SOCIALIST UNITY

Regular readers will have noticed there have been fewer articles posted here recently. In truth I have just been to busy, with a whole flurry of union meetings lately connected to 30th November.

by Michael Meacher from left futures

This week, 1.1 million members of Unison received their ballot papers asking them if they supported strike action in the event of the Government remaining fixed in their position that public service employees must pay more towards their pension, work further years before drawing their pension, and finally receive a smaller pension than had been previously promised. The Government’s argument for this unwholesome menu is that the cost of public pensions is going through the roof, people are living longer so that postponing the age of retirement is inevitable, and anyway Labour left the economy in a terrible mess so that everyone has to grin and bear it whilst taking swingeing cuts. Each of these arguments is is nuts.

First, so far from public pension costs expanding out of control, they are actually falling.   Even the Hutton report, set up by the ToryGovernment under a New Labour stooge expected to make their case for them, admitted that the costs of public pensions as a proportion of GDP would fall from 1.9% now to just 1.4% by 2050. Second, it is true that longevity is gradually increasing and therefore it might be thought reasonable for people to delay their retirement a little and pay a bit more into their pensions towards a longer period of pensionable retirement. However, what the Government didn’t say was that not a penny of the extra revenues generated by their proposals, £2.8bn a year, would go towards enlarging their pension funds. It will all go entirely to the Treasury to reduce the deficit.

Third, contrary to the canard by which the Tory tabloids have spectacularly put across the Big Lie that we’re all in it together having to pay back after Labour left such a mess, the truth is we’re not all in it together over pensions (private pensions are being excluded), Labour did not leave an almighty mess (national debt was below 3% of GDP in 2007 and only rose to 11.6% after the bank bailouts), and public pensions are anything but gold-plated (the average pension of women in the local government pension scheme is a measly £2,800 a year, just £140 a week, after a life time of contributions).

There is no rationale for this massive raid on public pensions at all. If any attack on pensions is justified, it would be the iniquitous tax breaks showered on the richest people in the country in the private sector. No less than £20bn subsidy is granted each year in tax relief for private pensions, two-thirds of it (some £14bn a year) frittered away on the richest tenth of the population on higher rate tax, the rich and the ultra-rich who need it least or rather not at all.

“The days of Westminster politicans telling Scotland what to do or what to think are over. The Scottish people will set the agenda for the future.No politican, and certainly no London politican, will determine the future of the Scottish nation. The Prime Minister should hear this loud and clear. The people of Scotland - the sovereign people of Scotland - are now in the driving seat.”

Alex Salmond: Speech to SNP Conference,   Inverness, 22 October 2011

“At its appointed time, the moment of truth chose a plain basement hotel suite in Inverness on a grey afternoon. Afterwards, the man from the Guardian turned to me and we, unionists both, knew that the other had caught it too and that little required to be said: Scotland will become independent at some time in 2016 and there is nothing that the parties of the Union can do to resist it.”

“Labour simply does not have politicians who can match the calibre of [Angus] Robertson or any of Alex Salmond’s ministerial team. Even if they did, they do not possess a vision and certainly not the purpose. Througout the next five years. teams of SNP volunteers will call at every household in Scotland; they will be on a mission and be armed with a vivid narrative.”

To observe the annual SNP party conference is to witness an evangelical gathering in fully cry. This isn’t a political party and it’s more than a movement - it’s nothing less than a fully developed religion and its guiding star is now in the ascendant.”

“My Labour roots are old and run deep, but on 20 October 2011 a small epiphany occurred on the banks of the River Ness.”

Kevin McKenna, Observer, 23 October 2011

NORTH Sea oil has been catapulted to the forefront of Alex Salmond’s campaign to break up the UK after BP announced a multi-billion-pound offshore investment and proclaimed that reserves will last until at least 2050.

The announcement yesterday that the extraction of oil will continue for decades saw the First Minister immediately use the estimate to bolster his argument for separation, saying that an independent Scotland should have responsibility for its plentiful natural resources.

Mr Salmond’s reaction was a strong signal that North Sea reserves are likely to play a key role in the independence referendum when he makes the economic argument for Scotland going it alone.

Such an approach would be reminiscent of the 1970s when the “It’s Scotland’s Oil” slogan saw the SNP begin to gain a strong foothold in Scottish politics.

Mr Salmond said he was “delighted” by the announcement of BP’s new GBP4.5 billion oil project west of the Shetland Islands.

But it was BP chief executive Bob Dudley’s forecast - that after a “decade of decline”, there would be production from large fields until 2050 - which has the potential to be a game-changer in the constitutional debate.

Frank Urquhart and Tom Peterkin, The Scotsman, October 14, 2011

Brilliant, if you like this sort of thing! As well as Hank Jr and George Jones, we can see Bill Anderson and Hank Sr’s widow, Audrey; all singing Hank Williams Sr’s 1948 gospel hit. George Jones himself was an extraordinary conveyor of such heartfelt spiritual songs, and I strongly recommend his album Country Church Time, but it has to be said that this professed piety seemed to have little impact on the way he actually lived his life.

