workers...london allowance campaign of 1972–1974, p21 workers is published by the communist party...

JOURNAL OF THE CPBML

THE FIGHT FOR HEALTHAmbulance crisis in London…Three big lies aboutstudent nurses and midwives…Inequity and ill health

SYRIA Stop the bombing!

UNION BILL How to defeat it

CUBA Exclusive interview

DEFICIT Dumped on us IF YOU WANT TO REBUILD BRITAIN, READ ON

plusNews,

Historic Notes

and more

WORKERSWWW.CPBML.ORG.UK JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 £1

WORKERS

NewsDigest 03

Features 06

Contents – January/February 2016Last deep mine closes, p3; Postal workers walk out, p4; “Incoherent”plans for teacher numbers, p5

Ambulance emergency, p6; Three big lies in the attack on health students, p8;Sick of capitalism, p11; How to defeat the Trade Union Bill, p13; Why the deficitis being dumped on us, p16; Exclusive: Cuba, the unions, and the world, p18

End Notes 20Life and Soul: Energy – we know how, p20; Historic Notes: The teachers’

London Allowance campaign of 1972–1974, p21

WORKERS is published by the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

78 Seymour Avenue, London N17 9EB. www.cpbml.org.uk @cpbmlISSN 0266-8580 Issue 192, January/February 2016

“

”

Stop the bombing of Syria!DAVID CAMERON has got his way, and the RAF isbombing Syria. We will all live to regret the despi-cable vote in parliament which saw the bombingauthorised. MPs voted for invasion and death. Thenthey laughed. Meanwhile, Tornado jets were waiting for the

vote to fly off to bomb Syria. The next day, sharesin armaments companies surged. BAE Systems,part of the consortium which makes the Tornadojets, leapt 4 per cent. In the month after the Paristerror attacks in November, BAE shares went up 13per cent. There’s always money in war. Cameron’s motivation is clear: to sabotage the

progress that Syria, aided by Russia, has beenmaking against ISIS, because he – as part of NATO– wants to shore up the Syrian “opposition”, muchof which is jihadist too.What, though, are we to make of the Labour

Party? Before the vote we warned on cpbml.org.ukabout “weak-willed” moves to promote a free voteamong Labour MPs. And that is precisely what happened.Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, desperate

to maintain their charade of authority, backeddown in the face of opposition not of the people,nor of Labour Party members, but from inside theshadow cabinet.Rather than stand on principle and fight for

peace, they chose to save their own skins – for themoment – by accepting a free vote which theyknew would lead to a government majority. LetSyria be bombed as long as their inept leadershipsurvives for another week or month.They had a chance to actually stop Britain

going to war, and they bottled it.A new kind of politics? Some might say it’s

even more hypocritical and even less effective thanthe old. After all, it was Ed Miliband who enforced athree-line whip and secured a majority against warin Syria in August 2013.Britain’s bombing of Syria is a clear breach of

international law. Nothing in the recent UN SecurityCouncil resolution justifies this intervention. Othershave shown this in great detail. But what doesNATO care for international law?The British government refuses to involve the

Syrian government. Instead its only answer is todrop bombs on Syria without permission from thegovernment of that nation – a government recog-nised by the UN. It is, in effect, an invasion, andone that risks conflict with Russia and Iran, bothoperating with the consent of Syria.Only the Syrian government can defeat Islamic

State in Syria. This is the only road to peace inSyria, not illegal air strikes. Stop British air strikesin Syria! ■

THE DECISION to close Kellingley Pit, the last of Britain’s deep coal mines, sounds the deathknell not only for coal mining but electricity generation from coal. This was hastened byChancellor George Osborne’s doubling of the charges for carbon emissions from electricitygeneration from April 2015 and the government’s announcement that it wants to abandon allelectricity generation from coal.

This is done with the pretence of a commitment to climate change. But the switch fromcoal to gas generation will be cosmetic and is solely to pander to so-called green votes.Significantly anti-coal campaigners ignore the value of Britain’s coal reserves, all mineableand useable if investment in clean coal technology were advanced.

Instead the government abandoned its £1 billion prize competition to provide carboncapture and storage technology. This would have created a world-wide market for the use ofclean coal. And anti-coal campaigners have entered into a pact with the Devil in the form ofinternational banking. They have created a league of over 21 banks pledged never to investin coal or clean coal technology. In the name of ethical banking, finance capital attempts tomurder the lynchpin of the industrial revolution – coal.

