Defending migrant workers

When I think of migrant workers I tend, like a lot of people I know, to think of migrants to the UK. However migrant workers are often the most vulnerable workers no matter which country they're in, and it's worth being reminded of that occasionally to help get that wider perspective that it isn't just a racist immigration system, it's an immigration system that's there to benefits employers not their employees.

When browsing the viral video awards I noticed the following YouTube campaign video on the rights of migrant workers in the Middle East and think it's well worth watching (and voting for);



You can also see how migration is used to benefit the rich when you have big business challenging the government in court over the immigration cap. Those businesses clearly need both immigration and the laws that keep those migrants at a disadvantage.

The dividing line between the left and the rich is not on whether migration should be allowed but how immigrants should be treated - with big business keen to have immigration controls that work in their favour, and the left is keen to have an immigration system that ensures people are treated equally, no matter what colour their passport.

Today's links

Charlie asked me on Facebook whether these links are endorsements or not. Happy to clarify if anyone else is wondering that I link to stuff I think readers might find useful, interesting or amusing - but just because I link to something definitely does not mean I agree 100%, or even 1% with the content.

• Congratulations to Teen Dreaming for winning Channel 4's young blogger award thingy.
  
  
• Recently came across Some Kind of Explanation which is bloody excellent.
  
  
• Fascinating news piece on the 'rescued' sex workers who rioted in order to be allowed back to work.
  
  
• Better Nation has a strong piece on being a Christian and a Socialist at the same time.
  
  
• Lastly, do you need a renewable energy project manager? Cathryn is one and having completed her transition into green geek needs paid employment to back it all up - I highly recommend her.
  

Last of all we have an excellent example of a campaign video from the Greens south of the equator;

Six things for you

My ongoing attempt to catch up on the things I'd hoped to show you.

• The firefighters are on strike today. Good on them. Lenin writes it up here, Iain Dale seems to come out in favour of banning strikes. Tut.
  
  
• I've said nice things about Lib Dem MP Bob Russell and I will do again. He gets another brownie point with this.
  
  
• Better Nation asks what would it take for you to protest?
  
  
• Ben Six looks at some of the 7/7 inquest notes.
  
  
• John Molyneux asks whether Keynes is the answer to the crisis.
  
  
• Ed Rooksby had a really interesting article on CiF on equality.
  

Kentish Town: Bad Politics Watch

This week I've picked up a leaflet from the Tories which attacked Labour leader Ed Miliband for being a Manchester United supporter (yes, really) and witnessed the Lib Dems destroy the economy simultaneously with any chances of future electoral support. So when I saw the following attack leaflet in its proud blue inks I thought "bloody Tories, more personalised attacks".

Indeed it's a pretty terrible leaflet (click images to see in detail, but they're quite big files) which includes printing candidates home addresses along with a handy map to help any baying mobs in the vicinity to track them down. While it's publicly available information there's something distinctly creepy about ensuring every single member of the public gets a street map to help them find the candidates of the other parties.

The map is something the Tories had used before and coupled with the blue you immediately think you're reading a Tory leaflet which really, really goes for the throat against their coalition partners. Not nice for the Lib Dems but a miscalculation for the Tories too as the public aren't keen on this kind of attack politics - particularly when it gets personal..

Hold on though... where's the Tory logo? In fact, where's any logo of any kind? Where are the contact details? Where's the exhortation to vote for a party? Weird - there's none of that. But this is a leaflet being delivered to every home during a tight byelection... surely someone's responsible?

It's in there, but you'll have to look hard for it. Take your time... here's a clue: you might need a magnifying glass.

Here's another clue, it's not on the front page... give up?

OK. Back page, bottom left hand corner in what I estimate to be point four text size we have the words "Printed and promoted by an on behalf of Camden Labour Party, all at 110 Glouster Avenue, NW1 8HX". That is the only indication on the entire leaflet that this was produced and distributed by the Labour Party.

If I was deliberately distributing rival candidates addresses with a map marking their homes I'd be fucking ashamed as well, no wonder they don't want people to know who's responsible.

This is exactly the sort of thing that we need to see the back of in politics. I've no problem with attacking the politics or record of other parties but you should do so honestly and propose alternatives in their place. This is a deliberate attempt to deceive the public and should have no place in a democracy which relies on properly informed voters. By putting out a fake Tory leaflet of this kind Labour have shown themselves to politically bankrupt and Labour candidate Jenny Headlam-Wells should hang her head.

Two interesting videos

Both very different, but both worth watching. The first spotted by PunkScience;



The second highlighted by Norfolk Blogger on Tim Farron for President of the Liberal Democrats;

Your half dozen delivery

I've not done a round-up for a bit so have a bit of a backlog, let's see if I can clear some of it with some interesting articles and some updates on stories I've covered so far.

• First I want to point to Cath Elliott's piece on CiF about MP Nadine Dorris' latest confessions that she regularly lies to her constituents. Astonishing.
  
  
• I don't think I've ever linked to Climate Cassandra before, so now's the time.
  
  
• The two 'to watch' trends in blogging are group blogs and local blogs. The Charlton Champion is an excellent example of the latter.
  
  
• Frogblog has a follow up on the Hobbit industrial dispute.
  
  
• Prisoner Ben updates us on how the cuts are effecting his prison.
  
  
• The Dominion Post has a really interesting piece on the new Green Mayor in Wellington.
  

Tower Hamlets Mayoral election: oh my

Last night the people of Tower Hamlets shook the political establishment that's quite tired of being shaken thank you very much and elected Lutfur Rahman the expelled Labour candidate with more than fifty percent of the vote.

Results in full:

Rahman	Lutfur	Independent	23283	51.76%
Abbas	Helal Uddin	Labour	11254	25.02%
King	Neil	Conservative	5348	11.89%
Griffiths	John	Liberal Democrat	2800	6.22%
Duffell	Alan	Green Party	2300	5.11%

On a very low turnout (meaning that the elections cost four quid for every vote cast!) the Labour Party were despondent on the night even though when sorting through twitter earlier in the day you'd have found the Tower Hamlets thread clogged up with their supporters - it's almost as if twitter doesn't matter! The very thought...

Labour are blaming everyone but themselves for this defeat. Ken Livingstone for having a walkabout with Lutfur, the turnout, postal fraud, their own voters - everyone except themselves.

Having been duly selected as the Labour Party candidate Lutfur was promptly hoofed out and replaced by the third placed candidate Abbas. If the Party had a problem with Lutfur then they should never have let him stand for the role or be a leading member of their party in the area for years.

It seems they haven't learned their previous lessons about how damaging this kind of control freakery can be. Time and again Labour (and it is always Labour, no one else does this) stitch up selection processes from the centre and then the decision comes back to bite them.

Livingstone's first Mayoral run, the Welsh Party leadership, the Blaenau Gwent candidacy and in Scotland the case of Dennis Canavan are all examples where Labour's desire to control the Party have meant that they sabotaged their own party and, in the end, didn't get their way anyway either. There's a lesson for all parties there that no seat is safe, you can always fuck it up.

So far there have been expulsions from the Labour's council group as well as the candidate and it looks like Labour have managed to lose control of a borough that has been solid Labour for almost a century.

PS Well done to tower Hamlets Greens for their very positive campaign and good result, I know they're very happy today. A little more and we'd have beaten the lib Dems... next time comrades!

Two byelection results

Interesting byelection result tonight in Oxford, Barton and Sandhills. This was a Lib Dem held seat apparently. More interestingly we beat the Tories when they polled four times our result in May... looks like the CSR may not be popular in those parts.

