Success to the People’s Commission!

Hunt for Hunt demonstration through FarnhamLewisham People’s Commission of Enquiry is taking place today, Saturday, June 29. The commission, chaired by Michael Mansfield QC, will hear from key witnesses on the changes in the NHS and the devastating proposals for Lewisham Hospital. Clinicians, GPs, patient groups, the Council and others will present their evidence before a panel.

The Commission runs from 9:30 am to 5:30 pm, at the Broadway Theatre, Catford. The panel includes Baroness Warnock and award-winning Lewisham author and journalist Blake Morrison, who will hear evidence that has been denied by Trust Special Administrator Kershaw and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Lord David Owen and Lewisham Mayor Sir Steve Bullock will also address the Commission. The whole proceedings will be livestreamed (see link at end of article).

The People’s Commission will investigate the truth of what the downgrading or even closure of Lewisham Hospital would mean. Witnesses will provide evidence, questioned by a team of barristers.

Evidence will be presented to the panel by key academics Professor Colin Leys and Allyson Pollock about privatisation and the role of PFI in the NHS. Leading GPs, hospital clinicians and nurses will also give evidence, as well as patients and patient representatives, the Council and local businesses, and religious and community representatives. Over the past few weeks, much evidence has been painstakingly collected in video form by interviewing concerned people, and this will also be represented at the Commission.

To download the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry, click the doc: Commission-Terms-of-ref

The Commission is being held in the context that the private sector is utilising the public services in Britain as a source of huge profits, amounting to billions of pounds. The Coalition government intends to open the floodgates to the private sector, while imposing a programme of “austerity” and declaring Trusts bankrupt. In these circumstances, the Commission is contributing to fulfilling the need for a public investigation into the whole programme of privatisation, the necessity to reclaim the huge profits of the private sector for the public purse, and to reverse the direction so that health care is provided on the basis that it is a right.

Outlaw the Involvement of the Private Sector in Public Services!

Watch the People’s Commission LIVE:

TUC Austerity Bus

The Coalition government loses no opportunity to pursue its “shock and awe” austerity programme against the working class and people. It is acting as a dictatorship with no effective opposition from within Westminster.

George Osborne’s government spending review on Wednesday, June 26, was dubbed as keeping on with his “plan for pain” by the Financial Times. This “plan for pain” is described as the beginning of a second wave of austerity, because the world has not stuck to Osborne’s script, and reality has not been kind to the Chancellor.

What is certain is that the world will not stick to the government’s script in the future either. The attempts to set the political discourse in terms of “efficiency” and “reducing the deficit” is fraudulent and diversionary. In reality, it is a programme of slashing investments in social programmes and putting the state treasury and public services in the service of the monopolies. Nor is it designed to solve the problems of the economy and will not do so. The equation does not work like that.

Rather, it is a programme to attack the vulnerable and disregard the public good in favour of upholding the interests of the monopolies and the financial elite. At its core is to divert attention away from the need for change in the direction of the economy, and instead brand those on “welfare”, as well as all public sector workers, as the problem, as those who do not recognise the public good but only their own interests. This is truly to turn truth on its head.

Opposition to the neo-liberal “austerity” agenda continues to grow and develop, with more and more sections of society going into action. Osborne’s spending review is the declaration of the ruling elite that the working class and people are not going to be listened to under the guise that there is no alternative to this neo-liberal agenda. However, there is an alternative to the wrecking of the economy and the attacks on the rights of all. The working class movement is developing the fight for this alternative, which must be spearheaded by the Workers’ Opposition. Crucial to planting the seeds of this Workers’ Opposition is for the working class and people to develop their own independent thinking, their own independent programme, agenda and politics. A new direction for the economy is called for, the alternative must be fought for on the basis that it is the working class and people who must decide!

Spending Review. The Key Points

WELFARE:

:: Reforms to include the 'welfare cap' set in Budget statement annually from April 2015 for four years, though state pension not included.

:: Jobseekers face new requirements to get benefits. Non-English speaking claimants must learn the language or risk cuts to payments.

:: Lone parents of three and four-year-olds to be required to attend job centres regularly and prepare for work.

:: Payment of winter fuel payments for people living abroad to be linked to a 'temperature test' from Autumn 2015 to ensure pensioners in hot countries do not get it.

JOBS PAY:

:: Government workers to fall by extra 144,000 by 2015/16.

:: Ending automatic progression pay in public sector - though Armed Forces excluded. Pay rises limited to average of up to 1%.

INVESTMENT:

:: £50bn of capital investment in 2015/16, amounting to more than £300bn for infrastructure including broadband, science and schools by 2020. Promises the largest programme of investment in roads for 50 years and in railways since the Victorian age.