Further issues must be examined arising from the closure of Kellingley and soonFerrybridge, Eggborough and Drax power stations. The shattering of the link betweenBritain’s coal industry and electricity supply industry by privatisations under Thatcherdestroyed the concept of both nationalised industries and also a planned, integrated andmulti-faceted energy plan for Britain.

Britain’s ability to control its own energy resources, its own supplies and its own abilityto plan for the future has now been put in jeopardy. At fault are the division and subsequentcompetition between differing fuels used for the generation of electricity, the establishmentof a market in electricity supply and the subsequent selling of British ownership to foreigncompanies and states. And governments that think they can import their way out of anything,from natural resources to labour.

The dash to gas, dependent on foreign supplies, has diverted vast profits to the companyowners and wasted a finite resource. Indecision over constructing replacement nucleargeneration has seen costs spiral over the past 20 years. The public will pay double and triplefor this investment as politicians of all parties have flaunted their hesitation and cowardice.

The now closed coalfields of Yorkshire and North East England have dominated the Valeof York and River Ouse for nearly 60 years, along with their associated giant power stations,Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge. Their closure and demolition, if not decommissioningand transfer to China for reconstruction, will change the landscape of the North forever. Andyet there is still the increasing likelihood of power cuts as the physical ability to generate andthe number of power stations available lags behind growing demand. ■

COALLABOUR, INC.CO-OPPOSTBORDERSTEACHERSLOCAL GOVTINDUSTRYON THE WEBWHAT’S ON

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 NEWS DIGEST WORKERS 3

RebuildingBritain

Last deep mine closes Welcome to the board Campaign accounts shut Delivery workers walk out Brussels bids for power ‘Incoherent’ plans Pay talks under way Output falls More news online Coming soon

If you have news from your industry, trade or profession we want to hear from you.Call us on 020 8801 9543 or email [email protected]

CO-OP

Welcome to the boardLABOUR, INC.Last deep mine closes

THE CO-OP Bank has closed the accountsof the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. Theaction follows on the heels of the closure of20 accounts held by British pro-Palestinegroups, and is thought to be linked to thebank’s takeover two years ago byAmerican hedge funds.

In a statement, the campaign said: "Wehave banked with the Co-op for over 20years and the bank was chosen as itpresented itself as an ‘ethical’ bank linkedto community and human rightsorganisations. Their recent unilateral actionhas jeopardised our finances and ourcampaigning capacity.” Other groups’funds are now thought to be at risk. ■

ALISTAIR DARLING, the former Labourchancellor, has been appointed to theboard of directors at Morgan Stanley, theUS-based financial services firm. Darling isa prominent member of the campaignbacking Britain to remain within the EU.

Gordon Brown is to join globalinvestment firm Pimco’s advisory board,joining an ex-chairman of the US FederalReserve and an ex-president of theEuropean Central Bank. Brown announcedearlier this year that he was bowing out ofWestminster politics at the May electionand would instead focus on charity workand his role as a United Nations envoy. Nottrue, was it?

Anyone want more proof that theparliamentary Labour Party is just part ofthe establishment, an arm of the capitaliststate? ■

Campaign accounts shut

ON THE WEBA selection of additionalnews at cpbml.org.uk…

Student nurses and midwives inbursary protestWar abroad, war at home. As parliamentwas debating the bombing of Syria, lessthan 100 yards up Whitehall studentnurses and midwives were standingoutside the Department of Health in aloud and lively protest against plans toscrap their bursaries.

Rail unions unite over driver-only trainsIn a significant move, rail unions ASLEFand RMT have agreed a joint statementopposing the operation of trains withouta guard – a direct response to plans tooperate new inter-city trains with driversonly. The statement comes at a timewhen the rail industry has identifiedboarding and alighting from trains as amajor risk area that needs to be tackled.

Doctors show the wayJunior doctors have forced healthsecretary Jeremy Hunt to go to Acaswithout precondition.

Sheffield rally urges action tosave steelSteel workers from across Britaindemonstrated in the “steel city” ofSheffield demanding urgent governmentaction to save the industry.

Hunt misses every targetThe NHS in England continues to missmany key targets, such as those foremergency responses and cancer care.A&E departments face a “perfect storm”this winter.

Plus: the e-newsletterVisit cpbml.org.uk to sign up to your freeregular copy of the CPBML’s newsletterdelivered to your email inbox.