	Tonight
Labour	837	57.09%	+14.41%
Lib Dem	334	22.78%	-5.29%
Green	119	8.12%	+1.64%
Tory	86	5.87%	-16.90%
UKIP	48	3.27%
Independent	42	2.86%
Total	1466

Update: In Witham South the Greens had a good result with more than twenty percent of the vote. Well done to the candidate Green Party Stephen Hicks. Looks like a bad night for the Lib Dems.

CON 261 (37.0%)
LAB 249 (35.3%)
GREEN 151 (21.4%)
LD 45 (6.4%)

CSR special: the union responses

As you might expect a Comprehensive Spending Review that intends to cut almost half a million jobs and risks losing half a million more in the private sector has provoked some sturdy reactions from trade unions. We've already seen that UNISON are unimpressed - but what about other unions?

The TUC damns the CSR as a "political project". I certainly agree that "yesterday the government launched a radical programme to roll back public services and sack public sector staff, even if this makes it more likely that the economy goes into reverse" although I'm less clear that "Voters have always rejected policies to make huge cuts to public services at the ballot box" is actually true - people did vote for the Lib Dems and Conservatives, and frankly Labour's policy was always for cuts, just less sharp, less fast.

To be honest it comes across as a Labour press release rather than a union one with it's reference to the ballot box.

Public Sector union PCS (which is not affiliated to Labour) has a much clearer, and less sloppy, approach describing the cuts as cruel and immoral. They put welfare cuts to the front of their concerns saying "These £18 billion cuts are a fundamental attack on the welfare state, targeting families with children, the sick and disabled, those on low incomes, and pensioners."

Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, said "This government has no strategy for creating jobs, and is instead demonising those without them - these are the cruel actions of an immoral government with no mandate and no strategy."

Billy Hayes, leader of the CWU who represent postal workers and others, said that "The volume of cuts also threatens to leave parts of the country away from the south east struggling with mass unemployment as public and private sector jobs fall to Mr Osbourne's axe."

He also pointed out something that I'd noticed too; "At CWU we're confused why the Chancellor included a promise on post offices in his address as there is no detail about how this funding would be provided. The network currently relies on £150 million annually from the government to keep rural and urban branches open, but with no detail this is an empty promise from Mr Osbourne."

Education union UCU says that "It is hard to see the rationale behind slashing college and university budgets when they generate massive economic growth for the country and when the alternative is more people on the dole and the state losing out on millions in tax revenues.

"We are appalled to learn that education maintenance allowances are at risk and funding for people who do not speak English is being abolished. The simple message here seems to be 'don't be poor. It's no good the chancellor describing universities as the jewel in our economic crown and then following those warm words up with massive cuts. Every MP with a college or university in or near their constituency should be clear that the cuts will put those institutions at risk."

Firefighters' union FBU have identified "Ten thousand fire service jobs are under threat from government plans to slash 25 per cent from fire and rescue service budgets over the next four years"

Matt Wrack, general secretary of the FBU, said: “These pernicious cuts must be fought to defend public safety. They are not inevitable, but politically driven. The FBU will oppose these draconian attacks on an essential frontline service and robustly defend the key role firefighters play in keeping communities safe.

“We cannot just meekly roll over and accept this. Neither should the employers. Firefighters are professionals – and we won’t stand by and see our service dismantled piecemeal.”

"In announcing the measures in Parliament, Chancellor George Osborne encouraged fire and rescue services to compete for the shrinking pot of public funds. He said that fire and rescue services could “limit budget reduction in return for substantial operational reform”. Measures mentioned include “flexible working arrangements” and “pay restraint and recruitment freezes”.

Matt Wrack commented: “This is pitting one fire and rescue service against another as resources dwindle, rewarding those who drive down pay and conditions and penalising the rest more. It is bullying and divisive.”

The RMT use their frontpage to highlight the various protests that are taking place up and down the country on Saturday (cut and pasted below). Another different tack they chose to take was to attack the rich rather than defend the poor. I like it.

"The “UK Transport Rich List” is topped by Keith Ludeman – boss of the Go-Ahead group – who saw his salary rise by an incredible 35% from £916,000 on the June 2009 figures to £1,240,000 in July this year. Ludeman is responsible for the Southern Trains franchise which recently announced it was axing toilets on the key inter-city route between Portsmouth and Brighton.

"Hot on his heels are Brian Souter from Stagecoach on £762,000 and David Martin from Arriva on £743,635. (A full list is attached.) Company profits show that the big five UK transport operators have posted combined dividends of more than £2 billion since privatisation."

Mr Crow, RMT leader, added "Under this ConDem government the public will be forced to pay through the nose to travel on crowded trains and buses on creaking and unsafe infrastructure while the profits, dividends and top bosses salaries of the private companies are ring-fenced. That is a scandal."

• London: Assemble 11am at RMT head office, 39 Chalton Street NW1 for march to SERTUC rally at Congress Huse from noon
• Edinburgh: assemble 11am: at East Market Street
• Cardiff: assemble City Hall at noon
• Belfast: assemble 1pm College of Art Gardens
• Bristol: assemble 11am Castle Park, march to Bristol City Council, College Green
• Cambridge: assemble noon Parkside Fire Station, rally 1.30pm, Guildhall
• Derby: 'Derby People's Day' , Market Place, noon to 3pm, Speakers, music and street stalls.
• Lincoln: assemble noon at Castle Square, march to rally at Cornhill at 1pm.
• Sheffield: assemble outside City Hall, 12.30

CSR special: Ring-fencing NHS, schools and aid

There are a number of departments that the government has protected from themselves (which is obviously very merciful). To much headlines the NHS, schools and DfID are all areas where the Comprehensive Spending Review has not bitten... or did it?

The NHS budget is protected with an extra ten billion over the next four years, the schools budget retained and to much trumpeting aid is, in fact, increasing. However, this is not the whole story.

Many health campaigners are understandably confused at the way the coalition say the NHS is safe in their hands but they still seem force to fight to retain services and fight privatisation. roughly one in five trusts admit that they have closed down a major service or department in the last few months. The privatisation is ongoing Tory/Labour policy but why should services be closing down if the money's protected?

The answer is three fold. First of all the overall budget is ring-fenced, not individual services and the rise (of 2.5%) is actually less than the increase needed to preserve services. That means if the money is moved into one area it inevitably has to move away from another. The government is very keen on an extraordinary overhaul of the structures of the health services which, in itself will cost money that would have been spent on other services, leaving aside whether that reorganisation would be a good idea.

Secondly the capital expenditure is being reduced by 17% and there are twenty billion pounds worth of 'efficiency savings' already in the pipeline.

Thirdly, the increasing cost of drugs in particular (as well as additional strain of obesity and an aging population) mean that certain areas of spending are eating up more than their fair share of the cake.

Public sector union UNISON was very clear on how the ring-fencing will still mean cuts when they said that; "Patients and staff will soon see through the facade that the NHS is being ring-fenced, when at the same time it has been told to make £20bn worth of savings.

“The NHS is not safe. Some hospitals are already cutting back on vital life-improving operations such as cataract, hip and knee replacements. The NHS needs extra funding just to stand still. It will not be able to keep up with the demands of a growing elderly population and the cost of increasingly expensive treatments and drugs.

“The Government’s latest NHS “reforms” will intensify the market and introduce more private sector provision. They will cost £3bn to implement and create havoc and instability just when the NHS can least afford it.