I was reading recently that the reason that such religious songs became a staple of many country performers acts is that during the 1930s it was necessary for singers to gain their own personal commercial sponsorship for radio, and advertisers liked a few songs that oozed respectability. As Hank Williams Snr life spun out of control with fast living, women and pills and alcohol, writing such a homesome hymn did him no harm at all while he was alive; though ironically his career was floundering before his pointless drunken early death in a Cadillac coupe de ville, at which point he became repackaged as the embodiment of the country music aesthetic.

It is a characeristic of country music to continually reference its own self-image of  folksy “authenticity”, which is why these spiritual numbers still stay part of the standard repertoire; although some like Johnny Cash and Wanda Jackson were also driven to do so by their deep religious faith.

A different dynamic held in oil-prosperous Texas where most acts made their living playing live in Honky Tonks and Roadhouses, and more risque performances full of sexual innuendo went down well. More on that another time.

On the 75th Anniversary of the founding of the International Brigades

Guardian

The starting pistol for British firms to pursue contracts in Libya has been fired by the new defence secretary, Philip Hammond, who urged companies to “pack their suitcases” and head there to secure reconstruction contracts.

As Nato announced that it plans to wind up operations in Libya, Hammond said that great care had been taken during the campaign to avoid destroying critical infrastructure.

“Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil reserves, and I expect there will be opportunities for British and other companies to get involved in the reconstruction of Libya,” he told the BBC in an interview.

“I would expect British companies, even British sales directors, [to be] packing their suitcases and looking to get out to Libya and take part in the reconstruction of that country as soon as they can,” said Hammond, who replaced Liam Fox as defence secretary a week ago.

He added that after a “hugely successful” British mission in Libya, Britain now needed “to support the Libyans to turn the liberation of their country into a successful stabilisation so that Libya can be a beacon of prosperity and democracy in north Africa going forward.”

The National Transitional Council has already said that it intends to reward countries who showed support for its fight against the Gaddafi regime, with Britain and France likely to lead the way.

The success of British contractors in the country – which could see billions of pounds spent on reconstruction over the next decade – will be seen as a huge victory for prime minister David Cameron, who visited Tripoli and NTC members last month, along with Nicolas Sarkozy.

British gains in Libya include business and reconstruction contracts, as well as oil. As Libya’s £100bn in frozen assets around the world are released, it is a sizeable pot.

Lord Green, a trade minister, has already met with British firms to discuss potential opportunities in Libya, and oil company BP is believed to have already held talks with the NTC.

In a press conference in September, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the interim Libyan prime minister, praised the “brave positions” of Cameron and Sarkozy. “They showed us political, economic and military support, which helped the rebels establish a state, and we thank France and the UK for that,” he said.

But while Guma al-Gamaty, the NTC’s UK representative, has said Libya would honour contracts signed under the Gaddafi regime, he has also indicated that British companies might not get “easy business” from Libya.

“There will be huge changes in everything – in the oil and gas sectors, in education, and with the creation of new industrial sectors,” he said. “But it’s not a guaranteed market. Contracts will be awarded not on the basis of political favouritism, but on merit, quality and competitiveness.”

France has already begun its own campaign to secure business in the country. French foreign minister Alain Juppé has said it was only “fair and logical” for its companies to benefit.

Daniel Kawczynski, a Conservative backbencher and chair of the cross-party parliamentary group on Libya, said Britain should come first when it comes to awarding contracts, which would also pay back some of the cost of some £300m spent on military action.

“The question that remains is, who should ultimately bear this cost?” he said. “Should the burden fall on those who could be counted on? Or should, in time, Libya repay those who fought with her, and for her?”

He added: “In these difficult economic times, it should not be too much to ask a country with Libya’s wealth and resources to pay their share of the gold.”

The killing of Muammar Gadaffi in Sirte has been marked by a round of celebration by western governments over their
intervention in Libya.

As with the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, it will be described as a turning
point and a further victory in the seemingly endless ‘war on terror’.

There is little reason for the triumphalism. Nato’s war on Libya was not a ‘humanitarian intervention’ but a war for regime change  
– illegal under international law. It was about the western powers attempting to regain control of the region in the face of  
the Arab uprisings across the Middle East.

Yet despite its overthrow of the regime in Libya imperialism faces many problems in the region.

In Libya itself it is already clear that there are many divisions between the different elements in the new government, and not at  
all clear that a stable regime will emerge. Even if it does, the ordinary people of Libya will see their interests subjugated to  
the oil companies and other western business, backed up by Nato, which has no intention of vacating the scene.

The consequences of the war on terror elsewhere are not outbreaks of peace and democracy but rather a spreading of the war.

Afghanistan, ten years on, has just experienced its bloodiest two years of war. Iraq remains a society destroyed by war and  
occupation. Somalia remains war torn with Kenyan troops recently crossing the border. Pakistan suffers drone attacks which have
killed thousands. The Israeli oppression of the Palestinians continues. There are threats of intervention over Syria.