NO LAW can restrain workers when they choose to ignore it. In Bridgwater, Somerset,Post Office workers at the delivery office walked out on 11 November without a ballotin protest at the dismissal of a colleague suffering from multiple sclerosis and who isprofoundly deaf – the employer had tried numerous dirty tricks to stop the member fromreturning to work. They returned to work the next day, and in December theCommunication Workers Union was able to announce his reinstatement.

It’s not the only recent lightning action from postal workers in the south west. On26 October some 200 Post Office workers in Plymouth, Devon, at the city’s West Parkand North Central delivery office “just walked out”’ after turning up for work to find thata number of agency workers had been taken on in breach of the national Agenda forGrowth agreement with the Communication Workers Union.

In part, the purpose of the agreement is to increase the number of hours worked bypart-time workers (22-hour contracts are “normal”) before resorting to the use ofagency labour. The dispute has since been resolved but again, the law was not invoked.

Figures covering days lost due to strikes do not include “unofficial” stoppages.These disputes are rarely reported outside of the local media.

This kind of lightning action exposes a weakness in anti-union legislation. To attack(sack) those who have walked out, an employer must first request any union involvedto repudiate the action. But by the time this is done workers will have returned to work:hit and run, effective guerrilla action. ■• See also “How to defeat the Bill”, page 13

4 WORKERS

Brussels bids for powerBORDERS

THE EU is proposing a radical extension ofits powers over member states, with plansto take over control of their borders in“emergencies”. It is using the migrationchaos to call for EU countries to agree to a2,000-strong European border andcoastguard force which would operateseparately from, and without approval from,the affected country.

The EU force would replace theindividual country’s powers to police itsfrontiers, deal with asylum claims, anddetain and deport failed asylum claimants.Germany and France have already backedit. The regime would operate across the 26-country Schengen area and include non-EUcountries such as Switzerland and Norway,but not non-Schengen Britain and Ireland.

The huge number of migrants into

Europe this summer has triggered theeffective collapse of the free-movementSchengen agreement. Some members haverefused to agree to diktats from the likes ofGermany about how many migrants theyshould allow to settle within their borders.The first fences between two Schengenstates – Austria and Slovenia – went up inearly December. So, as usual with the EU,where threats fail, the sovereign power todecide is to be removed.

At present, the EU frontiers agency,Frontex, can only operate with agreementfrom national governments. For months,Greece has resisted the threat ofinvolvement of Frontex in its migrationcrisis. It has now caved in.

Greece and Italy are under pressure tocreate large detention camps to holdasylum seekers while their claims areconsidered. Italy has pointed out that itcould end up with more asylum detaineesthan the national prison population. ■

Postal workers walk out

Kellingley Colliery, Yorkshire – the last deep coal mine in Britain, now to be closed. Seearticle, page 3.

Chris Sampson (CC BY 2.0)

FEBRUARYThursday 11 February, 7.30 pm

“The War on Workers: How to Turn theTide”

Brockway Room, Conway Hall, RedLion Square, London WC1R 4RL

CPBML Public Meeting

In the face of capitalism’s blitzkrieg onworkers, our class needs to radicallychange and refresh its thinking – torealise it can rejoin class struggle andtake Britain forward. Come and discusshow. All welcome.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 NEWS DIGEST WORKERS 5

WHAT’S ONComing soon

THE RECENTLY PUBLISHED Ofsted annual report for 2014-15 hit the headlines becauseof the Chief Inspector's comments about local authorities in England and Wales thatpersistently fail to raise standards.

One reason behind long-standing problems is the difficulty in recruiting teachers. TheChief Inspector wrote “It has now come to pass that weaknesses in teacher supply arehaving a material impact on the ability of schools…to recruit the teachers and leaders thatthey need if pupils are to receive the quality of education that they deserve.” In other words,the government's untried and untested fragmentation of the initial teacher training systemhas cut teacher supply.

The school population is rising rapidly, particularly in London and the larger cities whereschool place shortages are causing major disruption. Much of this is because of uninhibited,rapid inward migration from other EU countries. Migration from the rest of the world and,on the margins, asylum seekers and refugees, accounts for some of the rise too. No onecan plan for uneven and unknown population changes without planning for migration.

There is also a massive, continuing problem in recruiting and retaining teachers. Thegovernment response is ineffective. It announced plans to introduce a task force of 1,500teachers to parachute into areas of acute shortage. It hasn't explained where it can conjurethose staff from – or what happens when they move on.