“Staff are facing a two year pay freeze, many vacancies are being left unfilled, pensions are under review and the number of managers will be cut by 45%. Another Tory broken promise – the NHS is under siege – it is not being protected."

So what about schools?

Well, this is slightly different. Back to UNISON; “The coalition is being dishonest by saying that the schools budget will be boosted. Schools also get vital funding and support services from local authorities, which are being hit by drastic cuts. Many will struggle to afford to help schools support children with special needs, or run truancy units. Schools will have to dip into their own funds to pay for these essential services.

“Up and down the country schools support staff are facing losing their jobs. It all adds up to mean cuts will disproportionately hit on children with additional needs in schools.”

Essentially the 'schools budget' makes up only a portion of the total moneys that schools receive which is why specialist services, like one to one tuition are under threat. Local authorities, as we have already seen, are under a huge amount of financial pressure and it would unbelievable if their contribution to schools did not suffer.

Oh, and then there's the lost funding of the Building Schools for the Future programme which lost billions in investment for schools in dire need of refurbishment. In fact, after the fiasco of the handling of BSF scrapping (which turned out to be a hell of a lot more popular than Gove expected) it's arguable that it would have been impossible to take more out of schools than they already have.

Aid

Now, surely I should be overjoyed to hear the news that there will be a significant increase in the aid budget? 37% over four years looks pretty good, especially in the context of the cuts. Well, let's take a closer look first.

Tucked away in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cuts it turns out that a number of their projects will now be delivered by DfID, how many and how much they will cost is left unanswered as yet. More importantly while the FCO is to "increase its focus on championing British companies to win export" they also account for a good portion of the increase in Official Development Assistance (ODA).

After all while other, much more useful, quangos went to the wall the Export Credit Guarantee Department who love the shady world of arms exports, etc, and all that entails.

I'm intrigued as to whether there will be any slippage between meeting the Millennium Development Goals and maintaining British financial interests. I should point out I'm not being artful here, it genuinely unclear so far - however - Section 2.97 in the Review states "British international development policy [to be] more focused on boosting economic growth and wealth creation".

Continuing my concern that the aid budget may be being used with an eye to British interests is that 2.97 continues that 30% of the ODA is to be used in conflict countries "with particular focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan". I'm really sorry to be cynical and I'm not down playing the fact that these two countries desperately need aid but for the British State to focus on areas where British troops are in conflict with the locals is not a coincidence.

Anyway, while an increase in the aid budget is always welcome we should ensure that aid should be used as aid not as an adjunct to business interests or the military effort.

While we're talking about DfID it's to be welcomed that a *new* quango overseeing how the money is to be spent has been set up however I'm concerned by the idea that DfID is to be a "leaner organisation with a focus on managing aid efficiently and effectively, by seriously reducing back office costs." Sorry to be picky but cutting admin costs does not automatically make you more efficient and effective.

Indeed DfId had already been streamlined under Labour and this had resulted in severe restrictions in the number of projects they could manage. The consequences of this is that aid will tend to be delivered either by the very biggest NGOs or consortiums of large NGOs.

Smaller international development organisations (of which there are many) already find it extremely difficult to work directly with DfID because they simply do not have the capacity to work with the small fry. The Coalition's proposals will simply deepen this trend driving small specialist NGOs out of business while heaping money on their super-sized cousins.

All in all what I'm trying to say is that it is not surprising that the Coalition have tried to win as many good headlines as they can amid the carnage - but ring-fencing services does not, in this case, mean that the future of those services are secure.

CSR special: Science

We've seen headline responses that science has been saved from the axeman, that over the next four years it's budget will be frozen in cash terms - which is a real term cut of 10% over the period at a time when similar nations are investing in vital new technologies. Cameron himself said that this was a "good outcome for science".

Well, compared to some other departments that is essentially true. Many leading scientists have had their first born returned to them unscathed and the testicle clamps have been put back into storage.

However, let's not get too excited (as if), government spending accounts for 30% of the total spend on scientific research in this country and helps support the other 70% which comes from NGOs, private companies and abroad. That 10% cut, was described by Science is Vital head honcho Imran Khan as "a 30% or 40% decrease in new PhDs that we'll have next year for instance".

It will be some months before we see what the specific outcomes are for university departments as it is in the purview of Master Thaumaturgist Vince Cable to decide how the funds are allocated but it is worth pointing out that specialist teaching in schools is in doubt and HE funding more generally is undergoing a massive 'overhaul' which could see radical changes over the next few years in the shape of HE education.

Kudos to the science campaigners for their effective campaigners in this field and I don't want to understate their achievement. I will say though that even where the budget has not hit hardest it still lacks vision for the future.

The idea that, right now, we should not be heavily investing in flood defenses, research in renewable technologies and technologies to help us save energy while revitalising our manufacturing industry for home and export just seems really short sighted.

CSR special: Environment

The Comprehensive Spending Review has a few cheap headlines in it for the environment - but sadly this amounts to a bit of window dressing amid some pretty hefty carnage. Before we start looking at the poor old Department of Energy and Climate Change let's look at transport first.

The Department of Transport is facing a 12.6% cut (an 1/8th of it's budget) and there will be a sharp rise in rail fares. That's right, in a country that already has massively overpriced rail tickets we're going to see above inflation rises.

Some infrastructure projects have been saved, like Crossrail and Thameslink, but Network Rail has promised savings by putting on hold plans for new carriages to ease overcrowding. So no new capacity, but even more expensive to travel. However High Speed Rail 2, a stonkingly expensive project that may not move anyone off the roads onto trains looks set to go ahead.

Fear not though because the road building continues with an extra lane of gridlock planned for the M25 and others. Don't worry if you're concerned about buses clogging up these precious new roads because the fuel tax subsidy to bus operators has been cut from 80% to 60% which will mean less services and higher fares - particularly for rural and less used routes.

I'm also told that even walking and cycling provision will be hit as this comes under the remit of local councils who are all facing their own massive funding crisis.

Department of Energy and Climate Change

The DECC budget will be reduced by 33% over the next four years which includes cuts in insulation subsidies, the renewable heat levy, subsidies to feed-in tarriffs and the Severn Barrage which is to go to the wall. Admittedly this was a controversial project that would have supplied a good deal of renewable energy at the cost of the local wildlife and habitats.

Between three and eight thousand jobs will be lost in the department out of a total of 30,000. Hundreds of nature reserves are likely to be sold off and grants to institutions like Kew Gardens and the Royal botanic Gardens are to be cut.

Half a billion is to be shaved off the explicit flood defences budget on top of the expectation that local councils will be cutting back on local flood prevention provision. There's also going to be cuts in animal disease prevention with the private sector being expected to take up much of the slack.

Both of these moves look quite dangerous to me, and a repeat of the foot and mouth disease outbreak a few years ago and/or new flooding like last year would cost the economy and the government dear. Yet another false economy.

However, there will be one billion for the experimental technology Carbon Capture and Storage and another billion for a 'Green Investment Bank' to help deliver new projects. However, the department has been particularly badly hit by the 'bonfire of the quangos' that were already funding projects and groups like the Carbon Trust and Energy Saving Trust will suffer so whether the GIB is a move forwards or not seems a little doubtful to me.

However, in the context of green job losses and budget cuts the occasional piece of good news is hardly earth shattering. Certainly this is a million miles away from the million green jobs policy of investment that we need, although what on Earth the 'Green Deal' turns out to be is anyone's guess.