TAX:

:: HMRC resource budget cut by 5% but extra resources provided to tackle tax evasion raising a predicted £1bn-plus.

NHS:

:: NHS budget rises to £110bn for 2015/16. some £4.7bn capital spending in NHS.

EDUCATION:

:: Education budget increased to £53bn for spend on schools only. Pupil Premium extended to more children and 180 more Free Schools funded.

DEFENCE:

:: No reduction in numbers of soldiers, sailors or airmen, but cuts in civilian workforce.

:: Defence resource budget maintained at £24bn. Its equipment budget will be £14bn and will grow by 1% in real terms in following years.

TRANSPORT:

:: Government to "look at the case for" Crossrail 2 link from Wimbledon to Alexandra Palace in London and give mayor Boris Johnson almost £9bn of capital spending and additional financing power by 2020.

:: Transport to make 9% savings in day-to-day spending but receive largest boost of any department to its capital budget, which rises to £9.5bn - to be repeated every year to 2020.

LAW ORDER:

:: Savings of 10% in justice department.

:: Police counter-terrorism budget will not be cut while there will be an increase of 3.4% in intelligence services budget.

KEY FIGURES:

:: A further £5bn of efficiency savings found in the latest spending round.

:: Total Government spending for 2015/16 will be £745bn.

(Source: Sky News)

From the debate in the House of Commons

Geoffrey Robinson

Frances O'Grady speaking at the
People's Assembly against AusterityGeoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West, Labour): Is the Chancellor not aware that he has been in post for three years now, that he owns these policies and that their failure is his responsibility? All the empty rhetorical questions directed at the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor will not airbrush away the failings on growth, living standards and borrowings. Is it not time he faced up to that and changed the policies that have failed so far?

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c322)

George Osborne

George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury; Tatton, Conservative): I tell you what has happened while this Government have been in office. First, borrowing has come down—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says it has gone up, but the problem is that if this really is his maths, the country would be in very serious trouble if he ever got himself back into Downing street. We were borrowing £157 billion a year under Labour and now we are set to borrow £108 billion in the coming year—£118 billion if we remove the asset purchase facility transfer. So borrowing has come down.

Secondly, more than 1 million jobs have been created. Thirdly, we can look around the world and see that this country is seen to have got its act together and is making the big reforms we need to education, welfare and the like. That is why we are absolutely determined to win the global race and people see us as a country capable of winning that race.

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c322)

Michael Meacher

Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton, Labour): As the Chancellor’s private sector infrastructure proposals will take years to gain traction, if they ever do, why does he not use public investment to kick-start the economy now, as the only effective means to do so quickly, without any increase in public borrowing at all? He could do that through a further tranche of quantitative easing, specifically targeted on industrial investment; by instructing the state-owned banks to lend to industry at the scale required; or, most obviously, given that he talks about fairness, by taxing the super-rich, who have made massive gains since the crash, in the last five years.

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c323)

George Osborne

George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury; Tatton, Conservative): First, we are committing to public investment as well as seeking to secure private investment. The first of the right hon. Gentleman’s ideas is about printing money to spend it on things. That has been tried by a number of countries but it does not always have a happy ending. Secondly, he has this plan to take over full control of the banks and run the banking system as a nationalised banking system. I do not think that would be a sensible approach; it would make the problems in our banking system worse rather than better.

Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman talks about taxes. I recall, as I was an MP on the Opposition Benches at the time, that he was a Minister when his Government had a 40% tax rate, whereas we have a 45% rate. I do not remember him getting up at this Dispatch Box and complaining all the time that his Government were not increasing taxes on the rich. I seem to remember his good friend Peter Mandelson saying that they were all

“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

Under this Government—I hope the right hon. Gentleman would support this—the richest are paying a greater percentage of our tax than under his Government.

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c323)

Helen Goodman

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour): The Chancellor is presiding over a situation in which an extra 200,000 children will be living in poverty while at the same time cutting taxes for millionaires. Does he think the parents of those children will think that is fair?

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c326)

George Osborne

George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury; Tatton, Conservative): Child poverty went up by 300,000 during the recession of the previous Government, and the hon. Lady was a Government MP at the time. We have taken a number of actions today, such as that on the pupil premium, to help the poorest kids, and there is also the troubled families initiative. That means 400 families helped by our plans. The distributional analysis, as I showed, shows that the richest quintile in our society are paying the most as a result of the collection of these measures. We are demonstrating that it is possible to have progressive policies while living with sane public finances.

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c326)

Julie Hilling

Julie Hilling (Bolton West, Labour): With 300,000 more children in absolute poverty, how many more will be in poverty by 2015?

