Let "reckless militancy" reign

Thousands of fire fighters in London are set to strike from 10am on November 5 to 9am on November 7, in a dispute over new shift patterns and management bullishness over the matter. Naturally, the bosses they're challenging and the politicians that serve them aren't happy.

The action, we are told, is "cynical" and "reckless." It has prompted fears, predictably stoked by the Daily Mail, of "a new wave union militancy."

Fire authority chairman Brian Coleman asked "what sort of union orders its firefighters to go on strike over Bonfire Night?" Clearly, the man needs a lesson in the history of the labour movement, and exactly how exercising your labour power as leverage against the employer works. Or, more likely, he is a wilfully ignorant buffoon trying to force his staff into accepting the race to the bottom.

Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi, of Parliament’s All Party Fire Safety and Rescue Group claimed that the firefighters were "endangering the lives of people for the sake of a change to their shift patterns." This became the flimsy excuse to call for no-strike laws on firemen.

He "would support anti-strike legislation if it stops putting people’s lives in danger." The idea that not trying to impose unfavourable conditions on those saving said lives might be a far better solution appears not to have crossed his mind. Not that we would expect it to, for the only consistent principle on the right is that the bosses must be favoured over the workers, at all costs.

Personally, I would hope that there is a return to "old fashioned, militant muscle," as Tory fire minister Bob Neill put it. Especially now, it is vital that workers stand up for ourselves.

Likewise, reports that striking firefighters responded to scabbing with direct action is to be welcomed. According to the BBC, "footage has emerged showing a group of people surrounding a fire engine returning to the fire station at Southwark Bridge Road, south London." At the same time, "images and names of some of the contract workers were put on a Facebook page set up in support of the strike."

Initiating violence against anybody is unacceptable, and I in no way advocate a return to the days when scabs were attacked and even murdered by pickets. But naming and shaming them, or blockading them so they cannot act as intended, is not even close to such a scenario.

Those who cross the picket line are not neutral parties. By doing so, they side with the bosses, and far more needs to be done to directly impede them in that effort.

More broadly, it appears that the firefighters' strike has thus far exemplified what pickets should be. The Socialist Worker reports that "at the picket’s peak more than 200 firefighters and supporters were gathered outside the fire brigade’s Southwark Training Centre in south London." This is exactly the kind of rank-and-file mass participation and solidarity that organised workers need on all picket lines, especially as the struggles intensify with the cuts.

The bosses and politicians, along with their mouthpieces in the media, are right to "fear" the militancy of the working class. It is a threat to them and their ability to use us and dispose of us as they see fit. That is exactly why I welcome it and say bring on the fight.

The Comprehensive Spending Review and the prospect of actually doing something about it

Today, George Osborne revealed the outcome of the Comprehending Spending Review (PDF). The document did not bring the world to its knees, or cause the complete destruction of everything we hold dear. But it remains an important landmark in the escalating class war waged by those at the top.

The welfare budget is to face an additional £7bn of cuts. This is on top of the £1.8bn cuts in housing benefit, announced in the June Budget, and £11bn of other welfare reductions announced previously.

Bendy Girl, over at Where's the Benefit, expands on just one impact of this decision;

One of the quietest announcements in today's Comprehensive Spending review was that the High Rate Mobility component of Disability Living Allowance will be removed from those resident in care homes. On the face of it that might seem a sensible place to save money, after all if someone lives in a care home surely they don't need to worry about transport, but this is certainly the nastiest, pettiest cut of all. Petty because the numbers of people resident in care homes is a very small proportion of the overall awards for high rate mobility meaning the sums of money to be saved are minimal. But downright nasty, disdainful and cruel because people resident in care homes are far more likely to use the mobility component of their disability living allowance to pay towards the phenomenally expensive specialist wheelchairs they need rather than a vehicle. 

This is not the only area in which the most vulnerable will suffer either. I have previously written about the poverty and hardship that the disabled and families with disabled dependants face. The CSR looks set to exacerbate that, and no doubt more details will emerge as its recommendations are put into practice.

On the public service front, the government has promised to "prioritise the NHS, schools, early years provision and the capital investments that support long term economic growth." Thus, health spending will see a 1.3% real terms rise by 2015, including an extra £2bn for social care.

The positives of this settlement are as follows;

• real terms increases in overall NHS funding in each year to meet the Government’s commitment on health spending, with total spending growing by 0.4 per cent over the Spending Review period;
• an additional £1 billion a year for social care through the NHS, as part of an overall £2 billion a year of additional funding to support social care by 2014-15;
• a new cancer drugs fund of up to £200 million a year;
• expanding access to psychological therapies;
• continued funding for priority hospital schemes, including St Helier, Royal Oldham and West Cumberland; and
• capital spending remaining higher in real terms than it has been on average over
  the last three Spending Review periods.

Unfortunately, more broadly, the news is not as positive. About 490,000 public sector jobs are likely to go, with the knock-on effect to consumer spending resulting in at least as many job losses in the private sector.

This will pull people further into poverty by stretching an ever-reducing welfare budget across more people, whilst the increase in VAT to 20% will drive up a cost of living which is already increasing far faster than most workers' wages. The end effect of which will be to drag the country back into recession and perhaps even depression.

But this is not news. We all knew that the CSR would be an attack, and that the government's agenda was class war, making us pay for the rich's crisis, etc. We expected that - and have been saying it since before they took power. All that I've done above is stick figures to arguments I already knew.

The important question, long overdue an answer, is where we take those arguments and what we do about the problem at hand. Other, that is, than offer up endless bluff and bluster.

I went to an anti-cuts demonstration outside the Royal Liverpool Hospital today. It was lively, and the people there were sincere enough, but what I saw there - and the evidence of similar scenes across the country - doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

There were lots of flags and banners. People chanting and making lots of noise. Various Trot organisations hiding behind their newspapers or getting people to sign up to mailing lists under the guise of a "petition." And absolutely no indication, whatsoever, that a coherent strategy exists for anything beyond getting people to join The Party^TM, to sign up to the appropriate front group, or to at least buy a copy of the paper.

Myself and other comrades from the Solidarity Federation have been all but banging our heads against a brick wall trying to make the argument for something more effective.

We are not a political party, and we only offer membership to those who agree with the aims and principles of anarcho-syndicalism, so this is not a recruitment drive. Our paper is free, so it's not about making a sale. Our only goal is to advocate a class struggle rooted in and led by the rank-and-file of the working class, with an open and democratic structure so that resistance cannot be demobilised from above, and an emphasis on effective actions rather than legal ones.