The report also contains the chilling phrase "the DECC will develop innovative ways of working with the private sector, acting as an enabler rather than a provider." Presumably because they'll no longer be in a position to provide anything.

Bizarrely the Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne said: “DECC is playing its part in tackling the deficit. Like the rest of the public sector we have taken some tough decisions, but we remain on course to deliver on our promise to be the greenest government ever. We will help create green jobs and green growth - and secure the low carbon investment we need to keep the lights on.”

CSR special: Housing

The Comprehensive Spending Review spelled some extremely bad news in the housing sector. It's a review that will cause hardship for many and homelessness for thousands. It's not simply that Osbourne scaled back the plans of building new affordable homes by 30%, there has been a general assault on rights and benefits that will lead to misery and homelessness.

The ending of Secure Tenancies for council house tenants is the end of an era. The post-war settlement that created affordable homes for working people was a massive attack upon one of the great divides in society - decent housing. As council houses have been gradually sold off the stock has more and more become a backstop to house the most vulnerable in society rather than ensuring the majority have somewhere decent to live.

Those secure tenancies were there to give the poor stability and reassurance, a firm base upon which to build a life. These moves entrench the shift towards using council housing as emergency, short term accommodation - a shift already well underway with the breakup of council housing stock a the growing use of 'Social Landlords'.

As the Telegraph reports there is also a new rise in rents; "new council house tenants face a steep hike in living costs, offering intermediate rents at around 80 per cent of the market rent."

Housing is the bedrock of any community, and as Eileen Short, chair of Defend Council Housing and sister of a well known former minister, said recently (doc) "Attacks on secure tenancies, cuts in housing benefit and forcing up rents will create more debt, evictions and homelessness."

The attacks on housing benefit have been signalled well in advance and we know they will lead to both a new wave of homelessness and an exodus from high housing areas, like London, which already suffer from a lack of essential workers unable to afford high rents and/or mortgages. Indeed this feeds into the benefit cap of £500 a week per household as a family living in a high rent area will find it very difficult to cope with rising rents.

The Citizens Advice Bureau, in a hard hitting press release condemned the CSR and pointed to the that;

"Housing benefit has already been cut back and the extraordinary decision to raise single room rate to 35 year-olds will lead to an explosion of homelessness, and will hit single working people on low incomes as well as the single unemployed. The measure to restrict contribution-based ESA to 12 months betrays people who have paid contributions all their working lives and become sick or disabled.

"We advise millions of people every year, who are often on very low incomes or rely on welfare benefits and public services. They told us that their top priorities for the spending review were simplification of welfare benefits, free to use government helplines and affordable housing. We welcome the announcement that the welfare benefits system will be simplified to make it easier to understand and navigate. In the meantime we urge the government to maintain and continue to improve service standards and ensure the new system is designed with the needs of service users in mind.“

The single room rate, which I'd not even been aware of until the CSR, will mean that under-35s will only be able to receive housing benefit if they are living in shared accommodation. So if you're currently working for the public sector and living in a small flat a redundancy notice will mean you're out on the street as well as out of work.

The news that the government was to spend less in housing did not just mean that the 30% less new build would mean that the more than a million on the waiting lists for social housing would have to wait that bit longer. We also saw an immediate hit on the shares of Barratt Developments (down 4.4 percent) and Taylor Wimpey (down 5.56 percent). The National Housing Federation warned that 1.7 percent of jobs in the construction industry could be lost.

Federation chief executive David Orr said: "The fact that the housing budget is being cut by 60% is deeply depressing – and shows that providing affordable housing is no longer a government priority. Cuts on this scale will come as a devastating blow to the millions of low income families currently stuck on housing waiting lists.

"The harsh reality is that because of these cuts, the new social homes this country so desperately needs, can now only be built by dramatically increasing rents for some of the most vulnerable and poorest in our society. Most tenants simply won’t be able to cover these extra costs, and as a consequence make it more difficult than ever for people to escape the poverty trap and benefits dependency that the Government has repeatedly said it wants to tackle."

All-in-all extremely bad news for anyone not rolling in money. Remember kids, Nick Clegg says the cuts are fair, and I quote "the review is one that promotes fairness, underpins growth, reduces carbon emissions and localises power."

CSR special: overview

The Comprehensive Spending Review yesterday was pretty much what we expected. Only the Kitten Torturing Budget and the Chinese Burn Department were left relatively unscathed - although under the KTB reforms civil servants will now have to supply their own waterboarding boards, as an efficiency saving.

In the words of Private Frasier: "We're all doomed". But there's a silver lining to the mushroom cloud... oh no there isn't that was the flash of a second nuclear explosion creating a second mushroom cloud, my mistake.

For me we have a budget that will end up costing us money, rather than saving it. The half million public sector workers who will lose their jobs, and the estimated half million more of private sector workers who'll follow as a result will lead to a social catastrophe.

It's worth remembering of course that the Thatcher government came in promising to tackle the welfare bill and despite putting her best demons on the job the welfare bill rose and rose year on year. That's because the Tories work under a false assumption - that the welfare bill is so high because of horrible, lazy people claiming stuff instead of having the good grace to go into the study with a pearl handled revolver.

The welfare bill rose because of mass unemployment, a lesson they could learn today. I'm wondering whether we're going to see the Liberals and their Tory friends going into the 2015 election having destroyed millions of lives AND having failed to cut the deficit because they'd spectacularly failed to reduce welfare payments despite behaving like utter shits to claimants and the disabled.

In this sense the CSR could well end up not just being a failure in terms of social justice and equality (which it certainly is) it may also be a failure in Osbourne's own terms. It's one thing to say that you'll cut the welfare bill by eight billion quid, it's quite another to see that happen at the same time as laying off hundreds of thousands of people who were doing productive jobs.

The household economy

There are a number of homely economy analogies doing the rounds at the moment. As Counterfire have pointed out one is that the government’s finances are like a household budget. But of course, the employment of millions of people to do socially productive work isn’t exactly the same as whether you buy a new telly or not. There are subtle differences.

Another is the idea that “We all have to tighten our belts”. It’s not quite true though. The economic crisis, also known as the ConDem government, will not hit everyone equally. There are some that are doing very well thank you very much. The champagne corks are still popping in many executive boardrooms.

But more than this the analogy makes it sound a relatively simple exercise involving a bit of grit and determination. You could do without a little luxury or work an extra hour couldn’t you? Tightening our belts sounds relatively harmless, in fact it might even be a little good for you.

But that’s not the plan.

It’s not just that the rich and the poor aren’t in it together, even those in work aren’t going to feel the full force of the government’s attacks equally.

We’re going to see possibly hundreds of thousands out of work while those that remain are forced to take up the slack. It's awful for everyone, but in different ways. Is that tightening our belts or having some their heads put in a noose?

And as for the services that are lost, well the closure of your local library does not hit everyone equally. If you can afford books and a daily paper it means something quite different to you than if you can’t. If they cut housing benefit it doesn’t mean everyone is slightly worse off, it means thousands struggle and others are thrown on the streets it effects some and not others.

That’s not tightening our belts, that letting the most vulnerable go to the wall. The point of the analogy is to minimise the significance of the cuts, and to brush over our common responsibility to each other. It also happens to be the line that people who aren't effected by the cuts use to pay less tax at the expense of the immiseration of their neighbours.