The Department for Education's own statistics show that in the year to November 2014,50,000 qualified teachers left the state sector. They have to be replaced even before copingwith more pupils. But recruitment of students into initial teacher training is below thegovernment target. It stands at only at 82 per cent for secondary recruits and is far worsein some subject areas.

The government target is in any case inadequate to plug the gap. The latest estimatessuggest that by 2022, there will be an additional 800,000 students in secondary schools.Even now schools all over the country have to make temporary arrangements to coversecondary specialist subject teaching.

Around 28 per cent of head teachers surveyed by Ofsted in “non-challengingcircumstances” said that they had to make temporary arrangements to cover maths orscience teaching. For heads in “challenging circumstances” the number making temporaryarrangements was over 60 per cent.

Governments have been keen to use data to pick out “poor” schools, teachers andlocal authorities. It’s time to turn the tables. The Ofsted report has the evidence about thisgovernment's poor performance. It has overseen an incoherent mix of routes into teaching.Allied with its disregard of the numbers leaving the profession and the effect of migration, ithas created a crisis in education. Our young people will not have the teachers they needunless this changes. ■

‘Incoherent’ teacher plans

anyone already earning above it. Somethinglike 60 per cent of staff in local governmentwould get only the flat rate rise as theyalready receive the Living Wage, itsequivalent or better. Despite this, theclaim – with its focus on the Living Wage –signals that their rise is not important.

Twenty-five of London’s 32 boroughsalready pay the Living Wage. Six ofUnison’s 12 regions already have 50 percent of workers on or above the LivingWage. So after all the hot air the joint tradeunions, again, are effectively only botheredabout an increase for a minority.

A recent survey of local governmentworkers indicated that pay was fifteenth intheir list of priorities. There are likely to becalls for an industrial action ballot early inthe New Year which is likely to give furtherammunition to the government and itsTrade Union Bill – highlighting low ballotreturns for strike action. ■

THE 2016 LOCAL government paynegotiations are under way. Unite, GMBand Unison gird their loins for a battle.

After the fiasco of the 2014 and 2015badly termed “disputes” Unison undertooka farcical process – after which lay membersentinels were attached at all levels of theunion’s negotiating structure. They have tomake sure those dreadful full-timers don’tmarch them up to the top of the hill, thendown again like the Grand Old Duke ofYork. 2016 promises to be even moreridiculous with these armchair tacticians incharge.

Such is their obsession with the LivingWage that they lodged a pay claim lastsummer based upon making it the minimumrate, with a £1 per hour flat rate increase for

STAY INFORMED• Keep up-to-date in between issues ofWorkers by subscribing to our freeelectronic newsletter. Just enter youremail address at the foot of any pageon our website, cpbml.org.uk

Pay talks under wayLOCAL GOVT

INDUSTRY

MANUFACTURING OUTPUT fell by 0.4 percent in October. This continues theconsistent decline of the manufacturingsector throughout 2015. Overall industrialproduction is still nearly 9 per cent below itslevel before the 2008 crash. ■

Output falls

THE LONDON Ambulance Service (LAS) isthe busiest ambulance service in Britain,quite possibly in the world, and it provideshealthcare that is free to patients. It is alsothe only London-wide NHS trust.

It employs over 4,500 staff, who workacross a wide range of roles from out of 70ambulance stations and other sites. It pro-vides emergency and non-emergency coverto more than eight million people who liveand work in the capital 24 hours a day, 7days a week, 52 weeks a year. It is a hugeservice by any stretch of the imagination.

It is a public sector trust at the heart ofthe NHS and has a long history of tradeunion organisation. Unison is the main unionwith over half of the workforce in member-ship.

Response timesThe LAS has been struggling to meet itsresponse time targets. Over the last coupleof years it has gone from having the bestambulance service response times in thecountry to, in 2015, the worst. Since May2014 LAS has failed to meet its 75 per centtarget for Category A calls (most serious)within 8 minutes.

This decline in performance was seen asso serious that the NHS Trust Development

Authority was called in to supervise and helpmanage a recovery. This recovery has nothappened.

“Decline in performance”, though, needssome qualification. Response times mayhave fallen, but the number of callsresponded to has risen steadily, year onyear. And while call volume increases,resources, measured in the number of staff,have been reduced due to the government’sdecision to reduce funding. Who then getsthe blame? The government? Not on yournelly – the LAS of course!