This is not a position unique to anarcho-syndicalism, either. There are many others, anarchists, socialists, and working class people concerned about what's happening, who take a similar line. But this is not a line supported by those who declare themselves our "leaders."

The Labour Party is only willing to shout and kick up a fuss now that it's in opposition. In power, it offered similar cuts, and even now "Red" Ed Miliband warns against strikes or serious action to combat the cuts. Let alone to challenge capitalism. The unions are stifled by a bureaucracy keen to keep its seat at the top table and terrified of illegal strike action. And the various far-left parties offering themselves as our vanguard suffer the same top-down demobilisation combined with an absurdly insular world-view.

The problem is that, beyond this spectacle, there are untold numbers of people with an acute, first-hand awareness of the problems of capitalism. Many willing to do something about it. But it is easy to see why, faced with the "scene," many of those who do get involved soon wash their hands of the whole thing. And why so many others avoid it all together.

The challenge is to make the argument that organisation and resistance is possible whilst by-passing all that bullshit, and building enough momentum to actually put it into practice. Especially as the fallout from the CSR looms large.

500 pickets arrested in India, international solidarity needed

 Via Ann Arky, I have come across the following news on Labour Start;

Over 500 workers employed by Foxconn have been arrested and jailed in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. The jailing follows a dispute with the company, which signed an agreement with a union belonging to the ruling party in the state -- a union which had no support at all among the workers.

Meanwhile, the strike continues and the union is holding solidarity demonstrations and rallies all over the state. They have called for international support.

As Ann Arky points out, "if India as one of the worlds largest industrial areas can lock up strikers without a murmer from the rest of the world it will become the pattern." We cannot allow that to happen.

The ongoing crisis of capital is global, as is the class war being waged against the workers for the power and profit of a few. In response to that, our struggle also has to be international and where we know of it we cannot let the plight of our fellow workers pass unremarked.

This is why there have been international actions in support of 35 trade unionists sacked for organising in Peru. (See here and here.) It is also why this latest injustice deserves a response.

Foxconn, also at the centre of the recent worker suicides in China, deserves especially to be on the receiving end of our ire. As In These Times notes, their "militaristic model is perfectly suited to the evolving workplace culture of the global economy—homogenized, disciplined, robotically efficient."

They are providing a model for industry which crushes workers underfoot with untold efficiency, and it is in the interests of every member of the working class worldwide to fight that.

A year after the "fair tips" law, restaurant workers are still being robbed

In December last year, I commented on how changes in the law on tips paid to service sector workers hadn't prevented abuse by employers. This remains an ongoing issue, and has recently sparked protests from members of Unite the Union a year after the ineffectual change in the law.

The Brighton Solidarity Federation offers a fuller report and analysis;

The beginning of October saw the first anniversary of a change in the law designed to give waiters 100% of their tips. It was brought in because many café and restaurant owners were routinely taking advantage of a loophole in the law which allowed them to use their workers’ tips towards the wage bill. Despite being rewarded by customers with extra money for their hard graft, waiters were being paid only the minimum wage by unscrupulous managers.

The then Labour government, prompted by campaigns by Unite the Union, passed the law on 1st October 2009. But one year on, there are still problems front of house. According to Dave Turnbull of Unite, “There are still too many employers who regard tips as a subsidy for low pay and who see the tips and service charge money left by customers as a pot of cash to which they are free to help themselves.

“Unite members working in restaurants, hotels and bars across the country have seen establishments increase the percentage of service charge they deduct from their pay packets.”

Unite’s response to this is to propose further campaigns to get the government to act to put pressure on employers. Some of their members protested outside the Business Department last week, supported by no less than John Prescott, famous ex-shop steward and waiter in the merchant navy – now Lord Prescott.

However, what this demonstrates is the fact that the law is a paper tiger. For a year now the law has demanded that waiters get all of their tips – but employers know that they can find ways to get around it. The law also says that workers must be paid in full for work done – but as the Solidarity Federation has learnt recently rogue employers in Brighton are ignoring this and using the recession as an excuse not to pay up.

No amount of pleading to the government will change this situation. The only sure way of getting what we are legally entitled to is to demand it directly from our bosses in our own workplaces. Workers facing this kind of threat to their livelihoods need to stand together to demand their full wages and tips. This should be backed up with the threat of industrial action appropriate to the situation.

Brighton SolFed offer support to workers in their area looking to enact such threats, and they are not the only group willing to give a hand to workers trying to organise for the first time. The Industrial Workers of the World are also worth contacting, offering a wealth of knowledge, and experience to fellow workers in struggle.

Now, more than ever, we need to build a culture of solidarity across the working class, so that when the ruling class mess with one of us, they’re messing with all of us.

Putting a new spin on "bank robbery"

Via Ann Arky, who tips her own hat to Politics in the Zeros, I today came across this truly astounding story from the States;

In yet another sign that the foreclosure crisis in the US may be getting out of hand, a Florida woman has gone to the press about having her home broken into -- by an agent of her mortgage bank.

Nancy Jacobini of Orange County, Florida, says she was three months behind on her mortgage payments, but not in foreclosure, when she heard an intruder breaking into her home. 

Panicked, she called 911 and spent 10 nervous minutes on the phone with a dispatcher only to discover that the intruder was an agent of her mortgage company, JPMorganChase, who had come to change the locks on her home.

"Someone is breaking ... somebody broke into my house!" a frightened Jacobini can be heard saying on a 911 tape obtained by WTFV channel 9 in Jacksonville.

Now, I'm hardly a legal expert, but I know for a fact that this was an illegal act not only on the part of the burglar, but also the bank that hired them.

In Britain, even with a repossession order, bailiffs cannot force entry into your home. They must be invited or go through an open door or window. In America, I don't know if that same protection applies. But certainly, when a home is not in foreclosure and there is no possession order, they have no right to be there.

As Politics in the Zeros comments, "it’s getting so hard to tell the difference between organized crime and bankers now."

The solution recommended by Tickerguy is to "buy guns." He points out that in such a situation, many Americans "have every right under the law to stop him, up to and including the use of deadly force." I'm not sure I'd go that far, but there certainly is a case for greater community self-defence.

