No to the Warmongering of the British Government
and its Allies under the Cloak of High Ideals!

RCPB(ML) condemns the plans for a military attack on Syria that are being spearheaded by US imperialism and its allies including the British government. Such a planned attack on a sovereign country demonstrates that these big powers of the aggressive NATO alliance have completely torn up the rule of international law and norms laid down in the Charter of the United Nations. It exposes the fact that those who claim to be the greatest defenders of the rule of law arrogantly give themselves the right to flout it on the basis that “might makes right”. It demonstrates that it is the people who must take up the banner of the defence of sovereignty and the opposition to the use of force to effect regime change.

The worldwide condemnation of the planned aggression against Syria, as well as opposition within the UN Security Council and in the region has, on this occasion, forced the governments of Britain and the US to seek legislative sanction for their war plans. Nevertheless, they remain committed to a policy of intervention, regime change and destabilisation in Syria that has already cost so many thousands of deaths and led to millions of refugees and displaced people. The planned military aggression will only exacerbate the problems confronting the people of Syria and will create even greater instability and conflict, as the predatory power of Europe and of NATO escalate their plans to dominate the region, as part of their strategic plans to contend for global hegemony.

The governments of Britain, the US and the other big powers attempt to carry out their aggression and warmongering under the cloak of high ideals. They claim the right to take “punitive” measures against those they allege have used weapons of mass destruction, or demand “the right to protect civilians” in a conflict that they have instigated. Whatever the pretext, their warmongering must be condemned and resolutely opposed.

No to the Warmongering of the British Government and its Allies!
No to the Use of Force for Regime Change!
Hands Off Syria!

On July 31, after a nine-month-long fight, the announcement was made that the court hearing against Jeremy Hunt mounted by Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign (SLHC) and Lewisham Council had been successful. This is a victory for Lewisham hospital and a victory for everyone fighting to defend NHS and safeguard its future.

As soon as the announcement was made, the crowd of supporters both inside the court and in the street outside gave a resounding cheer and shouted slogans such as “Whose NHS? Our NHS!”, “Whose Hospital? Our Hospital!” and “The People of Lewisham will Never be Defeated!”. The big “Save Lewisham Hospital” banner was displayed as well as the “A Victory for Lewisham Hospital is a Victory for Everyone!” banner. Supporters all held up “Justice for Lewisham Hospital” and “Victory for Lewisham Hospital!” placards.

Later on at 5:00 pm there was a victory celebration outside Lewisham at which hundreds of people gathered to celebrate victory in a joyous carnival atmosphere with passing cars hooting in support. Rousing speeches were given by Lewisham Hospital paediatrician and leading campaigner Tony O’Sullivan, SLHC chair Louise Irvine, a representative from the Lewisham Pensioners Forum, deputy chair Helmut Heib, local MP Heidi Alexander and a representative from Lewisham Council all hailing the victory and proclaiming that the struggle to defend the NHS has to continue.

A refuse truck drew up to huge cheers alongside the gathering festooned with huge banners announcing “Justice for Lewisham Hospital!” and “Lewisham Hospital Saved!”.

On the following Saturday, August 3, the celebrations continued in central Lewisham with hundreds of people taking away “Victory for Lewisham!” posters and signing a petition against NHS privatisation. The refuse truck again appeared and went round the entire neighbourhood with campaigners on board announcing on a loud hailer “Lewisham Hospital Saved” and thanking the entire local community for their support in winning victory. It represents a huge inspiration for the struggles throughout the country against the onslaught of cuts, closures to hospitals and healthcare services and the overall privatisation of the NHS.

Despite the celebratory atmosphere, everyone present one was in no doubt that the fight has to continue; a battle might have been won but the war is very far from over. Deputy chair of the SLHC Helmut Heib urged everyone to support the big national Save the NHS demo on September 29 in Manchester outside the Tory party conference.

Victory parade and party, Saturday, September 14, 12 noon

Meet at Loampit Vale Roundabout (opp Lewisham Train Station)! The parade will go past Lewisham Hospital and onto Ladywell Fields for a Party in the Park!

The High Court on July 31 found that the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt MP, had acted outside his powers and therefore unlawfully in deciding to substantially cut services and close departments at Lewisham Hospital.

In the judgment, Mr Justice Silber said that the decision of the Secretary of State must be “quashed” as he had acted outside his powers as Secretary of State, and in breach of the National Health Service Act 2006, when he announced to Parliament that services at Lewisham Hospital would be downgraded and closed.

Law firm Leigh Day, representing the Save Lewisham Campaign Group, successfully argued that the decision of the Secretary of State was unlawful. They also successfully argued that the decision of Trust Special Administrator, the first to be appointed under new health service guidance, was also unlawful.

The Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign, made up of and supported by patients, community groups, GPs, hospital doctors, nurses and other health professionals working in Lewisham, was formed in 2012 in response to the South London Healthcare Trust Special Administrator (TSA) Matthew Kershaw’s proposal that, as part of the cost saving measures put forward for the neighbouring trust, South London Healthcare NHS Trust, that services at Lewisham Hospital should be reduced.

Despite being appointed TSA for the South London Healthcare Trust, in his final report to the Secretary of State in January 2013, Mr Kershaw not only proposed changes to South London Healthcare Trust but also to Lewisham Healthcare Trust, in particular to Lewisham Hospital which it runs.

Mr Kershaw proposed that the Hospital should close and downgrade some of its services, including its A&E department, acute admitting wards and adult Intensive Care Unit. He also suggested that the maternity service at the hospital should be downgraded or closed completely.

These recommendations were made despite widespread agreement that Lewisham Hospital was a high achieving and popular hospital not in financial difficulty.

Save Lewisham Hospital campaign argued to the TSA at the time that the alternative health care options proposed would have been extremely difficult for residents to access.

However, on January 13 the Secretary of State announced to parliament that he accepted the TSA’s recommendations about South London Healthcare Trust including the recommendation to reconfigure NHS services “beyond the confines of [SLHT], across all of South East London [including Lewisham]”. (Para 40)

The High Court today found that “The TSA did not have vires [the power] to make his recommendations relating to LH [Lewisham Hospital]; The Secretary of State did not have vires to make his Decision relating to LH.” (Para 208) “Therefore the Decision of the Secretary of State insofar as it relates to LH must be quashed as must the recommendations of the TSA also insofar as they relate to LH.” (Para 210)

In his judgment (Para 38), Mr Justice Silber also referred to a pledge made by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, in January 2013 to Dame Joan Ruddock, MP for Lewisham Deptford, that, in relation to Lewisham Hospital in particular: “What the Government and I specifically promised was that there should be no closures or reorganisations unless they had support from the GP commissioners, unless there was proper public and patient engagement and unless there was an evidence base. Let me be absolutely clear: unlike under the last Government when these closures and changes were imposed in a top-down way, if they do not meet those criteria, they will not happen.”

Rosa Curling from law firm Leigh Day, who represented the Save Lewisham Hospital Group said:

“When the Secretary of State appointed the Trust Special Administrator to investigate and develop recommendations on the future of South London Healthcare NHS Trust, he promised that there would be no ‘back-door approach to reconfiguration’; there would be no reconfiguration of neighbouring NHS services delivered by other NHS bodies beyond the South London Trust.

“He broke this promise – in fact, his decision regarding South London included a substantial reconfiguration of services delivered by other NHS bodies beyond South London and in particular in relation to Lewisham Hospital. The court has today agreed that the TSA and the Secretary of State has no legal power to do this and has emphatically made clear that this decision should be quashed.”

Dr Louise Irvine, local GP and Chair of the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign, said that she had been overwhelmed by the support from people around the country:

“This is an incredible day. We are delighted for every single person who has supported the campaign and those who will now continue to benefit from this extraordinary hospital. The support from thousands of people in Lewisham is a very real demonstration of the Big Society.

“David Cameron himself said that there would be no ‘top-down’ approach to closures and we appreciate the Court’s decision which should serve as a reminder to this Government to not forget their promises and not to underestimate those who they seek to represent.”

At the eleventh hour, on August 21, the government confirmed that they will appeal the judgment in the High Court. On the last day it could lodge its appeal, it lodged a formal application to take July’s judgment by Mr Justice Silber to the Court of Appeal.

Rosa Curling from law firm Leigh Day said: “We remain confident that the Court of Appeal will uphold Mr Justice Silber's decision and we intend to request an urgent hearing so the ongoing uncertainty facing the Hospital can be brought to an end as a matter of priority."

Speaking on behalf of the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign, Tony O’Sullivan said: “We are disappointed by the Secretary of State’s decision to launch an appeal. However, we are confident that the strength of our case will be upheld at appeal. Our commitment to defend the excellent services provided by Lewisham Hospital is unwavering."

(Save Lewisham Hospital media relations)

WWIE congratulates the people of Lewisham, the hospital and community medical, administrative and support staff that are all contributing to the fight to safeguard the future of Lewisham hospital and the vital services it provides. In particular, we congratulate the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign, chaired by Dr Louise Irvine, on its continued campaign to save the hospital and unite and build the resistance to the diktat of the government and the rich they represent. The victory in the Judicial Review actually is a victory for all, in that it demonstrates that the government cannot simply push through their dictate if the people’s resistance becomes organised in the way Lewisham’s has.