In June 2015 the Care QualityCommission (CQC) paid a five-day visit tothe service. The CQC is the independentregulator of health and social care inEngland.

Its report, published on 27 November2015, does not make good reading for the

LAS, the staff or the people of London. Theoverall assessment and rating is'Inadequate'! (The ratings the CQC has at itsdisposal are Outstanding, Good, RequiresImprovement and Inadequate.)

The saving grace, as always, were theworkers. The CQC acknowledges that staffwere “overwhelmingly dedicated, hardwork-ing and compassionate”. Importantly,Caring and the care given by staff was ratedas “Good’. The CQC said staff were “caringand compassionate, often in very difficultand distressing circumstances”. This wasthe highest rating obtained by the LAS.

More telling was the rating given to thesenior management and leadership of theservice, part of the category of “Well Led”.The overall rating was “Inadequate”.

And there’s the rub. Caring and profes-sional staff led by an inadequate manage-ment. The report calls management “remoteand lacking an understanding of the issuesthat they (staff) were experiencing”.

No surpriseNone of this should come as a surprise. In2011 the coalition government announced£20 billion cuts to the NHS. The share thatthe London Ambulance Service had to takewas a £53 million cut in funding over fiveyears. £53 million of cuts which resulted in980 or so job losses. That is £10 million offunding removed from the service each year.

The Unison regional organiser, inter-viewed on TV in 2011, predicted that thesecuts would lead to dire consequences withinfive years. The interview can be seen athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13051798

Recruitment was stopped. Paramedictraining was halted or severely reduced. Notsurprisingly the LAS struggled (not helpedby poor leadership and management by anewly appointed chief executive and execu-tive team at that time).

But the struggle in the main wasbecause of lack of funds, lack of trainingand lack of staff. The service was set up tofail. In the battle between public and private,it wouldn’t hurt the government’s case tosee the biggest ambulance service fall.

Staff, particularly the highly trained paramedics, started to leave the service.This was for a number of reasons; pay,

6 WORKERS JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

‘Caring andprofessional staffled by an inadequatemanagement.’

MM

eet the PartyThe Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist’s series of Londonpublic meetings in Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, WC1R 4RL, con-tinues on 11 February with the title “The War on Workers: How toTurn the Tide”. The meetings will take place in the BrockwayRoom, which can accommodate more people than the room previ-ously used. Other meetings are held around Britain. Meeting detailswill be published on What’s On, page 5, and onwww.cpbml.org.uk/events.

The Party’s annual London May Day rally is always held on MayDay itself, regardless of state bank holidays. There are alsoCPBML May Day meetings in Edinburgh and Leeds. As well as our regular public meetings we hold informal discus-sions with interested workers and study sessions for those whowant to take the discussion further. If you are interested we

want to hear from you. Call us on 020 8801 9543 or send an email [email protected]

MM

MM

MM

Ambulance emergency

In November the Care Quality Commission gave the Londo Service its lowest rating. What’s going on? And what is the

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 WORKERS 7

pressure, stress, a feeling of bullying andpoor leadership. In their place the LASrecruited from, among other places,Denmark, Australia and New Zealand.

More and more staff left. It became avicious circle.

Unison wrote to the then chief executivein November 2014 expressing its concerns,

to implore the senior management to actand take the initiative in turning the servicearound before it was too late.

There has been a major issue regardingthe pay of paramedics – one that theLondon Ambulance Service has ignored.The simple fact is that other ambulance ser-vices were paying paramedics a pay band

higher than those employed by LAS, and forless stressful (and less!) work.

LAS staff voted with their feet and wentto join these services, which often coveredthe areas where they lived – meaning it waseasier for them to work outside London aswell as more lucrative.

The staff of the LAS are not inadequate,and Londoners know that.

The inability of LAS management tostand up to the government, combined withthe provocative decision to bring in troopsto break the last pay strikes in the service,led directly to the previous chief executiveleaving.

The decision of the current chief execu-tive to bring in the Defence Medical Services– the equivalent of bringing in the troops – to“provide leadership training and an educa-tion programme using military planningtools” points to a refusal to learn lessonsthat may yet bring the end of another seniorcareer.

Unison has called for a period of stabil-ity, restoration of funding to pre-“austerity”levels, and immediate regrading of para-medics. If this workers’ agenda is met, theservice will survive. Watch this space. ■

FOR A TELLING prophecy, read this froma Unison Branch Secretary letter in 2014:“The trickle of staff leaving that we sawnine months or so ago has developed intoa tidal wave. A tidal wave that, if notstopped, will take our Service down.