To cite a point I've made previously;

Groups such as Neighbourhood Watch are nothing more than gatherings of curtain twitchers, thinking they can make a community safer by putting stickers on lamp posts or acting as killjoys towards local kids. But there is no reason that people couldn't organise their neighbourhood along more radical lines, resisting thugs and repelling burglars without treating all kids as villains or getting embroiled in "keeping up with the Joneses" nonsense. Likewise, we need to advocate a defence of posession rather than or private property, recognising that defending your home and attacking private property are not oppositional acts but both a part of working class self-defence.

If we've reached the point where banks are willing to hire people to break into your home before they can lawfully repossess it, then this argument only becomes more urgent.

Graduate tax off, but students still about to be screwed

Back in July, business secretary Vince Cable proposed to solve the problem of tuition fees with a graduate tax. Needless to say many, including my other half, thought this another way of pricing the poor out of higher education. Now, it seems that the government has responded to this feeling.

However, as so often in politics, the good news is just sugar-coating for the bad;

Vince Cable has admitted the government will not make any move towards a graduate tax to fund universities.

Tory and Lib Dem members are to receive an e-mail explaining the decision in a move that will be seen as preparing the ground for a hike in tuition fees.

Lord Browne's review of fees in England is expected to recommend more than doubling fees to about £7,000 a year.

Yes, because lord knows that students don't come out of university in enough debt as it is. The figure is currently set to reach an average of £25,000 per student, and will only grow exponentially as fees are hiked up.

We should add to that the fact that it is especially low-paying and casual jobs, i.e. those frequented by students to make extra cash, are seeing pay freezes or below-inflation rises, both of which amount to a cut in pay. Thus, whilst the money they will owe out is rising, the money they can rake in is steadily falling, which will further mount up the debts.

All of which is compounded by the fact that after university graduates are no longer able to make up for that by entering lucrative careers. Many are among the one in five workers who are trapped in low-paying employment, even long after they leave university.

This is a slap in the face to all those students who (naively) supported the Liberal Democrats for their tuition fees pledge. But it is also another example of what is really happening in the economy - with universities dragging more money out of students whilst cutting what they can get in return. The only beneficiaries of this will be those raking in the cash, as ever.

When the graduate tax was announced, the National Union of Students urged a "critical mass" to mobilise against the fees as "the arrogance of vice chancellors and the supine response of spineless politicians in the Labour and Tory parties must not go unchallenged."

But this is not just about students, as employees of the universities are affected by the same cuts. This is, in fact, a microcosm of the wider class struggle, wherein the interests of the workers and of the broader community don't simply overlap: they are virtually identical. It could also provide a model for how workplace and community resistance could work in tandem.

University staff need to get behind the students and support their actions, especially more radical ones such as occupations. At the same time, students must refuse point blank to cross a single staff picket line. It is only with solidarity, and coordinated militancy, that any victory can be won.

Reflections on antifascism at the end of a long day

Today, or rather yesterday given that I'm writing this after midnight, has been a long day. It began with a visit to the City Centre to see if the BNP would show themselves after last week's drubbing, and ended with a few pints after two neo-Nazis shat themselves. In between, there was a fair bit of marching.

In the spirit of lazy blogging, I'm not going to repeat here what others have already covered far better than I could anyway.

You can find coverage of the James Larkin march and rally (including a couple of videos I uploaded to YouTube for their use) over at the Liverpool Solidarity Federation site. The story of a couple of fascists fleeing the Swan after antifascists went in for a pint is up on the Liverpool Antifascists website.

But what I would like to offer one thought on is what happened in Leicester today. Or, rather, Hope not Hate's interpretation of events;

One of the main positives of the day was that the overwhelming majority of locals heeded advice and stayed away. Yesterday 700 turned up at our HOPE not hate peace vigil and we are hoping for even greater numbers for our community event tomorrow. It would have been understandable for local people to take to the streets to demonstrate their anger but wisely people decided that this was precisely what the EDL wanted.

I'm sorry, but what the fuck?

In Bradford, it was pretty solidly established that physical opposition was a vital part of keeping the EDL at bay. Liverpool Antifascists members saw that first-hand, at the event. Hell, I saw it from all the way over here in Liverpool.

In Leicester, the same was true. Hope not Hate had a peace vigil, did the EDL's scaremongering for them, and pissed off. UAF had a party nearby.

Meanwhile, the EDL broke out of their pen, and fought with locals - who were luckily organised for self-defence. Had they not been, then those who "refused to get provoked into violence" (Hope not Hate) and held "an impressive display of unity" (UAF) would have been guilty of leaving the people of Leicester to a gang of violent fascists.

The level of ignorance and insular thinking on display from both groups is staggering.

Nick Lowles of HnH reports that the EDL "randomly attacked young Asian and black people." But there is no thought at any point that this the problem that needs to be confronted, rather than briefly lamented before hopping off to a "peace vigil" to "turn your back on" the war on the streets.

UAF are more honest and acknowledge that "large numbers of local people came out to defend their local areas." But the idea that antifascists should be part of that never crosses their minds.

Luckily, although they try to monopolise the movement, and succeed at hogging the media limelight, neither organisation is the be-all and end-all of antifascism.

There are people willing to get out there, physically confront the fascists, and defend their streets and communites. They are antifascists. Anybody who doesn't do that, especially if in an organisation claiming to oppose the far-right, is quite simply a coward.

Industrial action and the law

Mayor of London Boris Johnson has added his voice to that of the CBI's calling for tougher laws governing strike ballots. This comes as a second 24-hour strike grips the London Underground, and it is a perfect demonstration of everything that is wrong with class struggle in this country.

Of course, it is only natural that employers and politicians want to reduce the power of the working class to resist them. Indeed, those that didn't quite simply wouldn't last very long in their positions.

As such, it's a lost cause pointing out the hypocrisy of the proposals. Applying Boris's wish that "unless at least 50% of union members in a workplace take part in a ballot" there can be no strike to political ballots would see us without a parliament or a mayor for London. But even if there a way to do so, reaching him with this point would not see him change his mind.

Likewise, the CBI "wants a minimum of 40% of union members balloted to be in favour of a strike." Applied consistently, we could ask why no democracy whatsoever exists on the management side of industrial relations. But this would not for a second make them reconsider their position.

The fact is plain to see that the laws currently in place for strikes are unneccessarily restrictive. And that, whatever their flaws, workplace ballots offer workers a chance to make the decision for themselves rather than (as in parliament) simply choose somebody else to make that decision for them. Because being able to withdraw your labour when unhappy with working conditions is a fundamental right.