The recent alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador to Washington was blamed on sections of the Iranian government and  
Saudi and Israel are both urging attacks on Iran.

Far from the west conquering all, it is deep in the mire of war. The gloating over Gadaffi should not become an excuse for further  
interventions that will only spread the carnage further.

SEE ALSO: JOHN PILGER - With Libya, secured an American invasion  
of Africa is under way. http://bit.ly/qJ6PhP

TO:         ALL MEMBERS (HOME ADDRESSES)

Dear Brother/Sister

HANDS OFF OUR PENSIONS: LATEST POSITION – 19 OCTOBER 2011

The Executive Council met yesterday (October 18) to assess the current situation around our campaign to defend pensions. This included report backs from discussions at our Committees across the UK as well as reports from the most recent meetings with Government ministers and officials.

The most significant development to be considered was the decision of the Westminster Government to comply with the FBU request not to set an immediate cost ceiling for the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme. This clearly does not resolve the issue in any way. It does however offer us an opportunity to try influence Government before any such cost ceiling is set. Among TUC trade unions, this has put us in a unique position since cost ceilings have now been set for the main public sector schemes.

A major concern of our colleagues in other unions has been a refusal by Government to engage in serious dialogue or genuine negotiations in the other pension scheme talks.  Frustration at this is a key feature of the current campaigns in a number of unions. In relation to the Firefighters scheme it would be dishonest of us to make such a claim at this time.  Ministers have met us on several occasions; have agreed to all meetings requested; have currently provided all information asked for and have allocated actuaries and pension officials to assist in talks.

It is important to note that none of this means the core issues will be resolved – there remain very serious disagreements. It simply means that in terms of current talks we cannot say that Government are refusing to engage in a dialogue. Most significantly, ministers have agreed to a very important demand from the FBU i.e. not to set the cost ceiling immediately.

As a result of these and other considerations, the Executive Council concluded that there should not be an immediate move to industrial action. Such action may become necessary and the next few weeks will be crucial in assessing the Government position before such a decision is made.

I attach a statement agreed from the Executive Council to further explain the position. Further reports will be provided to Committees and Branches.

Best wishes.

Yours fraternally

MATT WRACK

GENERAL SECRETARY

The latest reports of Gaddafi’s death show that he was captured alive and likely executed. This of course should come as no surprise. As soon as the uprising in Libya began it was a zero sum game, and with NATO’s participation Gaddafi’s fate was well nigh assured.

This is a huge victory for NATO and for the concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’ - code for imperialism. A pro-western government will now be installed, Libya’s oil will be carved up, and thus the Arab Spring as a rising of the people, by the people, and for the people ends.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the West has reached for global hegemony. Regime change in Libya constitutes the latest stage in that process. The nature of the Gaddafi regime was never the motive behind NATO’s involvement in this operation. How could it be when the nations involved were willing to do business with it? The brutal truth is that the West’s priority isn’t human rights, democracy or freedom, whatever those words mean in the hands of governments that between them have been responsible for mountains of corpses throughout their respective histories past and recent. Instead the rule governing whether or not a regime is deemed acceptable or unacceptable is whether or not said regime is pro-western and able and willing to uphold the interests of the dominant ideology.

What comes after Gaddafi in Libya is unclear. The fault lines within Libyan society are deep and wide, temporarily set aside as the anti-Gaddafi forces united in common cause against the regime. As with Iraq the West has intervened in order to secure and advance its economic and geopolitical interests in the region. The Arab Spring, which began as a spontaneous rising of the people, and which took the West by surprise when it began, has now been co-opted as Washington, London and Paris reassert their interests in the most strategically and economically important region on the planet. As Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez said, “When imperialism feels weak, it resorts to brute force.”

The hypocrisy reeks. NATO intervention that was predicated on a UN mandate to prevent civilian casualties in Libya has ensured more civilian casualties. The number of people killed in Sirte is as yet unknown, but it is certain to have been high as a result of opposition forces and NATO laying siege to the city for over a month, battering it into submission with heavy artillery and airstrikes.

The form and content of regimes throughout the developing world have long been defined by their relationship to the West. The development of these nations, especially those in possession of abundant natural resources, has and will continue to be contingent upon their ability to resist the writ of the advanced economies. The contradiction involved in this material reality has been that throughout said nations dictatorships and one party regimes have traditionally though not always proved most effective in ensuring freedom from western domination while at the same time circumscribing the civil and political rights of their own people. The expansion of the market has made it so.

A new age of hard power has emerged, whereby national sovereignty no longer exists in the resource rich regions of the world. While tears for Gaddafi’s demise and execution will be few, and while his was a regime that took more than it gave from its people, the barely concealed self congratulation and hubris that has dominated the mainstream news coverage of the former Libyan dictator’s death echoes that which followed the fall of Baghdad in 2003. Then too that degenerate rump which inhabits the left in the northern hemisphere, the political detritus left behind after the tide ran out on the left’s fortunes years before, joined in the chorus of celebration alongside their respective governments. Then too depravity wore the mask of human progress.