Royal Mail workers did 56 million hours overtime, a 65% increase on
1994/95. Those on deliveries bear the burden of a massively increasing
commercial workload. Business mail now accounts for around 85% of mail traffic.
The volume of mail is currently about 70 million items per working day. In
1981/82, the figure was 38 million. Delivery workers are pressured to come into
work, unpaid, way before shifts start to try and cope. Managers encourage them
to use their own cars instead of supplying delivery vehicles. This is how Post
Office profits are being boosted while public infrastructure is used on the
cheap for private business mail. Parts of the Post Office have already been
sold off: British Telecom, created in 1981 as a corporation separate from the
Post Office, was made a Public Limited Company and privatised in 1984 raising
£3.9 billions for the government as well as making fat dividends for big
shareholders. New Labour sold the remaining government shares in September
1997. Over the past eight years, British Telecom shed 48% of its workforce with
temporary contacts and out-sourcing on the rise. In 1990, the Post Office's
Girobank business was sold off. Over the last eight years, Post Office Counters
Limited has cut the number of Crown Offices by 60% from 1,493 to 606. Sub-post
offices have fallen to 17,734, a cut of 10%. The number of franchised main
offices has risen from zero to 911. Earlier this year, 49% of Quadrant, the
Post Office catering section, was sold off. These sell-offs have resulted in
lucrative profits for the rich at the expense of job losses, job insecurity and
increased exploitation of the workers.
With those as the facts, what has New Labour's review come up with so far?
Taking up where the Conservatives left off, the Select Committee on Trade and
Industry Third Report states: "We reiterate the recommendation made by our
predecessors in March 1995, and subsequently widely endorsed, that the Post
Office be converted into an independent publicly-owned company." In the
Fifth Special Report Appendix it is stated: "This memorandum sets out the
Government's response ... to the committee's report" and "summarises
the Government's plans for taking forward its commitment to grant the Post
Office greater commercial freedom ... to develop its full potential in both the
domestic and international postal market place." The changes being looked
at reveal an agenda of privatisation camouflaged behind the slogan of
"modernisation". A specific recommendation of the Select Committee
(Fifth Special Report) is as follows: "The proposals that the Post Office
should be converted into an independent publicly owned company (recommendation
1) will certainly be one of the options considered.... A wide range of other
public sector structural options will also be considered, not excluding: -
increased scope for joint ventures; - public sector trusts; - minority share
sales."
It is clear that the emphasis is on "greater commercial freedom".
This phrase has been repeated, for example by Margaret Beckett, President of
the Board of Trade on the publication on April 6 of the terms of reference for
a further stage in the review. And, although the "commitment" is
emphasised to the Post Office "remaining in the public sector", it
becomes increasingly clear that, as with other public services such as the
health service and education, it is not the needs of the people that are at the
centre of considerations. And such considerations are what people expect and
demand from a service that is "in the public sector". In fact, once
more the issue is seen to centre around competitiveness and profitability. The
"joint ventures" referred to are just one of "a range of options
for partnership with the private sector" (terms of reference for the
present stage of the review). The Post Office, as from April 6, is able to
enter into "joint ventures" in the domestic market, a freedom it had
already been granted as regards international joint ventures.