But, as far as the bosses are concerned, the rights of the employer and proprietor should match those of a monarch. If we can think, organise, and act in our own interests, then we are violating their "property rights." On the right, liberty needs property, and those without property can be denied liberty.

This is why responding to the persistent attack on hard-won rights by appealing to their sense of reason is a lost cause. Concessions are not handed down from above out of good will.

It is for this reason that, though offered with the right intentions, the Lawful Industrial Action Bill will not address the issue at hand. In the first instance, its main purpose is to prevent employers from using the courts to block strike action "on minor technicalities." This may put an end to the recent trend of strike bans, but doesn't address the bigger hurdles that Boris and the CBI want to strengthen.

Secondly, it is a bill that never even emerged in 13 years of Labour government, and is unlikely to pass under a Tory one. Cynicism suggests that its purpose isn't even to become law, but to rebuild the old myth of Labour being a party for the working class.

Not to mention that it will be the subject of intensive lobbying by exactly such groups as the CBI.

If we need to affirm how out of touch with even the basic principle behind a strike, we need only turn to CBI deputy director-general John Cridland. He believes that it should "be business as usual, even during a strike." And so "firms must be allowed to hire temps ... to provide emergency cover."

He offers the caveat that "workers have the legal right to withdraw their labour," clearly thinking that conceding that whilst returning to the early 20th century practice of bussing in scabs to break strikes is an acceptable compromise for both sides. Which in effect proves the IWW's point that "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common."

We cannot appeal to the ruling class's sense of reason. Any legal actions, even if effective in the short-term, will act only as a stop-gap in the face of the long term onslaught of the class war.

If we really want to end repressive anti-strike measures, and to stop the business lobby in their efforts to roll back every hard won right and privilege of the last 150 years, there is only one conclusion. We need to break their laws and stand together in struggle - no matter what they throw at us.

From anarchism in Manchester to fighting fascism in Liverpool, reflections on an interesting day

As I mentioned in a previous post, today I went to the Anarchist Bookfair in Manchester, as well as a PCS anti-cuts demonstration nearby. Meanwhile, the BNP returned to Liverpool City Centre. Luckilly, I caught the end of that particular event - and it was little short of epic.

The Bookfair was a fairly laid-back event. Lots of groups and lots of comrades were present, the aim being to promote solidarity and the ideas of anarchism.

As well as stalls containing books, pamphlets, and merchandise from various organisations - Solidarity Federation, Anarchist Federation, Class War, The Commune, The IWW, Manchester Anti-Fascist Alliance, etc - there were a variety of interesting talks on. It also offered, as I mentioned in the week, a reprieve from activism whilst still being around people of like mind.

The only downer was that whilst there I learned of the BNP being in Liverpool. I rang around a few others to spread the word, but being so far away was frustrating to say the least.

The PCS demonstration was also something of a muted affair. There were a number of speakers including a rather interesting socialist rapper and (shamefully) a Labour councillor. But it was more about encouraging people to get involved and doing something than making a scene, which was good.

Taking a leaf from that book, I took the opportunity to hand out free copies of Catalyst, and make the argument to my fellow PCS members for a more radical, i.e. anarcho-syndicalist approach.

Though, in hindsight, referring to Mark Serwotka as a "bloated bureaucratic gasbag" may have been far too inflammatory a closing remark. I stand by the point within it, but occasionally passion (not to mention a couple of pints) numbs my sense of tact and diplomacy. Oh well.

I got off the train to Liverpool at quarter to six, and headed into town to see if the fascists were still around. What I saw was truly astounding to behold.

Two weeks ago, when the BNP tried to hold a stall in the City Centre, they were met with spontaneous resistance from over 200 people, more considering that people came and went during the day. As a result, last week they retreated to their comfort zone in Huyton, but today they tried once again to claim the streets of Liverpool for the far-right. What a mistake that was.

As two weeks before, phone calls and text messages saw local antifascists mobilise in opposition. And once again, their ranks were swelled by great swathes of the public, particularly young people.

However, today far eclipsed the events of a fortnight ago, and the police were unable to prevent the fascists from being entirely surrounded and blocked from public view.

Earlier on in the day, activists from Liverpool Antifascists gave out several thousand leaflets to largely receptive passers-by. Some people did angrily reject the leaflets - only to come back and apologise when they realised they weren't BNP!

They also received genuine thanks from people, especially those from ethnic minorities, for the work we were doing. 

There was some trouble later in the day when fireworks were thrown. One exploded on the BNP's stall table, collapsing it. Another exploded within the ranks of antifascists. Fortunately, nobody was seriously injured. BNP "super-activist" Peter Tierney hurt his foot, though given that he attacked an antifascist from behind with a camera tripod, we find sympathy difficult.

The thrower of the fireworks, a silly and incendiary act which I could have gotten any number of innocent people hurt, was not identified.

 

The BNP, however, were on top form.

Their activists got in the faces of teenagers and youngsters, with Andrew Tierney at one point breaking ranks to chase a young girl, only to be physically restrained. One fascist shoved a man holding his young daughter in has arms. And Jamie Luby was seen telling the same young girl to "find him in O'Neill's" if she wanted to fight him.

Most telling of all, however, was Andrew Tierney's threat that - because an unknown individual had thrown fireworks (one at antifascists, we hasten to add) everyone who opposed the BNP was now "fair game."

Organiser Mike Whitby also promised that when they took pictures of those opposing the BNP, they would end up "on a site far worse than Redwatch."

This shows that the BNP have far from outgrown their violent roots, and that they are still more than willing to intimidate and attack opponents. As Peter Tierney, of course, showed us when he picked up that camera tripod.

But the threats didn't work on local people. Even children, some no older than eleven, stood up to the thugs. At one point, they jumped on a raised podium to block Andrew Tierney's view of the girl he had been shouting at when he tried to take a picture of her.

Eventually, the BNP gave in, packed up and loaded their propaganda into two cars, to much jeering. But this time, people did not simply watch them go. Motivated by the success of the day, and antagonism from the fascists, people surrounded the police and the cars and literally ran them out of town.

This really was one of the best things I have ever seen, and it made my day. It also demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that militant direct action is the greatest weapon against fascism.