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c328)

George Osborne

George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury; Tatton, Conservative): Child poverty projections are made independently, but I say to the hon. Lady that we are doing everything we can to give children from poorer backgrounds the very best start in life, with measures such as the pupil premium.

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c328)

Clive Betts

Clive Betts (Sheffield South East, Labour): Does the Chancellor accept that, since the beginning of this Parliament, the cut in central Government grant to local authorities has been twice as great as the cut in funding for central Government Departments? With that in mind, will he take seriously the comments of the chair of the Conservative party that local councils can manage the cuts announced today without any reduction in front-line services?

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c331)

George Osborne

George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury; Tatton, Conservative): I think good local councils can manage the ask we are making of them. If the hon. Gentleman is complaining, the Labour party has not made it clear whether or not it supports this total mandatory expenditure, so the Opposition cannot really complain about individual cuts unless they tell us whether they would make other cuts, and so far I have not heard of any.

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c331)

Jack Dromey

Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington, Labour): With the Government’s own figures showing that, despite all the promises, house building is down, construction is down, homelessness is up, rents are up, and housing waiting lists are at a record level, does the Chancellor accept that it is the legacy of his actions, including the catastrophic decision to cut £4 billion in affordable housing investment in 2010, that brings him to the Chamber today, and that he is responsible for three wasted years?

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c332)

George Osborne

George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury; Tatton, Conservative): No, I do not accept that at all. The last Labour Government had a shocking record on house building, especially affordable house building. If the hon. Gentleman turns up in the Chamber tomorrow, he will hear some positive announcements about affordable house building.

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 June 2013, c332)

The Pensions Bill, presented to parliament on May 9, received its second reading on June 17 and subsequently entered the committee stage. The Committee, whose responsibility is to examine the Bill line by line, is expected to report to the Commons on July 11. The Pensions Bill as presented enforces private and monopoly right by further attacking the right to a livelihood and the claims of retired workers on the social product.

The planned increase in the retirement age to 67 will be brought forward by eight years by this Bill, as well as introducing a continual review of the retirement age. Bound to the notion that pensions and other claims of workers on added value are a cost, the Bill seeks to reduce the “costs” of pension provision to businesses, making it law for the pensions regulator to make such “cost” minimisation a consideration.

Other main points of the Bill are: to introduce single-tier state pension system in place of the current system of basic pension, second state pension and pension credits; to replace the existing system of bereavement benefits with a new support payment; and to reform the arrangements of private pensions, including a system to automatically transfer individual pensions when changing employment.

Moving the second reading, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith summarised the Bill as “about putting in place a welfare and pension system that both reflects the reality of our society now and puts us on a fair and, I hope, sustainable basis for the future. That principle underpins vital changes proposed in the Bill: ... between now and 2035 the number of people in the UK over state pension age is currently set to increase from 12.4 million to 15.6 million, a rise of 26%. With ever more pensioners ... this new pension system reflects the fact that working patterns and family life have changed over years, that people need to take personal responsibility for planning and saving for their retirement.”

The argument is that, with the development of society, which has led to people living on average for longer, the provision of pensions must move further in the direction of being a matter of personal saving. The perspective is both capital-centred – that pensions are both a cost and an individual matter – and anti-human – that the problem is the length of human life. Such a backward perspective can only lead to irrational arguments.

The second reading is the first debate on a Bill, the first reading being a formality. Yet the character of the debate, rather than examine its premise, was to argue out the details, particularly over the move to a single-tier system – questions on contracting out, increased national insurance payments, and so on. MP for Central Ayrshire Brian Donohoe, for example, pointed out the effective pay cut to a significant number of public sector workers.

All agree on the premise; the perspective is given. The response of Shadow Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne was: “I think that it is fitting to start my remarks with a quick word about history and the road to this afternoon’s debate. One of the chief reasons why the Labour Party will not stand in the Bill’s way today is that we recognise the genuine effort to build on the strong foundations that we left. Indeed, our only disappointment today is that we think the Secretary of State is proposing to build only a halfway house on those strong foundations. We think that the Bill is merely half a reform. Therefore, the Opposition’s job during the course of the Bill’s passage will be to ask him not simply to fix some of the deficiencies we can see, but to be bolder and more radical and to seize the moment that we think is there for the taking. I want to set out a number of areas where I think he can do more to seize that moment.”

In other words, Labour sees the Conservative/Liberal attack on pensions as a continuation of its own groundwork, and its only criticism is that the Bill should have gone much further. In no way will Labour stand against the Bill and defend the rights of all to a livelihood in old age!