“If this trend continues, the reductionof front line staff – currently we havearound 300 fewer staff available over theChristmas and New Year period (2014) –will be exacerbated to the point wherenone of our targets can be met, and liveswill be lost….They do not want to work inthis atmosphere of crisis, compounded bygood people giving up on the Service.

“I do not believe that we are a failingService, but I do think that we are a fallingService. Falling from one crisis to thenext. Falling unrelentingly from the posi-tion that we, as the Capital City’sAmbulance Service, should be. And, moreworryingly, falling into the inevitable spiralthat will, in a short time, turn falling intofailing.”

Add to that the fact the LAS is a ser-vice which has been failed – failed by agovernment that did not want the serviceto succeed, an aim so perverse mostwould not credit it. That letter is still rele-vant a year on. ■

Union prophecy proved right

The capital’s ambulance service will survive as long as the agenda put forward by workers is met.

on Ambulance e way forward?

How can Britain be short of nurses and midwives and yet cut simple: like the imperialists they are, the government plans to

Three big lies in the atta


THERE ARE MANY ways to attack a profes-sion but the most effective is to attack thenew recruits coming into the ranks. Firstthere was Jeremy Hunt’s attack on juniordoctors. Then the government spendingreview in November 2015 claimed to be“spending more money” on the NHS when itactually contained a proposal to remove£1.2 billion each year.

Health Education England, an “arm’slength” body of the Department of Healthcurrently provides £1.2 billion for the tuitionfees and bursaries of nursing, midwifery andother Allied Health Professionals (AHPs)such as physiotherapists. The governmentproposes that from September 2017 allsuch health students would have to applyfor a loan to cover tuition fees and mainte-

nance. Those graduating in 2020 face pro-jected debts of £51,600.

Nazi propaganda used the maxim that ifyou tell a lie big enough and often enough,people will come to believe it (coined byHitler, often attributed to Goebbels). In thiscase it is three big ones.

Lie 1.The ‘new money’

Firstly, a huge slice of the supposed “newmoney” for the NHS mentioned in the reviewis a direct transfer from the pockets of futurehealth care students or their parents to theTreasury.

It is estimated that those students ortheir families will be repaying the debt forover 30 years. Given the addition of interest

payments, this is a most uneconomic way offunding an essential workforce.

Lie 2. ‘Treated just like other students’

The second big lie is that nurses, midwivesand AHPs will be pleased to be “treated justlike other students”. Just one problem: theyare not like other students. Their academicyear is much longer with the combination ofplacement hours and study weeks, andthese are in the workplace. Take nursing:the number of hours in the workplace isspecified by the nursing regulator, theNursing and Midwifery Council. They spendover 2,300 hours in the workplace during thetypical three-year programme.

Workers

2 December 2015: Midwifery and nursing students demonstrate outside the Department of Health in Whitehall, London.


In order to learn, students are expectedto be working under supervision and thusthe spending review proposal means theywould be taking on the massive debt andworking the typical 12-hour shifts for no pay.The constraints of their programme meanthey do not have the opportunity other stu-dents may have to undertake part timework.

Lie 3. That it would lead toan expansion of training

The third and the biggest lie of all is that thisimposition of tuition fees and attack on thebursary will lead to more student nurses,midwives and AHPs joining the professions.The government points out that currentlythere are more applicants than fundedplaces. It argues that universities would be“free” to expand the number of trainingplaces available. That completely ignoresthe deterrent effect of large debts on theindividual student. The average age of stu-dent nurses is 29 years; they would be tak-ing on a debt lasting the whole of their work-ing life.

The government also ignores that hun-dreds of health students undertake theirqualification after graduating in another areaand, under its own rules, cannot access thestudent loans system again. In any event,they could not contemplate a second loan!

Universities are entirely reliant on theNHS and other health services to providethose practical training placements andnursing staff with the additional qualificationto assess students. But these resources arealready in short supply and overstretched.Indeed under the new proposals, maybe the

universities will have to pay the NHS andothers for these placements. Where wouldthe madness end?