The union makes us strong - unless they're our employer

Surfing the web today, I happened upon an article in the Sun from back in August. Disreputable and  entirely scummy source though it is, it reports how, in the midst of the BAA pay dispute the Unite Union, fighting to improve a 1% pay deal for its members, imposed a pay freeze upon its own staff.

According to the story;

Unite has about 1,000 staff across the UK, responsible for looking after 1.6 million members.

The planned BAA strike at six major airports was called off this week after the union won a two per cent pay rise and a guaranteed bonus of £500 for workers.

Unite chiefs Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson - on a package of £135,330 and £196,497 respectively - have also been instrumental in securing improved pay and conditions this year for British Airways and Fujitsu workers.

A furious union source said: "It is hypocrisy of the highest order for Unite to go chasing after a pay deal for BAA workers while imposing a freeze on their own.

"It is effectively a pay cut. Woodley can afford not to take an increase.

"What about staff struggling to make ends meet?"

Of course, from the Sun, this story was nothing but schaudenfreude. The paper is owned by notorious union-basher Rupert Murdoch and was only after another stick with which to beat organised workers.

Whilst Unite's position is hypocritical, the consistent response would be that both groups of workers (Unite and BAA) had the right to push for improved pay and conditions. The Sun has its own hypocrisy, offering this as part of a narrative against organisation.

It's the same reason that the paper reported with glee about the scab in the ranks of the Tolpuddle Martyrs tour guides. It is the antithesis of the working class Daily Herald paper it evolved from.

Nonetheless, reading this story did lead me towards another reason why the traditional trade union structure is counter-productive to class struggle. As well as creating a cushion of privilege for bureaucrats who claim to represent the working class whilst only selling them out, it evolves into the very thing it was created to be oppositional towards: an employer.

The position of industrial unionists, anarcho-syndicalists, and socialists more broadly on this is summed up by a phrase in the preamble to the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) constitution: "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common."

It is in the interest of any employer to get as much work as possible for as little money as possible out of their employees. This is as true for trade unions as for banks, supermarkets, and goverment departments. Budgetary constraints, high costs in an economy of artifical scarcity, and a variety of other factors make this so no matter how good the intentions of the employer in question.

The same is true for cooperatives within a capitalist system, a fact that puts workers in the bizarre position of imposing austerity upon themselves.

Thus, a trade union with employees becomes a contradiction in terms - on the one hand standing up for the interests of the working class who form its membership, on the other hand being a barrier to the interests of the working class who form its staff.

If the working class and the employing class have nothing in common, it is clear that a union which is also an employer can have nothing in common with its rank-and-file membership. Thus, their position as collaborators with the bosses is only cemented and within that structure we see genuine worker discontent demobilised by the pressure valve of trade unionism.

A revolution by such organisations is unlikely. However, were it to occur (perhaps through the agitation of Trotskyite parties and activists) all we would see is the rise of a new ruling class to replace the old. With the same hierarchy and relation to capital already put in place.

After all, the way we organise now will reflect the society we are organising for, and the inevitable result of the authoritarian left's model is Stalinism. Even if they do protest too much.

The workers' movement must be led by the rank-and-file, self-organised, and rid of hierarchy and bureaucrats. The working class must emancipate ourselves from capitalism, on our own terms. Otherwise, we are merely substituting one set of corrupt and destructive bosses for another.

Something for the weekend...

It's only Tuesday. But with several long days ahead of me and lots to do, I'm already harking towards the weekend. And with good reason - this Saturday sees the arrival of the Manchester Anarchist Bookfair.

The talks on offer include;

“Everything you wanted to know abut anarchism but you were too afraid to ask”Members of different anarchist groups including Class War, the Anarchist Federation and Solidarity Federation talk about their organisations and offer their definition of anarchism.
This will be followed by a Question and Answer session.

“Steal a little and they throw you in gaol. Steal a lot and they make you king”
The case for prison abolition
Professor Joe Sim: Liverpool John Moores University

"Nick Heath - the Third Revolution”
Nick Heath on the wave of rebellions and uprisings of rank-and-file Russian workers and peasants across the country in 1919-1921 against the Bolsheviks, who were consolidating their grip on power. Contrary to the Bolsheviks' claims, these rebellions were not reactionary but in fact in support of the original aims of the revolution: socialism, and workers' and peasants' self-management. Taken together they can be referred to as a Third Revolution.

“Class Struggle in India, Gurgaon Workers' News”
Gurgaon Workers' News are a libertarian communist group in the Indian city of Gurgaon, who publish a newspaper of the same name and actively participate in the various struggles taking place in this industrial hub. A friend of these comrades, who has stayed and worked in Gurgaon for some time, will be discussing the experience, and shedding light on class and class struggle in India.
http://www.gurgaonworkersnews.wordpress.com

“Education: Students and Staff Working Together”
Like the rest of the public sector, higher education faces years of savage cuts. This will effect students and university workers alike. Over the last year there has been a number of examples of students and workers joining together to defeat planned cuts. The education workers network has organised this meeting to discuss ways students and staff can work together both locally and nationally to defeat the cuts.

“Zapatista Solidarity Group”
The Manchester Zapatista Solidarity Group and the Honduras Solidarity Group collaborate on the stall and the talk at the Anarchist Bookfair.
Since the coup in Honduras in June 2009, the Human Rights situation in this country has deteriorated dramatically. Labour activists, environmental activists and human rights activists are among the main targets of repression. The Honduras Solidarity Group monitors the situation and publishes a monthly newsletter.

3.30pm: Radical History Walk
Let the Loiterers Resistance Movement take you on a radical history tour of Manchester. Covering politics, culture, communication and more...
(Leaves Dancehouse at 3.30pm)

All in all, a very interesting lineup.

For me, it will also mark a pleasant repreive after two weeks of solid activism, where antifascism, anarchism, and trade unionism have clashed and collaborated to leave me having very little sleep.

Though I will be taking time out to attend PCS's "young workers united against the cuts" demo in St Peter's Square, and - as at the recent Radical Workers' Bloc - making the case for a more militant and libertarian workers' struggle. No rest for the wicked, I guess.

Before then, there is much to do. I will find time to write-up the latest update in the No War but Class War series, and offer a full response to this article by John Demetriou. But not today.

Why the police are the last people we need to reclaim the streets

Yesterday, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) published a report titled Anti-social behaviour: stop the rot (PDF). As summed up by Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Denis O'Connor, the conclusion was that the police need to "reclaim some neighbourhoods." The idea is a troubling one.