Hero Rats

via Earwicga

Perplexing Pravda Pickle

I think quite a few people sympathised with Eric Pickles when he came out against 'Townhall Pravdas', those mock newspapers produced by your local council promoting your local Labour Mayor or whatever. Sorry, I mean publicising the work of your council.

Back in June Pickles explained that "The previous Government’s weakening of the rules on town hall publicity not only wasted taxpayers’ money and added to the wave of junk mail, but has undermined a free press." I think that's broadly true.

More to the point he also argued that;

"local newspapers have been put under increasing pressure in recent years by the proliferation of town-hall Pravdas. These glossy magazines have been designed for the sole purpose of telling people how great the council is. And they are competing with independent newspapers for readers and advertising space: undermining local newspapers already under threat from the internet and the 24-hour news cycle.

"This has serious consequences for local democracy. Local journalists have a proud tradition of holding councillors to account, questioning unpopular decisions and exposing unsavoury behaviour. These propaganda sheets are no substitute for a free and independent press."

The government using a supposedly independent looking medium to put out subliminal, or all to often very liminal, propaganda is a serious issue. Especially so at a time when local papers are struggling with a lack of advertising revenues meaning they don't have the funds to produce the kind of quality local paper that you can find in some other countries and that local communities deserve.

However, I wonder if I'm the only person to have been surprised to see that while the government is clamping down on this sort of behaviour by local councils it seems to be toying with the idea of using the BBC's network to do the exact same thing on a national level.

The Independent reports that "The Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude is in talks with BBC bosses about running a series of adverts on their TV and radio stations... it could go much further than the long-standing relationship under which the BBC had the power to choose what it broadcast. Insiders believe ministers could now demand regular slots for government information films... Such a move would require a change to the BBC charter, which gives the corporation complete independence over the content of its broadcasts."

The BBC Trust described the idea as having "serious implications for the corporation's independence and impartiality". They said that it was for the BBC "alone to decide what it broadcasts and when". It added: "Furthermore, if the BBC were to broadcast free of charge advertising content that could otherwise appear on commercial channels, that would be likely to have an adverse impact on the wider market."

So basically exactly the same arguments that applied for the Town Hall apply for Whitehall. I hope Pickles doesn't find out, he'll be furious, it will make him look like he has double standards.

Reminder to self: Don't read the Daily Mail

It's the sort of thing you'd have thought would be obvious. If you don't want to annoy yourself don't read the Daily Mail. After all that's what the Mail does, not just to people like me who are diametrically opposed to everything it stands for, it's written to annoy the people who agree with it as well.

The typical Mail reader would feel short changed if they finished the paper with a benign feeling of love and goodwill towards their fellow citizens. They buy it to help feed the bitter seeds xenophobia and bile that lie deep within them. It's deliberately written to get readers in the mood to re-enact Kristallnacht by the time they're through.

It's no surprise therefore that top of the website at the moment is a piece praising a German leader for attacking immigrants. As Labour's Bob Piper pointed out on twitter "Merkel says multiculturalism has failed in Germany. Surely she knows the last time they tried monoculturalism it was hardly a major success."

I should have known better than to flick through a copy earlier, but if there's a paper there in front of me I'll read it. The thing that most impressed me was the piece by Peter Hitchens which is possibly one of the most exciting things I've read for years.

The title, and I assure you this is true and not a parody, was "Is university really such a good thing? I spent three years learning to be a Trot."

Read that again, "Is university really such a good thing? I spent three years learning to be a Trot." Beautiful isn't it? As a piece of writing it would be hard to more succinctly summarise the absolutely bizarre brand of misanthropy and paranoia that is the Mail.

He goes on to denounce "creepy sex education", "parasites" (students to you and me), he announces that "college is a corrupting, demoralising experience" where they teach "anti-Christian, anti-Western, anti-traditional material" and that you can be summarily condemned for "thought crimes" like "homophobia". Oh the woe that is the modern world.

I was particularly interested in the Hitchens thesis that the Iraq War was caused by the modern university. It's undeniable that those who made the case for war had all *been* to university, but then again they were almost all married men, but that wouldn't fit with his view that there is also a "war on the married family" from the same people.

Talking of students, this wasn't in today's paper but I notice here we have the perfect picture combo of a super-model, Cambridge university, the scruffiest student in the world and Trotskyism. However, the caption says it's a punk trying to get an autograph when they are clearly a Socialist Worker seller getting someone to sign a petition... but let's move on.

When the Mail is not spitting chips about people learning things or not being married they're gossiping about Labour politicians.

I discovered that Ed Balls plays football (pictured). I found out that Ed Miliband once shared a house with Yvette Cooper, and, stop me if you think this is far too informative, that brother David used to go out with Ruth Kelly... double shudder.

It's like they're as compulsive-obsessive about politics as I am but they're from an alternative evil universe. For instance, they're quite excited by the news that fascist Brigitte Bardot is thinking about running for French President. I can see why they like this; it combines animal rights, sexy pictures, homophobia and racism.

They do have the good-grace to describe her as 'controversial', although I suspect they might mean that as good thing. Personally I think close friendships with far-right politicians and having a string of convictions for race hatred goes beyond 'controversial' .

Anyway, my statement of the bleeding obvious of the day is that we shouldn't read the Mail, it's designed to make you angry. It's like being shocked when reading a Melanie Philips article that she turns out to be ideologically putrid or Julie Burchill and discovering she's fundamentally puerile. Just don't do it because you know what's coming next, and it ain't pretty.

Guest Post: Is Sarkozy setting off a new May 68 in France?

Many socialist eyes are looking jealously across the channel to France at the moment (my photos). Here my regular correspondent on French affairs, John Mullen, the editor of Socialisme International, writes a really useful report on what's actually happening and why.

Class struggle is hitting France in a big way, as Tuesday 12th and Saturday 16th October saw the seventh and eighth day of action to defend retirement pensions. Two hundred and forty demonstrations were organized on each day across France along with mass strikes in transport, electricity, oil, airports, telecoms, education, and the civil service. The unions say there were three and a half million demonstrators Tuesday ; the government say a million and a quarter, but even one of the police staff associations said the government was fiddling the figures.

For the first time, students and school students joined the pensions struggle in large numbers, concerned both about their parents, and that later retirement for older workers means fewer jobs for the young. According to polls, eighty four per cent of 18 to 24 year olds think the strikers are right. “Sarkozy, you're screwed, the youth is on the street,” was the chant in Toulouse in the South West. Two days later the number of high schools involved in the strike had risen from 200 to 700. As young people moved into action, government ministers squealed that fifteen-year-olds were too young to demonstrate and strike, that they must be being manipulated. This from a government whose justice minister recently proposed to lower to twelve years old the age at which a young person can be imprisoned for committing a crime!

The movement is not just a series of one-day strikes controlled by union leaders. Since last Wednesday, daily striker meetings in the most active sectors vote each day on continuing the strike for 24 hours more. Already, all of the twelve oil refineries in France have taken up these “renewable strikes”, half of the country’s trains are not running, and some libraries and school canteens are closed, while in other sectors hundreds of mass meetings are being held to decide on next steps. Lorry drivers have started blocking industrial zones in solidarity with the movement despite the fact that they themselves can retire at 55. One of the leaders of the drivers pointed out that drivers care about what happens to the support and administrative workers in transport firms, who are mostly women, and don’t get early retirement like the drivers do. Dockers in Marseilles have walked out, too and another national day of strikes and demonstrations for everyone is planned for Tuesday 19th.