None of the "public sector structural options" mentioned above have
been fully explained by New Labour and were never mentioned publicly in
opposition. However, Blair outlined his Thatcherite direction in the election
manifesto promising to commercialise the public sector further. To deceive
public opinion the charade of maintaining "...a universal postal service
at a uniform tariff and a nationwide network of post offices" is still
enacted by ministers. The universal service and uniform tariff are directly
threatened by the government's rush to "commercial freedom" and the
European Union Directive on liberalising European postal services by 2003. The
Directive seeks to open up all postal services to global competition by eroding
the state monopoly or reserved area, and removing other obstacles to
competition. The £1 letter monopoly, set in 1981, is now only worth about
40 pence at 1981 values because of inflation. The Trade and Industry Select
Committee has revealed the European Commission "... may seek some
abrogation of the monopoly by seeking to divide up the postal services into
collection, sorting, transport, and final delivery, and to restrict the
monopoly to delivery only, thus permitting access by others to some of these
allegedly separate sectors" (Third report). The removal of the letter
monopoly in Sweden, Finland and New Zealand has resulted in lower service
standards and higher charges. "Evidence given to the House of Lords
European Communities Committee in 1996 revealed ... Saturday deliveries had
been dropped in all three countries, and that in New Zealand an annual premium
of $80 had to be paid for doorstep deliveries in rural areas" (ibid.). The state postal service was established in 1635 by Royal Proclamation of Charles I. On the eve of the 21st century, it is clear that the crisis in social programmes extends to the Post Office and that criteria of financial profitability and business competitiveness are replacing or have replaced criteria of social need. This is in accord with the demands of the financial oligarchy of today and shows the moribund and parasitic character of the bourgeoisie at the conclusion of the 20th century. Tony Blair's government is not concerned to provide the means for a truly modern communications system run by and for the public. This responsibility falls to the revolutionary movement of the working class. |
The European Working Time Directive, agreed by the previous
government in 1993, has been implemented in Britain on October 1, 1998, in the
form of the Working Time Regulations (WTR), nearly two years after the
date the Directive specifies for its introduction. However, this has not
deterred the present government from declaring that this legislation is part of
their "fair deal" for all workers. Ian McCartney, Minister of State
at the Department of Trade and Industry, said that the government's aim is
"establishing fair and effective minimum standards in the workplace for
all workers. They are an essential element of any productive and competitive
business," and that "if a worker is over-worked or tired, they are
less likely to be productive". He said, "We recognise there must be a
balance between the protection of workers and placing unnecessary regulatory
burdens on business."
How are these most vulnerable workers going to be able to get the protection
they need from the state and its legislation, as the government claim? Who is
going to stop the working of excessive hours being imposed on workers when the
government considers that what is "fair" is not placing
"regulatory burdens on business"? One of the main features of the
WTR is how easy the regulations make it for the employers to ask any
worker to waive their protection and provides no enforcement for the
regulations other than individual Employment Tribunals. These tribunals often
take months and even several years to give a ruling. This will make it very
difficult for individual workers to get the protection from even these minimal
provisions on working time. Another feature is how many workers, such as
transport workers, who now have to work excessive hours are exempt from the
regulations. The Regulations also allow employers to get round them by making
workers "self-employed".
This argument of a "fair deal" for workers is one whereby allegedly
the interests of the workers to have a normal working day can be harmonised
with the interests of big business to maximise profits and increase
productivity. But the aim of big business is the maximisation of the quantity
and quality of labour that can be extracted from the worker's labour power in
the working day regardless of the cost to the worker. Thus the aim of
government in advocating such a "fair deal" in the workplace is that
today it is "an essential element of any productive and competitive
business". The CBI estimates that at present there is a cost to UK
industry of £25 billion in absenteeism, therefore these measures make
"good business sense". But the interests of the workers cannot be
harmonised with the interests of big business to maximise profits regardless of
the cost to human beings. To say workers should have a "fair deal" in
the workplace is to say that workers should not have rights but only have
privileges when it suits big business. Workers should fight that such rights
have legal guarantee, and should also have their sights set on transforming the
motive of production itself which will provide the lasting guarantee of their
rights.
Working Time RegulationsThe European Working Time Directive was agreed by the member states of the Council of the European Union in November 1993 with the provision that it be implemented by November 23, 1996. The Working Time Regulations that were implemented in Britain on October 1 are to be administered by the Health & Safety Executive. They place a limit on average weekly working time at 48 hours, and limit night workers' average normal daily working time to 8 hours (spread over a 6-day week and over periods that range from 17 weeks and up to 52 weeks if collective agreement is involved). They implement a requirement for health assessment to night workers, provide minimum daily rest of 11 hours, provide a minimum rest break at work of 20 minutes when working over 6 hours and provide a minimum period of three weeks annual leave. These regulations apply to all workers except the self-employed and those working in transport, sea fishing and offshore, doctors in training as well as other employees. The guidance also points out that it does not apply to chief executives and people engaged by the state in certain police and surveillance and security posts. The Regulations also implement provisions of the Young Workers Directive which relate to the working time of adolescents, giving health assessments for night work, minimum daily and weekly rest periods, rest breaks at work. However, the regulations cater for "individual choice" where a worker can sign a waiver of their rights under this directive and the employer can ask for notice of termination to be included in this waiver of up to 3 months. Also, the only protection the Regulations provide is for a worker to pursue a claim that they have been subjected to a "detriment" through an Employment Tribunal. |
NEWS IN BRIEF |
LHE 15th AnniversaryOn October 16, London Health Emergency celebrated its 15th anniversary. The campaigning organisation, set up in 1983 at the height of the Thatcherite days, still takes a stand against cuts in funding and closures in the NHS under New Labour.Rover Warns of Job LossesThe Rover car company, owned by the German monopoly BMW, is warning that there could be job losses at its Longbridge works in Birmingham. Rover has already announced 1,500 job cuts at the Longbridge plant. A spokesman said options being considered were more job losses or the closing of Longbridge throughout December "to slow down production of excess models".Redundancies of Viasystems' Workers
It was announced at the end of September that up to 1,000 workers are to be
made redundant in Selkirk and Galashiels, in the Scottish Borders area.
