An Attack on the Organised Workers’ Movement
and on the Right to Participate in Politics

The alternative is based on the principle of funding the political process, not parties.

TUC Congress -CWU delegate
"Trade unions won't be gagged."The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, or Lobbying Bill for short, a Government Bill presented to Parliament on July 17 by Leader of the House of Commons Andrew Lansley, had its second reading debate on September 3. Being pushed through at high speed, it is due to begin its report stage on October 8, to finish the following day, when its third reading is also scheduled. The committee stage itself had been reduced to just three days. Not announced in the Queen’s speech, it has not been subjected to the usual pre-legislative scrutiny.

Subject to widespread opposition from the outset, the Lobbying Bill has become nick-named the “Gagging Law”. Its official summary states that the Bill introduces a statutory register of consultant lobbyists and establishes a Registrar to enforce the registration requirements; regulates more closely election campaign spending by those not standing for election or registered as political parties; and strengthens the legal requirements placed on trade unions in relation to their obligation to keep their list of members up to date. Even from this description, it is clear what a mixed bag of legislation the Bill contains. The singling-out of the trade unions is particularly evident.

The TUC, in its written evidence submitted to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, point out that the Bill is “constitutional”, and that it contains three major changes. First, it redefines third party activity leading up to elections, shifting from the intent to the effect of an activity. Second, it widens the definition of what spending counts as “for election purposes” such that much more staff time is included. Third, it reduces the legal limit on such spending by up to 70%. Breaching the limits will be a criminal offence.

Currently, campaigning organisations including charities can spend up to £989,000 a year before a general election. This will this be cut to £390,000.

Furthermore, the Bill reduces the spending threshold for organisations to have to themselves register with the Electoral Commission, from £10,000 to £5,000 in England, and from £5,000 to £2,000 the rest of Britain and the north of Ireland. The deliberate vague wording gives the Electoral Commission wide discretionary powers of interpretation.

The campaign group 38 Degrees describes the Bill as effectively stopping organisations such as itself “from speaking out for the whole year before a general election. From May 2014, we would be banned from holding politicians and political parties to account in ways we do all the time at present.”

The TUC, in no uncertain terms, denounced the Bill as “an outrageous attack on freedom of speech worthy of an authoritarian dictatorship”. It points out that, as 2014-15 is the election year, the Bill could make next year’s congress illegal, and ban the TUC from holding a national demonstration over that whole period.

A reflection of the contention for power by the big parties, the Bill is in part a crass attempt by the Coalition to attack the Labour Party. The concern held by the Liberal Democrats over the role of student organisations in opposing their candidates, particularly over the issue of the tripling of tuition fees, for seats which then Labour go on to win, has been pointed out by various commentators and cannot be discounted. The wish of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to apply pressure on trade union support for the Labour Party is also an obvious motive.

More than this, however, the Bill is part of the brazenness of the present government. It is an open attack on the unions in particular, whereby a new Certification Officer will have access to unions’ registers of the names other details of members.

“The new powers given to the Certification Officer, each union’s assurer and any investigator appointed by the CO will require unions to make membership data available to people outside the union in breach of data protection principles and privacy rights,” says the TUC. “Recent revelations about blacklisting will worry many union members that their membership will be available to outsiders.”

The Bill further follows the pattern of lumping together pieces of legislation under the banner of some particular ideal. In this, it resembles legislation attacking national minorities and criminalising dissent under banner of “anti-terrorism”. The present Bill is similar in its attack on the unions and on political participation under the banner of “cleaning up politics”.

Lobbying of course is an issue, but it is a part of the very nature of the system dominated by the big parties, which are parties of the rich and which form part of the arrangements of the monopoly-capitalist state. Far from legislating away these arrangements, the Bill in fact further institutionalises them by blocking their exposure and discussion, and preventing the expression of the alternative and the development of the Workers’ Opposition.

The alternative is based on the principle of funding the political process, not the parties. It is based on a political process in which parties play the role of politicising the people, while the people themselves participate in setting the political agenda and selecting candidates for election. The process should be properly funded to ensure that people are fully involved and engaged, both during the electoral process and at all other times.