In this situation, the need is for workers themselves to become the main opposition; to take up, elaborate and make their demands based on the political programme to stop paying the rich and invest in social programmes. Only an organised Workers’ Opposition with its own independent politics can smash through the prevalent Westminster consensus and the stranglehold of the establishment parties. It is up to the working class to bring its human-centred perspective to bear on the economy, setting its direction so that it provides the rights of all, including a decent standard of life from birth until death, with a guarantee.

Hands Off Pensions!
For a Guaranteed Decent Standard of Living for Senior Citizens!

In an act of shock-and-awe, the largest party in the Greek governing coalition unilaterally and without notice announced the immediate closure of the state broadcaster Hellenic Radio-Television (ERT) on June 11, with the loss of all 2,656 jobs. This was an act of constitutional significance and has intensified the deep political crisis in Greece.

Coalition leader New Democracy declared the shutdown under the pretext of corruption and wastefulness, announcing that a new national broadcaster, New Hellenic Radio, Internet and Television (NERIT), would be launched with a reduced budget and less than half the number of staff. In this respect, it represents a part of the austerity programme, particularly given the passing of an act of parliament in April to cut 15,000 public sector jobs by the end of 2014 as a condition for the next instalment of funds from the EU, European Central Bank and IMF. Further, it represents a move towards increased private control of broadcasting in Greece, while allowing the government to tighten its hold over what remains of public broadcasting.

Over and above even these considerations, the shutdown of ERT was in violation of the Greek Constitution. It was issued as a presidential decree or “act of legislative content” – a form of prerogative power exercised on the advice of the government, requiring no preceding parliamentary debate. Article 44 of the Constitution states: “Under extraordinary circumstances of an urgent and unforeseeable need, the President of the Republic may, upon the proposal of the Cabinet, issue acts of legislative content.”

Not only was the decree against the spirit of “an urgent and unforeseeable need”, it was in no way made “upon the proposal of the Cabinet”, being brought about by one party of the ruling coalition without so much as consultation with, let alone the agreement of, the other two.

The ERT workers’ union POSPERT also challenged the decree on grounds of the European Charter of Social Rights, the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 15 of the Greek Constitution, which covers public broadcasting.

This act indicates a new level of brazenness in politics. The ruling class is treating its own political theory and mechanisms with contempt; the act is a sign that it is prepared to abandon its own norms of governance. The decree was a declaration that We Will Act, regardless, and opens the door to the real possibility of the suspension of the democratic process in Greece. These developments are a sign of the weakness of the establishment élite in the country at this time.

The proportion of votes received by the parties that make up the governing coalition is reflective of the broad disaffection in Greece with representative democracy (the combined share of the three coalition partners combined was just 48%). The previous party-in-power/party-in-opposition status quo was shattered in recent elections with a collapse in the vote of the dominant establishment parties. In the resulting disequilibrium, a coalition representing a minority of electoral support has clung onto power in the face of widespread opposition to its forcing through of the devastating austerity programme demanded by the financial oligarchy. The present act, which Greek trade unions have described as a “coup-like move”, has blown this unstable situation apart, rupturing the coalition with the exit of the Democratic Left.

This goes hand in hand with the manner in which the shutdown took place, which can only be described as shock tactics. In a matter of hours following the sudden announcement of the dissolution of ERT, the broadcast signal had been completely shut down and screens tuned to its channels went black. Communications were severed, while armed police evicted staff from transmission stations, according to reports.*

Rather than be sent reeling by the speed of developments, the response of people was determined: oppose the dictate and keep broadcasting. Tens of thousands have been demonstrating in Athens, Thessaloniki and other Greek cities, as well as outside of Greek embassies around the world, including in London. BBC staff in Scotland also staged a demonstration. ERT staff have remained in the Athens headquarters and other buildings such as the ERT3 studio in Thessaloniki, continuing to broadcast via the internet and with the assistance of a satellite provided by the European Broadcasting Union.

On June 17, Greece’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, rejected the shutdown and ordered that ERT be permitted to resume broadcasting. However, it also upheld the proposal to replace ERT with a smaller operation. The government has so far ignored this ruling, while the workers’ more than two-week occupation continues.

In a press release, the POSPERT union declared: “The now two-party coalition government will not terrorise us with its authoritarianism! We are working for public ERT, we are defending democracy! We are not giving up the fight, unless ERT opens again as if it had never been shut down for even a day, without any layoffs or violation of labour rights.”

In an interview with Press TV, POSPERT leaderPanagiotis Kalfagiannis said: “There is no solution to this without involving the ERT employees. The workers have to be an integral part of any development. The ERT frequencies have to be restored.”

______

*For a detailed account, see Michael Nevradakis, “Chronicling the Greek Government’s Shutdown of ERT”, www.dailykos.com, June 17