The announcement to close Lewisham A&E and maternity services closely followed on the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Not only that, but it represented a government that in its arrogance was determined to go even further in wrecking the NHS even outside its own so-called criteria and the powers of the “commissioners” and “special administrator” it had appointed under the Act and under the legislation of the previous government. What the SLHC have shown is that this attempt to crush the peoples spirit to defend the NHS has not only failed but their whole notion that that in their arrogance they carry on at full speed in wrecking the NHS with impunity has been punctured. This victory of Lewisham is a serious blow to the direction the government is taking the NHS and the speed it is trying to implement its internal market and privatisation even though the judgment is not in itself a reversal of this direction.

In fighting the specific case of the proposals to wreck Lewisham Hospital, the campaign provides an example and a guideline for the whole struggle against the closure and downgrading of hospitals everywhere and the wrecking of the health service. It demonstrated, for example, how crucial it is for the struggle to be carried out on the basis of self-reliance, that is, on the strength of the working people themselves. It demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, the importance of unity in action of the people’s forces to achieve their goals, irrespective of the political opinions of the individuals involved.

The immediate task now for the Campaign is to consolidate their success, and to ensure that it is a step on the road to victory in the struggle to safeguard the whole future of the NHS on the basis that health care is a right. This means strengthening their organisational unity in achieving lasting success in the task at hand. While the government is putting in place its arrangements to cut the necessary social spending on the health service and instead ensure that the monopolies gain every benefit, of which its plans as regards Lewisham Hospital and the South London Health Trust were an example, the people have to fight against these arrangements and put forward their own solutions in the course of the struggle. They do so with the aim of developing the broadest possible unity.

This victory is an inspiration for health workers and the people everywhere to fight to safeguard the future of their health services, in South London, in Stafford, in Leeds and everywhere. It has demonstrated that the government cannot simply do as they please, but that the people are determined to fight, hold the powers-that-be to account, and step-by-step work to turn the situation around in favour of the working class and people.

The Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign by continuing to remain fully mobilised and organised to consolidate this victory and be alert to the attempts of the government to overturn this decision can turn such a victory into a platform on which to start to build the opposition to reverse the direction in which the government is taking the NHS, despite the reality that the government will become even more wanton in their wrecking activities. The challenge for all health workers and the working class and people is that the victory for Lewisham becomes an historic point and inspiration in the fight of everyone to end this wrecking of the NHS in favour of the monopolies and change the whole direction for the NHS and uphold the right to health care throughout Britain.

Victory For Lewisham Hospital! A Victory For Everyone!

Plans of the Coalition government announced by George Osborne in 2011 to introduce charges for workers seeking justice from unfair treatment by their employers in the tribunal system came into effect on Monday, July 29. The TUC and trade union movement is opposing them. Ministers claim that the charges are to redress “unfairness” on the taxpayer and small businesses, and employers organisations say they will “weed out weak claims”.

The charges will be £160 or £250 to issue a claim depending on the type of claim, with a further hearing fee starting at £230 to £950 depending on the type of claim. Where claims are issued by a group, issue fees range from £320 with a £460 hearing fee for a simpler “Type A” claim with 2-10 claimants to £1,500 (issue fee) and £5,700 (hearing fee) for a more complex “Type B claim” with over 200 claimants

On the same day after a lengthy legal argument Unison won the right to have the government's introduction of fees for taking cases to Employment Tribunals subjected to a judicial review in a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in October. The union had previously won the same right to a judicial review in Scotland. Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: “The Government should not put a price on justice. It is disappointing that in the interim fees will still be paid, but we will be making a strong case for a Judicial Review in October because we believe that these fees are unfair and should be dropped.”

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said, "What we are seeing today is injustice writ large as this worker-bashing government takes a sledgehammer to workers' rights – this is a throwback to Victorian times.” Andy Prendergast of the GMB said, "The imposition of such fees represents the latest in a number of attacks on employment rights by the government."

Commenting particularly on sexual harassment and racist abuse cases where it will cost someone £1,200 if they want to take their employer to an employment tribunal hearing, TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: “Today is a great day for Britain's worst bosses. By charging up-front fees for harassment and abuse claims the government is making it easier for employers to get away with the most appalling behaviour.” She continued: “These reforms are part of a wider campaign to get rid of workers' basic rights at work. Its only achievement will be to price vulnerable people out of justice.”