In the face of broad opposition, the Bill was amended during the committee stage, which has been reported as a “U-turn” by the government. In reality, it is a minor retreat, the essence of the Bill remaining in all aspects.

This essence is that everything political must come under the remit of the party-political system. Through changing spending thresholds, by widening the scope of definitions, and by moving from intent to effect, everything of political importance is to be brought under the control of the party-dominated system; in other words, bring all political life under the control of the cartel parties and the state they manage. It is in contempt of and mystifies the very nature of politics and political life, which is that people participate in politics to defend and further their interests. What the times are calling for is that the Workers’ Opposition must fight for democratic renewal so as to deprive those whose interests are to serve monopoly capital and hold back progress, of the power to deprive from coming to power those whose interests are to serve the general interests of society and open the door to progress.

The demand must be to withdraw the Bill in full. As TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “If ministers think that opposition will now melt away, they have another thing coming.” The government has used the pretext of the need to sweep away corruption from the corridors of power so as to consolidate its hold on power and entrench the role of political parties as the executive of the state, and to attempt to extinguish or at least limit the political movements of the working class and people in their fight against injustice and for empowerment. It is part of the state’s direction to depoliticise public interests and to politicise private interests.

WWIE calls on the working class and the whole electorate to join in the movement to defeat this Bill, which is against the most fundamental right of the people to participate in politics, to organise to defend their interests and to uphold the general interests of society.

The Conservative Party conference raised a shameless hue and cry about “foreign criminals”, about “terrorists”, and about “illegal immigrants”. It did so not because such issues are an objective problem for society, but in the context of trying to create the atmosphere where the people as a whole do not fight to defend the rights of all. It is part and parcel of the anti-social offensive, the violation of the rights of individuals and collectives, and demonstrates the thoroughly racist approach of the ruling elite.

Home Secretary Theresa May’s speech to the conference laid the ground for the introduction of the Immigration Bill into Parliament. This is a bill to ensure that the deportation from Britain of immigrants can take place before the due process of appeal is taken up, and to reduce the number of grounds for appeal from 17 to four.

The attack on the rights of all by focusing on the alleged problem with “immigrants” goes hand in hand with the attack on working people, especially the youth, who allegedly require the spectre of being forced into slave labour to get them into work. Together, the attack is parcelled up into the phrase of “for hardworking people”.

It is furthermore an attempt to say that national minority communities, particularly those that espouse Islam, should be told that they cannot be considered part of society unless they uphold what the ruling elite defines as “British values”. Those that do not are to be classed not only as second-class citizens, but as not a legitimate part of society. They must be considered as part of the “enemy within”. This is the significance of the infamous “go home” Home Office campaign.

It can be mentioned in this connection that the Daily Mail character assassination of Ed Miliband’s father Ralph as a man who “hated Britain” exposes more clearly that the “go home” and “kick out foreign criminals” propaganda is not just some “nasty party” prejudice. It is directed against all who do not accept the values of neo-liberalism, or who are considered by the ruling elite as “extremist” or “fundamentalist”, a threat to the “British way of life”.

David Cameron’s referred at the Tory Party conference to the government’s doing “whatever it takes” to ensure it can override the judicial process and the safeguarding of the rights of the individual on the grounds that someone poses a threat to the country or have no right to be in Britain. It can be seen that these remarks are part of the concerted attacks and threats directed not so much against those that break the law, as to all who take issue with the direction that society is headed, and are determined to fight for a future in which the rights of all are defended and guaranteed.

Theresa May said at the conference, “The Abu Qatada case proved that we need a dramatic change in our human rights law. We’re going to cut the number of appeal rights, extend cases where we deport first and hear the appeal later, and use primary legislation to make sure judges interpret the ‘right to a family life’ properly.” This case and the use of the term “hate preachers” are being used as a pretext and precedent for its further planned human rights abuses, to further prepare the ground to attack the rights of all. It should be mentioned that there was a shocking unanimity from all sides of the House of Commons in support of the deportation of this “dangerous man” when he was flown in an RAF plane to Jordan on July 7.