Union members make up under ten per cent of French workers, though many millions more vote for union representatives as staff reps on works committees, and in polls 53% of the population and 60% of manual workers say they trust unions. The result of low union density is that most workplaces are only partly unionized, so regular meetings where everyone can express themselves and vote on the strike are essential. Such meetings can also make it harder for union leaders to sell out strikes.

Public Support

Public opinion is absolutely on our side - Fully 71% of the population opposes Sarkozy’s “reform”, and that support for the movement rises to 87% among manual workers and routine office workers. A poll last week even reckoned that two thirds of the population thought the strike movement needed to get tougher on the government, while 53% of the population and 70% of manual workers wanted a general strike! This support needs to be transformed into active confidence to strike in those sectors not yet mobilized.

In France, 13 per cent of retired people are living in poverty according to a recent Eurostat survey, as against seventeen per cent in Germany, and thirty per cent in Britain, where neoliberal “reforms” have gone much further. French workers are determined not to catch up to other countries in the poverty stakes. But over the last twenty years, pensions have come gradually under attack. The official retirement age is still 60, but a few years back, despite being slowed by strikes, the government managed to force through an increase in the number of quarterly stamps needed to get a full pension. In 1990, thirty seven and a half years’ worth were enough; by 2012 you will need forty one years’ worth. If you have less than this, they chop a bit off your pension for each year “missing”, unless you retire at 65, in that case you get a full pension. Sarkozy’s new law, just being voted through parliament, adds two years both to the official retirement age (making it 62) and to the age you need to retire at to get a guaranteed full pension (making it 67).

Sarkozy, weakened by disgusting corruption scandals involving his ministers (including Eric Woerth the head of pension reform) over the summer, is desperately looking for his “Thatcher moment”, a moment which has eluded recent right wing governments in France. In 1995 a month of strikes saw off a drastic attack on pensions. And most famously, in 2006, the First Employment Contract, voted though by a right wing government to impose inferior working conditions on young adults under 26 years old, was an unmitigated disaster for the government. After the law had been voted, a massive student movement backed up by the unions forced the Prime Minister into a humiliating climbdown. This happening again is Sarkozy’s nightmare. He has been quoted recently as saying in private “As long as the young people don’t get involved, I can handle the movement against my pension reform.” Traditionally, presidents allow their prime ministers to take the main responsibility for unpopular reforms, and sack them if the movement against gets too strong, but this time Sarkozy has put himself in the forefront, a move we hope to make him regret.

Union leaders and Left parties

You might think that with such levels of public support, union leaders would pull out all the stops for a General strike, but professional negotiators don’t think like that. The main trade union confederations have so far been united about the need for one day mass strikes, which has made impossible the standard government tactic of getting one confederation on their side through minor concessions and using that fact in propaganda to reduce public support for the strikers. But they are not pushing for renewable strikes, and are calling for negotiations, not for the simple binning of Sarkozy’s pension law. The union leaders’ banner at the head of Saturday’s demonstration read “Pensions, jobs and wages are important to society” when it should have read “General strike to beat Sarkozy”! So it’s up to the rank and file to build up to a general strike, though some regional leaders are supporting the idea.

The rock bottom support for Sarkozy in the opinion polls, and the fact that there are only 18 months left till the next presidential elections, has led the Socialist Party to be more active (though far from central) in this movement. They have promised to reinstate retirement at 60 if they are elected in 2012. The Socialist Party today is like the Labour Party in Britain twenty years ago, deeply divided between a Blairite wing who would abandon even weak links with an active workers’ movement, and a left wing who see a mix of parliamentary action and movements on the streets as the best way forward to more social justice. The Blairite Dominique Strauss Kahn, one of the hopefuls for the Socialist Party presidential candidacy in 2012 is presently Director General of the International Monetary Fund, the financial gangsters who are pushing across the world for later retirement and public sector cuts!

The Left reformist “Left Party”, and the Communist Party are actively building the movement, though many activists are being diverted into campaigning for a referendum on the issue of pensions. Since Sarkozy would only grant a referendum if he was terrified by the power of the movement, and if he scare him enough he will junk his reform anyway, the referendum idea is a waste of time. Anticapitalist groups such as the New Anticapitalist Party are completely committed to building for a general strike. Olivier Besancenot, spokesperson for the NAP said “We need a twenty first century version of May 1968.”

So far Sarkozy has been forced to make minor concessions (concerning for example women who have taken time off work to raise children). He has also made concessions in other areas hoping to calm the anger of certain parts of the population - for example an announced plan to cut housing benefit for students was abandoned . And a few days ago, he announced plans to look again at a whole raft of tax cuts for the rich instituted only three years back.

But the main battle is still on. Now the attack has been voted through parliament, the stakes are high - the unions are not negotiating : the new law will stand or be broken. If it is broken, Sarkozy is unlike to survive as president beyond the next elections in 2012.

Divide and rule

All year, Sarkozy has been using classic divide and rule tactics and playing the racist card. Mass expulsions of gypsies and threats to remove French nationality from naturalized immigrants convicted of certain crimes have led to protest movements. Tragically, the passage of a law banning women wearing a “full” muslim veil from walking the streets was supported by most of the parliamentary Left, while the far left remained practically silent, afraid of islamophobic sentiments among its own supporters. These racist tactics have had some effect, and racist attacks are on the rise. A sharp defeat for Sarkozy on pensions could help build a fighting Left which could then roll back some of the Right’s racist ploys, and encourage united action on the radical Left...

The movement is still on the rise, and Friday police thugs attacked high school students in a series of towns across France. In Montreuil, where I live, a high school student is in hospital having an operation on his eye after police fired plastic bullets at students who were blockading their school. In other parts of France, police forced the blockade of oil supply depots Friday.

Only two years ago in 2008, Sarkozy could be heard to gloat “These days, when there is a strike in France, no-one notices. ” He has been made to notice now, and if a rising wave of strikes can kill his attack on pensions, it will be a major step forward in the defence of workers in France, and an encouragement for workers around the world. Already, Spain’s recent general strike and Greece’s mass strikes against austerity have shown that European workers are ready to fight.

Sunday selection

Sunday's not a day for hard work yet somehow, here in Ladywell, its nothing but hustle and bustle. You should come and see. Anyway, here's some links I've spotted;

• I really didn't like Tony Juniper's latest in the Guardian as I thought it made it look like green initiatives here inevitably hurt the developing world. However, there's a good point in there.
  
  
• I thought Darren Johnson's piece on Liberal Conspiracy was much more practical.
  
  
• Lib Dem Minister Chris Huhne is setting out the locations for new nuclear powers stations. The Lib Dems are opposing wind turbines in Maidstone. How credible are they as an environmental party?As the government slashes the Green Quangos, Philip Booth highlights a campaign to help improve things.
  
  
• Owen Hatherley looks at the fate of urban regeneration in the recession.
  
  
• A few more posts on water. Stockwell Pete on fluoride, Jo Simmonds highlights some videos, Making Waves on clean water, while This is not my country writes on water and Roma.
  
  
• Lastly, Patrick Harvie has a response to Stop Climate Chaos.
  

Oh, before I go, there's a series of posts on Liberal Conspiracy on how Labour can win back the south of England, but it misses out something really obvious. They should bomb it. Remember how grateful everyone round the world has been when Labour bombed them? Well it could work here too!

There's also nuclear weapons stored in the south that could be launched within, well, it would probably take a while to set one off, but they're definitely there! Also I heard Michael Gove slagged off Miliband's mum.