Viasystems is a US-owned electronics company. Most workers will lose their jobs
forthwith, with the remaining jobs going when the plants close in the New Year.
Scottish Office Minister Gus MacDonald said that Viasystems "have made it
clear they are not interested in government assistance".
 Viasystems blamed the collapse of the
circuit board market worldwide for its decision. Workers have criticised the
company for running down the Borders' factories and attracting £24 million
of government aid for a new factory in the North-East of England. The Scottish
Borders area has already been hit by job losses in the textile industry this
year. In June, Pringle confirmed 720 job losses, while Dawson International's
woollen yarn business Laidlaw & Fairgrieve is shedding 200 workers at
Galashiels and a further 45 workers at Selkirk. Dawson's cashmere and
lambs-wool spinning division is to cut 50 jobs at Kinross. This brings the
number of workers who have lost their jobs in the Borders to 2,000 since May,
double the total lost in the previous three years.
Surge in Business FailuresThe number of businesses collapsing has suddenly surged again after five years of decline, according to a recent survey by credit rating company Dun & Bradstreet. The number of British companies failing increased by nearly 3% during the first nine months of the year. The three months to the end of September were the worst period, with business failures jumping 18% compared to the same three months last year.Welsh Farmers Blame GovernmentGovernment policy changes and form-filling are ranked top of farmers' list of stress factors according to a survey for the Institute for Rural Health by Powys Rural Stress Group. The researchers said anxiety about form-filling could be linked to the fact that mistakes can lead to a farmer losing a government subsidy. Sheep farmers were most likely to find this stressful. Financial problems also ranked high on the anxiety scale along with time pressures. The study was set up in response to the increasing suicide rate among farmers in rural Wales. Farmers are the largest occupational group among suicides in PowysInternational Days of Action against Iraq SanctionsACTIONS took place from October 1 to 14 across America to demand an immediate end to US-led UN sanctions on Iraq. The organisers report that anti-war activists, student organisations, religious groups, labour activists and many thousands of socially concerned people took part in coordinated educational work and protest. They point out that, imposed eight years ago this August, the sanctions have already killed – according to the UN's own agencies (UNICEF, FAO, WHO, WFP) – over 1.5 million people, mainly children and the elderly. . |
| October 10, 1998, marked the 53rd anniversary of the Workers' Party of Korea, which was founded in 1945. On this occasion, the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) sent a message of congratulations to Kim Jong Il, General Secretary of the WPK, Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK, and Supreme Commander of the People's Army. The text follows. October 10, 1998 (Juche 87) Kim Jong Il General Secretary Workers' Party of Korea Pyongyang Dear Comrade Kim Jong Il, On the joyous occasion of the 53rd anniversary of the founding of the Workers' Party of Korea we should like to send to you, to the Central Committee and entire Party, and to the Korean people our warmest congratulations. It is this Party, under the great leadership of Kim Il Sung and now you, that has been the vanguard of the heroic Korean people since its very foundation. It has led the Korean people in consolidating national liberation, defeating the barbaric imperialist assault of 1950-53, and in continuing to defend the independence of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and build socialism. Now it stands at the head of a Korean people facing some of the greatest storms in their history, not only the continuing pressures and provocations of imperialism, particularly US imperialism, but the most difficult of situations caused by repeated natural disasters. We are sure that the Korean people, led by the Workers' Party of Korea under your wise leadership, ever loyal to the teachings of the great leader Kim Il Sung, will weather these storms as they have those of the past 53 years, and will continue to defend the independence of the country, build socialism and work to achieve the successful reunification of the homeland. Once again, we offer you our warmest congratulations on this important occasion and our very best wishes for success. Our Party will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and with the heroic Korean people in our common cause, the cause of socialism which is the future of humankind. With warm fraternal greetings, Chris Coleman On behalf of the Central Committee |