It is unacceptable that sections of society should be persecuted in the name of preserving “British values”. What is happening is that the UK Border Authority, the police and other bodies are being given powers to act with impunity. Whole sections of society are being branded as terrorists or illegal immigrants. The detention centres for so-called illegal immigrants are a stain on all civilised values.

The government’s contempt for the rule of law and for justice cannot be accepted. WWIE calls on all democratic people to step up the struggle in defence of the rights of all.

TUC demonstration in Manchester where 50,000
people protested at the Conservative Party Conference. Last week at the Conservative Party conference, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced another major attack on unemployed workers with his “Help To Work” Scheme. This was closely followed by David Cameron's announcement that unemployed youth under 25 would no longer be able to claim unemployment and housing benefit under a next Conservative government if they did not join “work, training, or educations schemes”.

The unemployed are already subject to the government’s present fraudulent job creation scheme called “Work Programme”. This scheme has left thousands of unemployed people forced to work a 30-hour week for 26 weeks without any pay other than their meagre “benefit”, or lose any financial support. As a result, very few jobs have been created and many have lost benefits and been reduced to even further poverty as a punishment if they fall foul of the arbitrary rules. Such schemes are geared not to get people into work but to get people off benefits regardless of the human cost. The new “Help To Work” is another such scheme to heap further abuse on those that cannot find work.

Contingent from the Save Lewisham Hospital
Campaign taking part in Manchester. The reports point out that the “Help To Work” scheme is to “force unemployed claimants who have been unemployed for up to three years to either do 30 hours a week unpaid community work, report to a job centre daily, or undergo intensive treatment to tackle underlying problems like illiteracy or mental illness”. It is estimated that around 200,000 long-term Jobseeker's Allowance claimants could be affected. Osborne told party members at the Conservative Party's annual conference in Manchester, "For the first time, all long term unemployed people who are capable of work will be required to do something in return for their benefits to help them find work.” He continued: "Help to work – and in return work for the dole. Because a fair welfare system is fair to those who need it and fair to those who pay for it too." The scheme which was designed by the pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith is to cost £300 million to implement. The “fairness” of Osborne’s plan can be seen by the fact that once again money from the public treasury will end up in the coffers of those employers and organisations who agree to “create jobs” for which unemployed workers will get no pay.

Contingent from Staffordshire Hosptial
Campaign taking part in Manchester. There is nothing new is this “Help To Work” scheme when as media commentators recognise along with the present “Work Programme” it is identical to the US-style “workfare” (or welfare-to-work) programme. The Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) own 2008 internal analysis of similar programmes that were implemented in the United States, Australia and Canada concluded, “There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers. ... Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high." In 2012, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) reviewed the DWP's impact assessment into how its mandatory “Work Programme” was working. Former Cabinet Office chief economist and NIESR director Jonathan Portes wrote: "Whatever your position on the morality of mandatory work programmes like these – the costs of the programme, direct and indirect, are likely to far exceed the benefits." He continued, "At a time of austerity, it is very difficult to see the justification for spending millions of pounds on a programme which isn't working."

However, one could ask what is behind these almost serial announcements year on year by the Coalition government heaping straightforward humiliation on unemployed people and driving down the level of life for everyone? Such schemes literally criminalise the unemployed as part of criminalising society. Opposition politicians, some even in the Liberal side of the Coalition, express some outrage, but then confine themselves to remarks that the government should be designing better schemes to support the unemployed into work. None point out that today the monopoly capitalist system in Britain, which is in crisis, provides no serious prospect of employment for millions of young and old alike and it is system and state of affairs in the economy that should be condemned and brought to account as such a modern economy should be able provide a livelihood for all.

The government continues to pour billions of pounds into the coffers of these monopolies, mortgage lenders and banks claiming that this will “create jobs”, whilst at the same time attempting to divert attention from the job crisis by laying the
blame on the unemployed. It is alleged that they need to be either forced or “supported” into work in the labour market. But the solution is not their criminal schemes, or “creating job opportunities” in the labour market when the labour market is anachronistic and geared to paying the rich and their monopolies. The solution lies in creating a new direction for the economy that stops gearing the economy to paying the rich and their monopolies.