Fighting backWithin days of the announcement studentnurses and midwives were on the streetsprotesting. Indeed on 2 December as parlia-ment was debating the bombing of Syria,less than 100 yards up Whitehall studentnurses and midwives were standing outsidethe Department of Health in a loud and livelyprotest against the plans. Then on 8December they joined other students on thenational demonstration about the cost ofeducation. The message from students isvery clear: “I would not have been able tojoin this profession if these proposals werein place.”

The other sentiment which captures themood of the student body, the wider pro-fession and the public is that “this is justwrong”. It’s summed up by the statementon the Royal College of Midwives website:“Debt upon debt upon debt. And all so youcan join the NHS, help the country and helpdrive down that midwife shortage. It doesn’tseem right that someone who will spend alifetime caring for women and deliveringNHS care should have to pay tens of thou-sands of pounds just to do so. It’s justwrong.”

The proposal is subject to a period ofconsultation. A parliamentary petition is dueto be presented on 11 January and a furtherpublic demonstration is planned. The stu-dents are busy coordinating their action viaa Facebook page. They show the same

energy and humour seen in the junior doc-tors’ campaigning tactics.

This fight impacts on all health profes-sions and demands a wider response. Itaffects nursing, midwifery, physiotherapy,occupational therapy, speech and languagetherapy, podiatry, radiography, dietetics,orthoptics, operating department practiceand prosthetics. It may also affect para-medic courses. It also involves the healtheducators of all those professions, typicallymembers of the University and CollegeUnion (UCU), which is opposed to tuitionfees. The need for all these forces to com-bine has never been more urgent.

One place where support will not beforthcoming is from the university employ-ers. For some years they have beenaggrieved that the funding for healthcourses (a transfer of taxpayers’ moneyfrom one government department toanother) has not been meeting the costs. Sothey have welcomed charging fees as animproved alternative. They have evenpointed out to prospective students thatloans will give them more “cash in hand”than a bursary!

The current proposals have not arrivedout of the blue. They are part of a cynicaland much wider plan for Britain to avoid taking responsibility for its own workforceplanning in the NHS. This continues a longpattern of immoral poaching of qualifiedstaff whose training has been funded at theexpense of their country of origin.

In the current period where it is common

t back on training places and support? The answer is o rob other countries by importing their trained specialists…

ack on health students

Continued on page 10

‘The third and thebiggest lie of all isthat fees and theattack on the bursary will lead tomore students.’

September 2013 20 per cent reduction in London of nurse training places. Smaller reductions in other institutions across Britain

November 2015 Nursing added to the Shortage Occupation List to ease migration of nurses to UK from outside the EU

December 2015 Government spending review announces plan to abolish bursary andreplace with loans for tuition and maintenance for UK students

January 2016 Introduction of European Professional Card for EU nurses which allows qualifications to be checked in country of origin only

September 2016 Reduced flow of British nurses enter the labour market reflecting the September 2013 reduction in places

Organised chaos: a timeline


to hear voices raised that all migration is a“good thing”, the alternative view that migra-tion is theft of skill from other countries mustbe heard.

The avoidance of workforce planning inthe NHS has a long history and has led toperiods of restricted training opportunitiesfollowed by limited expansion when theneed was dire. The current circumstancesare more acute as the period of contractionhas not been followed by any expansion.

In Britain the government-backedCentre for Workforce Intelligence predictsthe NHS will be short of at least 47,500nurses by 2016. The most recent period ofsharp contraction followed the election ofthe coalition government in 2010 which sawthe Department of Health agree to signifi-cant reductions in numbers in training.

In London with its sharply rising popula-tion this led to a decision to reduce theSeptember 2013 intake by 20 per cent. Infact the University of West London lost itscontract to offer any nursing programmes inthat contract round.

The lunacy of the proposal was high-lighted by all the nursing unions. The UCUopposed it too, also having to fight redun-dancies of nursing lecturers as a result ofthe proposal. Originally there were plans forfurther reduction in 2014 and 2015 but these

did not proceed, so a small victory.However, the acute position predicted for2016 is a direct result of the decision toreduce places three years ago.

Poach from outside the EUThe shortage of nurses is part of a world-wide shortage as documented by the WorldHealth Organization. For example the healthministry of India has recently identified thatthey have a shortage of 2.4 million nurses.This has not stopped Theresa May inNovember 2015 agreeing to place nurses onthe “shortage occupation list”, thus easingthe immigration rules and allowing employ-ers to recruit (at great expense) outside ofthe European Economic Area. See Box,right, for the impact on India, for example.