COMING EVENTS |
| Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Democratic People's Republic of KoreaSaturday, October 24, 1.30pm Friends Meeting House, 173-177 Euston Road, London NW1. Organised by Korea Friendship & Solidarity Campaign All friends of Korea welcome! "The Silent Holocaust" END THE SANCTIONS ON IRAQFBU-Sponsored National Conference SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17 Mechanics Institute, Princess Street, Manchester Commencing 11am (registration 10am) Contact: FBU Regional Office, 327 Liverpool Road, Eccles, Manchester M30 8GF Tel: 0161-707 0069/0072 FOR THE UNCONDITIONAL LIFTING OF THE US BLOCKADE AGAINST CUBAMonth of Action, October Organised by Cuba Solidarity Campaign National Picket of the US Embassy Saturday, October 17, 2pm – 4pm Grosvenor Square, London W1 (Bond St Tube)
Sunday, October 18, 7.30pm – 10.30pm Festival Hall, London SE1 (Waterloo Station/Tube)
Tuesday, October 20, 7pm – 9pm House of Commons Grand Committee Room, London SW1 Speakers include spokesperson from the Cuban Embassy |
| October 4 was an auspicious occasion. It marked the 80th birthday of communist writer John Maharg, a long-time activist of RCPB(ML). On October 4, a book launch was organised of a major poetic work, "Don Juan of Pimlico", of the author. The volume, running to 416 pages, also contains other recent verse of John Maharg. So the occasion combined the launch with a celebration that John Maharg had reached 80 years, no mean feat considering the vicissitudes of British society he has had to suffer. Activists of the Party had worked very hard to make the occasion a success in every way to pay fitting tribute to such a loyal comrade who has stuck with the Party through thick and thin. His work load and consistency could be said to put many younger comrades in the shade. The respect and affection in which John Maharg is held was shown by the 70 or so people who attended the celebration, from family, old and new friends, to close comrades in arms. From RCPB(ML), Chris Coleman, friend and comrade for nearly 30 years, gave an apt and sincere tribute to Comrade John, after which John then launched the book and signed copies. He then cut a special cake decorated with flags celebrating both his communism and his Scottish nationality to the skirl of the pipes and the most warmly-felt salutes from his friends and comrades. Workers' Weekly congratulates John Maharg on reaching 80 and wishes him many happy returns and every success with "Don Juan of Pimlico", and is sure we will see him working hard and upholding the Party and communism for many years to come. |
Don Juan of Pimlico and other versesby John Maharg
ISBN Q 9530083 1 2 Published by Progressive Cultural Association Introductory Offer: £20 plus £2.50 P&P (make cheques payable to Workers' Publication Centre 170 Wandsworth road, London SW8 2LA) Visit the Web Site at: http://www.musicnow.ndirect.co.uk/maharg.html |
| A Day School for Trade Unionists is being held under the title "A European Single Currency – Problem or Solution?" in Birmingham on Saturday, October 31. It is organised by the Community and Youth Workers' Union. Registration is at 10.30am and costs £4.00 for CYWU members and £15 for members of other trade unions. Places are to be booked by October 20. After the welcome and introduction, there will be morning and afternoon workshops. A debate will take place on the motion: "Conference believes Britain's entry into the European Single Currency will be to the advantage of British trade unions". For further details and registration form write to: CYWU Training, 302 The Argent Centre, 60 Frederick Street, Hockley, Birmingham, B1 3HS. Tel: 0121 244 3344, Fax: 0121 244 3345, Email CYWU@compuserve.com |
416 pages; 185 x 254
mm