In essence, the report claims that uncertainty over "what priority ASB [anti-social behaviour] should ... be given by police forces" has led to"an increasing acceptance or “defining down”" of ASB.

The response to this should "draw on the evidence of the different intensity of the impact that ASB has on particular groups of people and in particular areas, together with ‘what works best’ in police systems." Such a "damage limitation" strategy should run alongside "an early intervention strategy, similar to those in health and education sectors."

Hence, police should focus on "what causes harm in communities, rather than what is or is not a “crime”, or what can be managed out of police systems."

As O'Connor told the BBC, this equates to "feet on the street." It needs to be remembered that "the public do not distinguish between anti-social behaviour and crime. For them, it's just a sliding scale of grief." Moreover, anti-social behaviour "is the precursor to crime - stop this, and a lot of other things will happen."

He's not entirely wrong, and certainly there are a lot of issues around anti-social behaviour that need to be examined in more depth and better handled. But there are ways to do that without reactionary demands for more police. 90% of people may give them primary responsibility, but this doesn't just further disempower communities - it effectively consents to the state monopoly on violence.

The murders of Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles de Menezes are just the two most high-profile examples of the police being a law unto themselves. They exist, as an institution, to contain and control dissent, and subjugate the working class through force.

As we saw with the (wholly misguided) support for Raoul Moat, an awful lot of people are aware of this and don't trust the police as far as they could throw a Paddy Wagon. And rightly so.

Will this change with Theresa May's promise to "put communities at the heart of the solution" by "mak[ing] police more accountable through elected Police and Crime Commissioners?" It may well. But, in my opinion, it really shouldn't. Especially as it's likely to make the problem worse.

The "more accountable" police will have "the right tools and powers" to "crack down" regardless of whether you're actually breaking the law. This will only make the problem of state violence against the marginalised more acute. Hence it will increase the disenfranchisement and alienation that are at the root of anti-social behaviour.

The elected commissioners need not worry about this affecting their careers. Sensationalist and reactionary election campaigns and media stories will drum up support for this on the back of deliberate falsehoods and misrepresentation. As we see with elected politicians and just about every issue going.

If we want to challenge anti-social behaviour, then the only serious way to do so is through community self-defence. This is something the Independent Working Class Association (IWCA) have tried to put into practice in various areas and achieved some success with.

As such, its programme on this issue is not to be sniffed at;

Antisocial Behaviour

A combination of unemployment, the withdrawal of funding for youth facilities and the selling off of playing fields, drugs, and police indifference has left the vulnerable in many communities frightened to leave their homes. Burglaries, street crime and joy-riding have destroyed morale in many working class communities, making it all too easy for politicians to sit back and manipulate the situation to their advantage.

The IWCA will work for:

• The drawing together of all sectors, including official agencies, toward the goal of the working class ownership of local communities
  
• The reforging of pride in the community by organising clean-ups of estates, removing graffiti, and getting burnt-out cars taken away
  
• The ending of curfews for young people
  
• The proper funding of youth facilities
  
• The isolation by the community of those who persist in making life intolerable for the community

Community Restorative Justice

Community Restorative Justice (CRJ) is a new way of dealing with antisocial behaviour. It is a cost-effective way of tackling the causes behind crime and the resulting breakdown in the relationships which connect people with a community.

It also brings attention to the imbalance of resources within the current justice system. At present the bulk of investment is spent responding to crime on a retributive basis—fines, court orders, prison.

By comparison, when CRJ is used, tiny amounts are invested in trying to resolve problems in a long term way. CRJ works to bring people together to resolve differences within a mediation process. It can play a vital role where the police and local authorities have lost the respect of local communities and where there is a stigma attached to cooperating with them.

• The IWCA will encourage the establishment of Community Restorative Justice
  Schemes within working class communities

Drugs

Nationally and locally the war against drugs has proved disastrous for working class communities in general. In some areas the drug culture has destroyed community cohesion, setting young against old, neighbour against neighbour.

Despite all the talking from politicians and experts, the situation continues to deteriorate. Overwhelmingly, working class communities carry the cost of this failure. At issue is not whether some drugs or all drugs are bad, but how the resulting problems can be managed.

As part of a broader review, the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, which introduced the prohibition on buying and selling drugs and the criminalisation of drug users, needs to be assessed to determine what role the criminalisation of drugs may have played in the subsequent massive rise in heroin addiction.

IWCA policy objectives are:

• The isolation by the community of drug dealers who prey on the community
  
• The proper provision of locally based and funded detox centres
  
• The establishment of a social contract with users for the proper disposal of needles etc.
  
• The decriminalisation of cannabis
  
• GPs to be allowed to prescribe heroin in order to administer dosages safely, remove the need for ineffective methadone substitutes and undermine the criminal black market
  
• A review of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act

There are issues with the IWCA's programme and the ideas behind it, from an extremely narrow, cultural definition of class to its willingness in some areas to accept the restraints and parameters of capitalist society. Nonetheless, it has done what so many on the left have failed to do.

Self-defence and self-sufficiency for working class communities lies at the heart of a solution to the problem of anti-social behaviour. It is also a viable alternative to the half-baked pseudo-localism of Cameron's "Big Society." And, in a time when the government is looking to make us pay for the frivolity of the ruling class with austerity measures, it reminds people how to stand up for themselves.

On top of which, it means that we don't have to beg the government to give more power to an already violent and oppressive police force.

Support Chris Moyles? I'll pass, thanks

On the lighter side of the news today, we discover that radio "personality" Chris Moyles hasn't been paid by the BBC for two months;

Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles hit out at his BBC bosses yesterday in an extraordinary rant on his breakfast show, accusing them of “a huge lack of respect” and revealing he had not been paid since July.

Moyles told listeners he was “very, very angry” about the situation, and said he thought about not coming in to present the show.

He said the corporation could not “be bothered” to pay him, and asked: “Why should I come in? It’s a two-way street. What annoys me is the fact I mentioned it to people this week. Fix it, just get it fixed. It’s a huge lack of respect and a massive ‘FU’ to me.”

As a result, a semi-ironic "Twibbon" has been launched, allowing users to support the DJ through their Twitter profiles. It is also suggested that they "could donate some tins of beans, or some old clothes or something." You could even "just let him sleep on the sofa."