I know we're meant to forget about the hundreds of thousands of dead and move on, I mean they haven't had anyone killed since May for goodness sake, but it's becoming harder and harder to walk round Labour Party HQ with all the corpses that have been brushed under the carpet.

But this policy would have side benefits too. Not only would it help retake the south, it would be a Labour policy that Scotland could finally fully support too.

Hundreds of Foxconn workers arrested in India

Foxconn is a company that manufactures batteries for Nokia and if the name rings a bell there’s a reason. The company recently came to international attention because of a spate of suicides in its Chinese factories. That debacle found the company making various hallow promises and “pushing workers to sign a non-suicide “pledge.”” Sorted.

Foxconn employs around 2,500 people in India, specifically in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, and their record there is no happier than that in China. In last month's report “changing industrial relations in India’s mobile phone industry,”Good Electronics revealed a catalogue of anti-worker problems.

On page 28 of the pdf we see that Foxconn is paying less than the minimum wage, hiring workers as apprentices then sacking them when they finish their training period, and, as Supply Management point out workers are being kept in the dark about their rights.

Far more damning is the strategic anti-union approach of the company. For example Foxconn sends agents out to hire workers from far off regions, many of which it houses in its ‘hostels’ rather than hire local labour which it deems to be at risk of militancy. Where local labour is hired they are given the hardest most dangerous jobs in order to keep the level of local workers down.

Workers are consistently bullied, unable to refuse overtime or claim their statutory leave.

In summary that well known Trotskyite news source Good Electronics states that "The overall policy of Foxconn shows a preference for temporary workers, to deny right to association and to avoid collective bargaining agreements. Management practices of the company are in line with the strategy of the group of Nokia’s suppliers, creating a vulnerable workforce without the capacity to bargain for their rights."

In the face of these problems the left locally have been working together to put pressure on the government and the employers to ensure workers rights are met. An initial strike on September 23rd of factory workers resulted in a thousand arrests and the sacking of 23 workers at the plant.

This escalation resulted in an 18 day occupation, from September 27th, of over one thousand of Foxconn’s workforce demanding their colleagues’ reinstatement, an increase in wages and union recognition for Foxconn India Thozilalar Sangam (FITS). On Sunday the police raided the factory in the middle of the night and "locked up 320 Foxconn India workers along with CITU state secretary A. Soundarajan and its Kanchipuram district secretary E. Muthukumar in Vellore prison”

The most up to date news reports seem to indicate that they are still being held in prison. You can sign a petition to support them here.

London Mayoral selection update: Lib Dems suspend process

It appears that the Lib Dems have suspended their process for selecting a candidate for London Mayor "for about a year" due to a lack of decent candidates. Three candidates got through the first short listing process "ex MP Lembit Opik, party stalwart Jeremy Ambache and former Richmond councillor Shas Sheehan."

I was surprised to see that Lewisham councillor Duwaine Brookes was not on the list as he had been making his intentions to stand for the post public for some time. It appears that he did not pass the selection test and his appeal failed. I'm torn on this because he's a well-liked local Lib Dem with a lot to offer, but I suspect he'd have found the race a bruising process as he lacks the experience and weight to be regarded as a serious Mayoral contender.

I also note that Ffloella Benjamin was not on the list which either means the rumours were not true or that she is reluctant and the stalls have been held to give party bigwigs time to persuade her. Speaking with my Green Party hat on it would be terrible if she was the Lib Dem candidate as she'd provide a real breath of fresh air and distance from the previous disastrous Lib Dem Mayoral campaign.

It's interesting that three candidates are not regarded as enough to choose from if they're deemed of sufficient quality to run and I wonder if this will backfire on them if they're going to select so late in the game.

Your daily six

We've got an interest crop of linklettes for your today;

• Today is blog action day on water, if only I had time... however, among others these people did Crafty Green Poet, Doc Richard, Philip Booth and Ecomonkey.
  
  
• Robin Blackburn is a very decent sort. Here he looks at alternatives to the Tory deficit in thinking. North of the border Jeff considers a tartan tax and the Guardian explores what companies need from the government to invest in renewable technologies.
  
  
• This Liberal Democrat site is interesting. I get the impression that people like Spiderplant 88 and Chris Mills are not alone in feeling betrayed by their party.
  
  
• Liam highlights the firefighters' strike in London.
  
  
• I'm not a fan of the personalisation of politics on the blogosphere, but I think this piece by Andrew Dobson on Paul Kingsnorth's move towards a nature centred living approach is well worth highlighting.
  
  
• Important information about Ed Miliband.

Date for your diary:

Parliamentary meeting - Is it time to scrap Trident?

Speakers:

• Cathy Jamieson, Labour MP
• Tessa Munt, Lib Dem MP
• Caroline Lucas, Green MP
• Professor John Foster, author of Trident, jobs and the UK economy
  

6pm, Monday 18th October
Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, Westminster
Map: http://bit.ly/d2aNFu

Interview: Alan Duffell. A Green Mayor for Tower Hamlets

I've been speaking to Alan Duffell, the Green Party's Mayoral candidate for Tower Hamlets. We're asking people to give their first preference to Alan for greater democracy, for a positive vision for Tower Hamlets and for the only candidate who takes climate change and the environment seriously.

D(M): You're standing for Mayor of Tower Hamlets - how did you vote in the referendum and why?

AD: I voted against the position. As a party we weighed up all the pros and cons of the creation of a Mayor and decided that such a position would do more damage to the borough than good. That is still my opinion.

We then had two options - either to disappear into obscurity and try to make our point by heckling at events, or to stand a candidate who pledges to increase democracy and resist centralisation, thereby limiting the scope of the Mayor's position. To that end I pledge to be accountable to the elected Council and reserve my right of Veto only to oppose decisions which explicitly go against Green policy.


D(M): The cuts are set to bite pretty deep. How would you approach the economic situation?

AD: To oppose a coalition making cuts, you must have a coalition organised against those cuts. I would involve the entire Tower Hamlets population in a huge popular campaign to highlight the devastating effects of these cutbacks, and to protest and demonstrate for as long as it takes to get the message across that we are not standing for it. We would involve other boroughs in our efforts to mobilise the population.

We will not be able to save everything of course, but we will ensure that all services are looked at in terms of how we could provide them more efficiently. Norwich City Council's Green group recently pushed for some outsourced services to be brought back in-house, as outsourcing often ends up costing more and offering less flexibility than directly employing the workforce. I would promise a similar review of all of Tower Hamlets' services to identify how best to continue providing them.

I would also accept a considerably lower salary than the amount on offer, and initiate a comprehensive pay review of all the Council's top earners to ensure people are paid a fair but not excessive wage. Some of these savings will go towards ensuring everyone in the Council earns at least the Green minimum wage, and the rest will go towards helping sustain services.


D(M): If you could choose one of your Mayoral policies to get implemented which one would it be?

- To make the Right of Recall and accountability to the Council constitutionally binding. This would permanently limit the power of the Mayor, ensuring that the Council remains ultimately and rightfully in charge of the borough's governance.


D(M): You used to be a member of the Labour Party - why did you leave?

AD: I left because I realised that I was a member out of pure blind loyalty; my family has voted Labour consistently for generations, but I could not carry on supporting a party that has drifted so far from its roots. My decision to leave boiled down to the party's track record of the last 13 years. Whatever the party may now claim to stand for in opposition, the fact remains that Labour in government did not represent those most in need.