Such a new direction starts to change the economy so that the claim of the working class and people is at the heart of the economy and not the rich and their monopolies. It is this direction towards a planned economy that would enable society to increase its investments in production, services and social programmes. The working class must fight to guarantee the right of all to a proper livelihood for those that can work and for those unable to work. The Workers’ Opposition demands an end to these “workfare” schemes and fights for the right to a livelihood for all.

The House of Commons returns on October 8 after its recess for the Conference season. Click [here] to see a summary of the current progress of bills through Parliament.

Representatives of the government have used the opportunity afforded by the recent UN General Assembly and UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution on Syria to continue to spread disinformation about the actions of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, to signal its determination to continue to meddle in Syria’s internal affairs and to demand regime change in that country.

UNSC Resolution 2118 was unanimously adopted and requires the “scheduled destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons” in keeping with the agreement reached recently by the governments of Russia and the United States in Geneva. A UN mission began inspections of these weapons on October 1. Their decommissioning will be undertaken under the direction of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Most importantly the UNSC agreed that the use of chemical weapons anywhere “constituted a threat to international peace and security”, thus creating the conditions for the future use of various sanctions in response to any violation, including the possible deployment of military force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The UNSC also agreed that non-compliance with the Resolution by the Syrian government “or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic” would also result in the imposition of what were described as “Chapter VII measures”.

Foreign Secretary William Hague was adamant that the Resolution had established “an important international norm”. He continued to blame the government of Syria, which he described as a “brutal regime”, not just for its alleged use of chemical weapons in the recent attack at Ghouta but for the deaths of all the tens of thousands of Syrians killed throughout the recent conflict. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, had accused the al-Assad government of “committing a war crime” in relation to the events in Ghouta. This presentation of events is then used to justify the demand of the British government and its allies for punitive measures against Syria and regime change in that country, which they hope will be brought through the use of force as well as through other means. It is in this context that the government and its allies back the rebel Syrian National Coalition, which they refer to as “the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people”, as if to assert that this is a matter that can be decided by the big powers rather than by the Syrian people.

However, Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, pointed out that the UNSC Resolution had not been passed under the UN Charter’s Chapter VII and as such did not permit the use of “coercive measures”. He pointed out that it imposed responsibilities on all countries, especially Syria’s neighbours to report to the UN and prohibit any moves by what were described as “non-state actors” to acquire chemical weapons. The Russian government continues to demand a UN investigation into several other alleged chemical weapons attacks including one in March near Aleppo in which at least 26 civilians and army personnel were killed and over 80 injured. He pointed out that evidence had already been presented to the UN linking the attack at Aleppo with that at Ghouta and both with those fighting against Syria’s government. Lavrov also raised some doubts about the likelihood of the Syrian opposition forces attending the peace conference in Geneva, which is planned for November. Hitherto, those forces have refused to negotiate with a government headed by Al-Assad, a position encouraged by their backers in Washington, London and elsewhere. In a thinly veiled criticism of Britain and its allies, Lavrov stated that “until recently we have been relying on our Western partners who pledged to push the opposition to the negotiations table and we hoped they would manage it quickly. But so far they have not succeeded. And I am not sure they will by mid-November.”

The overwhelming majority of nations are calling for a peaceful Syrian-led solution to the crisis in Syria. The peoples of the world are opposed to the use of force to settle disputes and particularly opposed to the use of force by the big powers that currently dominate the UN Security Council and use it to advance their own narrow interests. The government of Britain continues to act in a manner completely at odds with the demands of its own citizens as well as the rest of the world. It must be condemned for its continued interference in Syria, the spreading of disinformation and its open support for an armed rebellion against the government of that country. It must be condemned for its hypocritical claim of “humanitarian concern”, manipulation of the UN Security Council and for its continual efforts to use force to settle international disputes. It is the task of the workers and all democratic people to put an end to all such activities and create the conditions for an anti-war government.