The claim by the government that the issue is unfairness on the taxpayer is a flimsy smokescreen for attacking the limited exercise of the rights workers have at present through the tribunal system to redress injustices by their employers. The way class privilege operates in this context is that it is a given that when top executives who have often caused untold damage in financial institutions, industries and the whole economy are relieved of their posts, they are rewarded with millions of pounds “compensation” that comes from the taxes and wealth produced by the workers. This is in contrast to the paltry sums workers who have successful claims at employment tribunals receive, which rarely compensate them for the loss of livelihood when they are dismissed often without any justification. Those that are deemed to have been “fairly dismissed” or cannot lodge a claim get nothing at all. That the government also tries to claim that it is the champion of small businesses rings just as hollow. All the facts show that it is the government that champions a financial oligarchy that exploits small businesses in terms of huge loan interest rates, rents and the undermining of their trade through control of the market by the monopoly manufacturers and retailers. The government is not upholding the rights of workers in these small companies. This is the cause of the constant financial difficulties and large numbers of bankruptcies facing small businesses. It is the pay-the-rich-system itself that the government champions which wrecks society and benefits only the very wealthy.

Workers have a right to a livelihood in a modern society. Instead they are being treated as wage slaves to be discarded on the whims of owners of the means of production. The rights of all should be upheld and manufacturing and service workers have rights as the collective that produces the wealth of society. Such rights need to be realised by democratic renewal of the political process so that workers have control over their own destiny in all their affairs including employment regulation. Through such democratic renewal, it is the workers themselves that should make the rules, regulate employment and not the conditions that maintain the vicious class system that condemns workers to insecurity, unemployment and impoverishment. These conditions must be ended. This should be the context in the just fight to overturn the charges for Tribunal cases and take the fight forward for genuine employment rights.

In recent weeks, a serious dispute broke out between the governments of Britain and Spain over Gibraltar, which is officially designated a British Overseas Territory, but as the “Government of Gibraltar” makes clear “is situated at the southern tip of Spain”.

The ostensible cause of the current dispute is the action taken by Gibraltar to create an artificial reef, which it is claimed has been constructed for environmental purposes. However, the government of Spain asserts that it is detrimental to Spanish fisherman, and the issues raises more fundamental questions about the territorial sovereignty of the whole area of the Bay of Algerciras. For its part, the government of Spain has been more strictly enforcing border controls between Spain and Gibraltar on the grounds that this is required for security purposes and in order to prevent smuggling. This has led to delays and has been condemned by the British government, which alleges that such measures contravene EU law. A few weeks back, Spain’s ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office and there have been high-level talks between the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary and their Spanish counterparts. On the one hand the government has called for a de-escalation of the dispute, and on the other it has threatened that it will take additional legal action through the European Commission if Spain does not comply. As if to emphasise the military importance of Gibraltar, several Royal Navy warships that are part of the Response Force Task Group (RFTG) are set to dock at the port over the next few months, as part of on-going military exercises in the Mediterranean, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and the Gulf region. The RFTG is designed to be a rapid maritime deployment force that can act anywhere in the world.

The recent dispute over Gibraltar is just the latest in several over recent years. Underlying such disputes is the contention over the sovereignty of Gibraltar, which was first captured following an invasion by British and Dutch forces in 1704 as part of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). This was fought between the great European powers to determine which should dominate Europe. But it also had the character of a colonial war, in regard to which of the great powers could advance their colonial interests in North and South America and in the Caribbean. The war was concluded, as far as Britain was concerned, by the Peace of Utrecht, a series of treaties signed in the Dutch town in 1713. It was as a consequence of this predatory war and the treaty signed in Utrecht that Spain was obliged to cede Gibraltar and Minorca to Britain. In the case of latter, the island’s sovereignty changed several times during the 18th century, and Minorca was subsequently administered by Spain. However, Gibraltar remained under the control of Britain and soon became an important naval base. To place the treaty of Utrecht in context, it must be noted that it not only gave Britain Gibraltar but also the asientoor licence to supply enslaved Africans to Spain’s colonial territories.

Today the government justifies the continued occupation of Gibraltar on the same grounds that it justifies the occupation of the Malvinas, off the coast of Argentina – that is, by arguing that the inhabitants wish to maintain a connection with Britain and that the government is allegedly defending their right to “self-determination”. This justification is simply a variant of 19th century colonialist logic, such as the doctrine of “effective occupation” by means of which the imperialist powers gave themselves the right to seize and occupy large parts of the world simply on the basis of military might. It cannot form the basis of the relationship between states, nor decide sovereignty of territory in the 21st century. As the latest dispute shows, the best interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar can only be secured by acknowledging the sovereignty rights of Spain. It is also clear that the British government takes a very different approach to “self-determination” in regard to Iraq or Afghanistan.

It is clear that successive British governments maintain the colony solely as an important naval and military base from which to meddle in the affairs of other countries, as part of the warmongering activities carried out in the interests of the big monopolies and financial institutions. The colonial occupation of Gibraltar, as well as other “overseas territories”, is an anachronism in the 21st century and must be ended.