D(M): What was the last community event you went to - and what was it like?

AD: On Wednesday 6th October I attended a meeting of The East London Communities Organisation (TELCO). Rather than a hustings, this was a structured meeting where candidates responded to TELCO's wish list from the next Mayor. The wishes included a commitment to meet with TELCO at least twice a year, a promise to promote the London Living Wage (I bettered that with the Green minimum wage!!), expanding the City Safe Havens programme, providing 1,000 work placements for young people in the Council, and allowing community land trusts to acquire land under Section 106 agreements. I agreed to all of these with no reservations, as it corresponded pretty well to Green policy - the 1,000 job promise was in our policy document anyway!

The atmosphere was extremely calm and orderly - I am told this is how TELCO conducts all its business. It is good to see such organised bodies representing residents.


D(M): You work for Transport for London, so maybe you wont be able to answer this one: are the RMT and TSSA right to strike?

AD: The proposed job cuts on the front line will affect the quality of service, and will jeopardise one of the Underground's biggest selling points - staff presence. I for one do not wish us to become another Paris, where staff are very scarce and information is limited. But there is also a safety issue at stake - after the King's Cross Fire in 1987, minimum staffing levels were introduced network-wide, to ensure that all stations had sufficient staff levels to operate safely. In the face of economic pressure, these minimum staffing levels are now being reversed.

In my opinion it is only a matter of time before another accident happens, prompting another inquiry which concludes that staffing levels were inadequate to manage the incident effectively. I would support the strike on the issue of safety, but I think the public needs to be better informed of the dangers of cutting staff numbers, especially as this initial 800 may be followed by considerably more.


D(M): How would you rate this government's performance so far on climate change?

AD: This government is another in a long line that has talked the talk on climate change but done very little to address it. This recession could have been an opportunity to green our economy, just as South Korea did in its last recession, making it more efficient and sustainable whilst providing roughly a million jobs and kick-starting a recovery.

As it is, we have the ridiculous situation where millions sit unemployed whilst this important work goes undone and the country's economy grinds to a halt. No commitment to improving public transport for most of the nation, no commitment to reducing our oil dependency, no efforts to curb flying, apart from the cancellation of Heathrow's third runway (to have been built in a Tory-voting area, of course!).


D(M): You're a TSSA member, which meant you got a vote in the Labour leadership ballot. Did you vote, and if so how?

AD: I voted for Diane Abbott first and Ed Miliband second. This was somewhat tactical, involving the fairly safe assumption that Abbott would drop out in the first round and Ed would pick up her second preference votes. Whilst none of the candidates on offer could really be described as 'progressive', I believe Ed Miliband was the best out of the two front-runners to start shifting the Labour Party away from the super-rich-friendly New Establishment that flourished under Blair. He has his work cut out!

The Mayoral election is next week, and for interest people may like to read Dave Hill's interview with the independent candidate Lutfur Rahman, and Stop the City Airport's review of the Mayoral booklet.

17 MPs vote for a chance for real change.

Yesterday Parliament voted on whether to allow the people to decide on what kind of electoral reform they should go for. The majority of MPs decided to deny people the opportunity to opt for PR and instead instead that the only acceptable change was the dismal AV.

Moving the amendment Caroline Lucas said;

I am pleased to move the amendment that stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). I welcome the fact that the Committee is at long last debating the possibility of a referendum on electoral reform, but it is crucial that the public choose the voting system, not the politicians. We do not often have referendums in this country, and now that we are planning to have one, the least that we can do is give people a real choice on their ballot papers. It is hugely disappointing that AV is the only alternative to first past the post in the Bill. As a result, the Bill fails to live up to the promise of genuine reform and of re-engaging people with the political process.

Amendment 7 is about giving people a real choice of electoral systems, because it is essential that the referendum question is not set up by the politicians to promote their favoured system. Of course, I have my views about which system would be preferable-the Green party advocates the additional member system as the fairest-but our amendment 7 is not about promoting a favourite system; it is about giving the public the options and allowing them to make their own choice. Rather than simply offering a narrow choice between first past the post and the alternative vote system, our amendment widens the question, so that in addition to the AV option, voters are given the opportunity to express a preference for one of the other main voting systems in elections for UK institutions.

There are two parts to our proposed question. The first part asks people whether they want a change from the current, first-past-the-post system; and for those who do, the second part offers the options of the alternative vote, the additional member system, and the single transferable vote, to be listed in order of preference. Our amendment is needed, because it is contradictory for the coalition to be talking about electoral reform while seeking to offer little more than a Hobson's choice, between AV and first past the post.

You can read the rest of the debate here.

Of the seventeen MPs who voted for the amendment we have a broad range of parties;

Long, Naomi (Alliance)

Mr Douglas Carswell (Con)
Evans, Jonathan (Con)
Hollobone, Mr Philip (Con)

Lucas, Caroline (Green)

Dakin, Nic (Labour)
Smith, rh Mr Andrew (Labour)
Austin Mitchell (Labour)

Llwyd, Mr Elfyn (PC)
Williams, Hywel (PC)

Durkan, Mark (SDLP)
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair (SDLP)
Ritchie, Ms Margaret (SDLP)

Hosie, Stewart (SNP)
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (SNP)
Weir, Mr Mike (SNP)
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh (SNP)
Wishart, Pete (SNP)

Hmmm... there seems to be a party missing here. One party doesn't seem to have provided even a sinlge rebel in favour of giving the public the choice of PR. I'll give you a clue which one - their policy is for PR.

Bits and bobs

Today's selection of pieces from the internet.

• I'm really pleased to see Caroline Lucas and 47 other MPs have signed EDM 767 on Science is Vital.
  
  
• Audio report on the European Greens summit which pushes it's 'new' platform of the "Green New Deal".
  
  
• It appears that Sarah Palin is losing favour in the Tea Party movement.
  
  
• Ally Fogg praises Emma Goldman.
  
  
• The Guardian asks why old buildings are lovely and new ones nasty. My answer is that we bulldozed the slums so the nice stuff survived and, actually, the best modern architecture is bloody gorgeous.
  
  
• In another example of how shit everything is apparently the BBC is rewriting Doctor Who's history in order to extend the franchise.

And lastly, the saga and background of Hackney's CLR James library.

Greens take Wellington

In a dramatic neck and neck finish Green Party councillor Celia Wade-Brown has won the Mayoralty of Wellington, the capital of New Zealand.

On Friday night at close of counting there was just 40 votes between her and incumbent right wing Mayor, Kerry Prendergast, with Prendergast in front. Counting was then suspended while the 'special votes' came in (votes from embassies, delayed postal votes and others).

The final vote today, Wednesday, was 24,881 to Celia and 24,705 to Kerry.

This comes on top of an already good set of results in the local elections across New Zealand for the left and for the Greens, although it's beyond me to do the number crunching because candidates don't use party descriptions, making a proper analysis the preserve of those with a far more in depth knowledge of local politics than I have.

Prendergast was running for her fourth term as Mayor and had a generally good reputation, which made her a tough opponent to beat. In Celia's victory speech she described her success as "the ongoing evolution of Wellingtonians' existing commitment to a resilient, cosmopolitan and beautiful city, a continuation of some trends to a cleaner ocean, renewable energy and protected biodiversity, and definitely a city where there are quality jobs and worthwhile businesses."

The broad based campaign which focused on transport, technology and communities drew in activists and organisers well beyond the Green Party itself. She also said that her election showed "the Greens can be a credible force in governing communities".