Some might think it wrong to take the piss out of a worker denied pay by their bosses. Even such an overpaid, reactionary gasbag as Chris Moyles. But I beg to differ.

Not least because he's a scab. Moyles crossed a BBC picket line in 2005, ignoring the wishes of workmates who were fighting to prevent 4,000 job cuts. In order to "grace" the airwaves with his banal idiocy, he betrayed people paid a lot less than him trying to hold onto their livelihoods.

As such I don't have an ounce of sympathy for the worthless fat cunt.

The Radical Workers’ Bloc makes its mark whilst an EDL flash demo fail to ignite Liverpool

As I said on Twitter today, "After a weekend of fighting fascists, promoting anarchism, and stomping across the city, I'm fucking knackered."

Thus, in the spirit of lazy blogging, I'll let the Liverpool Solidarity Federation tell the story of today's march;

Today, over 4,000 people braved wind and rain to march and protest against the Lib Dems and the cuts agenda. It was a demonstration of the level of anger people feel - but also the willingness of their "leaders" to merely act as a safety valve, defusing that anger before it reaches the ruling class.

People assembled by the Anglican cathedral to march down to the docks where the protest was held. There were a number of trade union banners, as well as the banners of the Solidarity Federation and Anarchist Federation, whose membership made up the Radical Workers' Bloc. Despite the rain, the huge turnout and musical accompaniments made it a lively atmosphere.

But whilst the spirit of the rank-and-file made the march vibrant, this was in spite the planning done by trade union leaders, not because of it.

The TUC simply accepted the police moving them away from the Echo Arena, though they later moaned about it to the Liverpool Echo. With the march. Rather than go through the main part of City Centre to the docks, the route may as well have been calculated to garner the smallest possible audience.

But we've seen this show before. Union leaders putting on the appearance of being oppositional to authority whilst following orders and acting as a conduit to get the working class to do the same.

It became farcical when the layout of the roads meant the march had to go past the point of protest and turn back upon itself to be able to feed into the rally. There was some laughter and cheering as the Radical Workers' Bloc simply bypassed this by crossing the road and ending up at the front of the demonstration, beyond even the police.

However, there were cries of "no anarchists" from the Liverpool Socialist Singers and the police rushed forward to overtake us. This protest against the government was going to do exactly as it was told by the state, every step of the way.

At the rally, where 4,000 trade unionists were all-but funneled into a protest pen, various cossetted union big-wigs took to the stage to offer a bark which is never matched with bite.

Merseyside's anarchists took this opportunity to hand out a pamphlet titled No War but Class War and make the argument for a self-organised workers' movement that could not be demobilised from above. The response was largely receptive, and we were able to distribute several hundred leaflets.

We then took the lead from many others who left the bureaucrats to their speeches and went to warm up in the pub. One thing that we have seen, time and again, is that ordinary trade unionists share our assesment of their leaders. But anarchists often consigned themselves to shouting from the sidelines and alienating those who would perhaps be most sympathetic. We wanted to break that mold.

All-in-all, bar a brief and largely pointless appearence from the English Defence League later on, the day was a good one. But it will only be a success if people are motivated to organise themselves against capitalism, and rid themselves of the chains of union bureaucracy.

You can download a PDF of the leaflet we distributed today here.

And, for more on the appearence of the EDL, Liverpool Antifascists;

Word reaches Liverpool Antifascists that the English Defence League made an appearance in Liverpool today.

Witnesses on the ground described the event as not up to much. Nonetheless, it presents a worrying precedent and a reminder to antifascists to remain vigilant.

In the early afternoon, thousands of trade unionists, socialists, and working class activists marched from the Anglican Cathedral to protest at the Liberal Democrat conference, against that party’s support for attacks on the working class. Liverpool Antifascists – as an autonomous group set up and run by ordinary people rather than politicians or bureaucrats – wholeheartedly supports this. Indeed, many of our members were present at the event under different banners.

What we do not support is the message the EDL offered in the same area, just hours later.

We are told that 20-30 EDL activists, including many from the EDL Merseyside Division, unfurled banners for what amounted to a photo op before retreating to the Baltic Fleet for a meeting. According to some who were present, one of the topics for discussion was the formation of a political party to contest elections. Though they didn’t seem optimistic about the political calibre of those present.

Soon enough, antifascists got wind of what was going on, and a few scouted the area to see that the police had them contained and under control. With that in mind, and better things to do, they left them to it.

It is clear that the EDL were just testing the waters today. They want to see if they can “conquer” Liverpool, but we’d advise against it. When they do it for real, so will we.

Whether that’s from the state, from Islamic extremism, or from fascists looking for a fight, Liverpool is a city that can defend itself.

All in all, an interesting day. Indeed, an interesting weekend. But, frankly, my legs are very glad it's over.

The Taxpayers' Alliance - an alliance of capitalists and scabs?

According to the Telegraph, the Taxpayers' Alliance has seen its membership grow by 70% to 55,000 people. It has also been seeking advice from FreedomWorks, a Washington-based organisation connected to the US Tea Party movement. At the least, these developments should raise a few eyebrows.

Like the Tea Party movement, the Taxpayers' Alliance is a grouping of conservative/pseudo-libertarian right-wing reactionaries. On its website, it claims to be about "committed to forcing politicians to listen to ordinary taxpayers." In reality, it represents the interests of the more privileged sectors of society and the agenda of at least one segment of the ruling class.

This is evident in the fact that the rhetoric used by the organisation - for example, on welfare reform (PDF) - is almost perfectly in tune with that used by the conservative government and the Daily Mail.

Another case in point is its attitude to trade unions. It has strongly attacked facilities time for trade union reps in the public sector, claiming that the arrangement costs taxpayers £85m per year. The potential cost-benefits, from negotiation which prevents strikes to representation which resolves disputes before they reach employment tribunals, isn't examined. Funny, that.

But, for all that, they remain another right-wing lobby group amidst many others calling for a tune to which the government is already dancing. The real problem arises when their opposition to workers and trade unionists - i.e. the real ordinary taxpayers - becomes physical. Which it is seeking to do.

In yesterday's Guardian Matthew Elliott, founder of the TPA, said this;

You could say our time has come. Take the strikes on the London underground this week and how much they annoyed and inconvenienced people. Couldn't we get 1,000 people to protest that?

Perhaps they could. They'd certainly get a lot of take up from the scabs of this world, braindead, class-traitor scumbags that they are.

This would be a great boon for the government, able to emulate America by obfuscating class war with a manufactured culture war. Thus would an army of the ill-informed take on the government by attacking their fellow workers and shoring up the state that is attacking their livelihoods.

In response, the working class need to rebuild the culture of mass participation and solidarity that once defined the labour movement. Our picket lines need to be brimming with people fighting for their livelihoods, not staffed by six "official pickets" whilst everybody else uses the "day off" to go shopping, as is often the case at present.

If we can't do that, then the emergence of a "British Tea Party" would be a crushing defeat. We cannot allow that to happen.

Michael Gove begins handing schools over to private tyranny

Today, Education Secretary Michael Gove has unveiled details of the first 16 "free schools" set up under the coalition government's initiative. This is no doubt far less than Gove had hoped - "laughably" so, in Ed Balls' words - but it still sets a worrying precedent.

The selling point, of course, is "choice." It's the right's favourite buzzword for selling unaccountable private tyranny. And anybody who opposes it is a Stalinist control freak.

Typical of such sentiments is Harry Phibbs in the Daily Mail;

The educational establishment, an alliance of the teacher unions, Councils wishing to defend their school empires, Quangocrats and Department of Education civil servants, seem to take encouragement that they will be able to thwart any change.

They hope that they will be able to retain centralised control to ensure progressive orthodoxies in the classroom are followed. They want to retain control of what our children are taught and how they are taught.

These people are convinced that they know best and therefore that the threat of parent power must be averted. Often they are uncomfortable about any reference to ‘bad schools’ or ‘bad teachers’ - and are most reluctant to support the closure of a school for having poor exam results or being half empty.

Yet they are all too keen for grammar schools, church schools or independent schools to shut down - it seems the more successful a school, the more they despise it. Even when a school remains non-selective and state-owned there is hostility when it gains Academy status - because of the modest degree of independence from bureaucratic conformity.

There is a degree of truth buried in the rhetoric. The education system, as it stands, is far from perfect, and there are some worthwhile criticisms to be made.

The rigid and centralised National Curriculum is restrictive to creativity, training children to be human resources ready for sale on the labour market. Education is shaped by ideology - though a capitalist one rather than an ill-defined "politically correct/cultural Marxist" one as the right would insist.

This is not to mention that through catchment areas and the disparity in funding between the privileged and deprived, the state school system reinforces the class system and stagnates social mobility.

It is a strawman to suggest that, if you want to bring about change in some area, all those who oppose you are wedded to the status quo. But it is a strawman the right cling to for dear life.

As this overtly ideological article for the Spectator shows, the National Union of Teachers' campaign on this issue has been caught by the strawman;

Any head teacher of a school trying to free itself from state control will have had no summer holiday this year. In the weeks since Michael Gove introduced a law allowing top-rated schools to break free from local authority control, trade unions have been on the hunt for anyone daring to express interest in this offer. Heads have been sent letters, demanding they reveal their intentions. Those who do not reply are told they had better prepare for a battle. A secret war which will decide the future of English education is underway.

The National Union of Teachers wants to seek out and bully into submission any school thinking of becoming ‘free’ (which means becoming an ‘Academy’, thereby remaining in the state sector but free from local authority rules). ‘Free schools’ or academies will be allowed to expand and compete with other schools; they’ll be free to poach good teachers and (whisper it) sack bad ones. As the NUT knows, this is a threat to the current system, in which exceptional teachers are often poorly paid, and only 18 bad teachers have been struck off for incompetence in the last four decades. The NUT’s mission is to stop schools taking up Gove’s offer, as laid out in the Academies Act. Its methods, you might think, are sheer thuggery.

Take, for example, Mrs Y, a headmistress in a predominantly black inner-city school. She was ‘outed’ when Gove’s department released names of schools interested in applying for independent status. She received a letter by an official from the National Union of Teachers, angry that she had not revealed her plans earlier. A copy of their exchange has been seen by The Spectator. ‘I knew we would find out very soon,’ she was told. ‘This fundamental attack on state schools, held democratically accountable through local authorities, apparently means very little to you.’ 

‘We are absolutely not seeking a conflict,’ the letter continued. ‘Nontheless [sic] we regard these proposals as a fundamental attack on state education and will, for the sake of our members and the children we teach, do everything we can to stop any school becoming an academy. And this includes industrial action and campaigning amongst the parents.’

The message could not be clearer. Unless the headmistress drops her plans, the NUT will try to organise a strike in her school. ‘Our members — your staff — wish for this unanimously agreed motion to be raised at the next Governors meeting. We will campaign with all at our disposal.’ 

Perhaps the authors of the article - Fraser Nelson and Ed Howker - need reminding of the definition of "thuggery." It is not, last I checked, using all available resources to mount a democratic campaign of protest.

But, when these schools enjoy their newly-found "freedom" such "frightening" and "thuggish" things as dissent and democracy will be of the past. Isn't "choice" grand?

In reality, the problem is that the Tories "free schools" are nothing of the sort. Though offered to private instead of state power, they are still bound by ideology and restrictive to the freedom and creativity of the people who really matter - the children.

As I've expounded previously;

This is not what the Conservatives are offering. They are offering freedom to parents, to businesses, and to the mystical power of the market and competition, but freedom for children is not on the agenda. A particular case in point is that the City Academies, born of the same ideas under the stewardship of Tony Blair, have become "a 'Trojan horse' for radical evangelicals." This not only means that reason is being expelled from the classroom, but that along with it the autonomy of students to mandate their own learning.

The "parents, teachers, churches, charities and companies" that the Tories want to give these new schools over to, and to whom Blair gave the Academies, have no precedent for radical libertarian ideas. The "free schools" they create will be "free" only for them, and education is bound to suffer. There needs to be a serious move towards a more libertarian education system, but that cannot be realised as long as genuine freedom for those being educated is sidelined in favour of passing autocratic control to the highest bidder.

The question now becomes how, whilst making the argument for genuinely libertarian education, we can fight against what - small now - could become a tidal trend in the education sector.

The aim of such resistance should not only be to oppose the current reforms, but also make the argument for a move in the entirely opposite direction. That is, towards free schools as the term was originally intended. The tradition not of Cameron and Gove but of Francisco Ferrer and AS Neill.

Currently, our children are caught between state bureaucracy and private tyranny. For their sake - indeed, for the sake of the future - we need to organise and fight for the third alternative.