Adding nursing to the list in the monthbefore announcing the changes to UK nurs-ing education in the spending review wasprobably a deliberate ploy to dampen NHSemployers’ reaction to the proposal.

Poach from EU countriesRecent years have seen a steady flow of EUnurses joining the UK nursing register. Theimpact on other European countries hasbeen marked. In 2015 the Spanish Councilof Nursing president Dr Máximo Juradocomplained about British recruitment agen-cies, telling BBC News: “They lie – they foolnurses.” Likewise the vice-president ofPortugal’s nursing regulator, Dr BrunoGomes, has complained about Britishrecruitment in his country.

The National Nursing Research Unit atKing’s College London has highlighted thatthis overseas workforce is very unstable,with many returning home following NHSexpenditure on their recruitment, orientationand induction. Yet the trend is set to con-tinue and intensify with a new EU initiative.

From January 2016, a new “Europeanprofessional card” will be introduced formany health professionals. This meansBritain will be reliant on regulators in otherEuropean countries to make sure thosecoming to work here have the correct docu-ments and qualifications. The card will applyinitially to nurses, pharmacists, and physio-therapists and it is planned to apply to doc-tors from 2018.

This initiative has not received significant

press coverage and unlike in the medicalprofession there has been no opposition tothis move by the UK nursing regulator, theNursing and Midwifery Council. The medicalprofession has a two-year period to opposethe initiative. And the country as a wholemight have the option of the referendum toleave the EU before this applies to doctors.

Niall Dickson, Chief Executive of theGeneral Medical Council, speaking aboutthe European professional card, said “…there are major weaknesses in the regula-tory system and it must be right that everycountry in the EU should be able to checkthat doctors coming to work within their bor-ders have the competency, skills and cul-tural understanding to treat its patientssafely. We believe that the introduction ofthe European professional card for doctorswould further jeopardise our ability to pro-tect patients in the UK.”

The fight for the bursary for health carestudents cannot shy away from the widercontext of the immoral and, as of January2016, largely unregulated use of overseasstaff. There is no shortage of British appli-cants for British health profession pro-grammes – they are all oversubscribed. Thereal shortage lies in the absence of a gov-ernment willing to produce a workforce forone of the country’s essential services. ■

Continued from page 9

Unison

BEFORE THERESA MAY added nursingto the shortage occupation list (SOL) theIndian Health Ministry was expecting togain from the implementation of her previ-ous immigration rules which had beendue to take effect on 6 April 2016.

This migration cap would have led tothousands of Indian nurses having toreturn to India by 2020. The Indian Healthministry planned to target returningnurses with jobs with a better salary.

The British government’s U-turn inplacing nurses on SOL has underminedthe Indian Health Ministry’s attempts toaddress its own nursing crisis. Thecolonist attitude of stealing nursing staffcontinues. ■

India’s loss


New research highlights the links between inequity insociety, poverty and ill health…

Sick of capitalismUNIVERSITY COLLEGE London’s Instituteof Health Equity (IHE) is the world’s leadingauthority on health inequalities. It is led byProfessor Sir Michael Marmot, author ofThe Health Gap: the Challenge of anUnequal World and President of the WorldMedical Association.

It’s an institute that seeks to increasehealth equity through proposing policies toalter the social determinants of health.Every year it surveys health levels acrossEngland, known as the Marmot Indicators.The latest Marmot Indicators, published on27 November, show not only that morepeople are poor and ill, but also hint atwhy.

The number of households unable toafford an acceptable standard of living hasrisen year by year from 19.1 per cent in2008-09 to 24.4 per cent in 2012-13. Morethan half of all poverty is now found inworking households.

The number of people reporting work-related illness has risen from 3,640 per100,000 in 2011-12 to 4,000 in 2013-14, anincrease of almost 10 per cent.

Deprivation has increased in areasacross England: Hull, Derby, Westminster,Middlesbrough and Nottingham have suf-fered the largest increases.

Sicker for longerPeople are spending more years with a dis-ability at every level of deprivation. Those inmore deprived areas spend longer with adisability than those in less deprived areas.It is still the case that some people havemany more years of ill health than othersand that some people have much brieferlives than others. Men in the North Easthad 6.3 fewer years of healthy lifeexpectancy than men in the South East.Women in the North East had 6.6 feweryears of healthy life expectancy thanwomen in the South East.

Expected years in ill-health rated atbirth increased between 2010-12 and2011-13, from an average of 15.8 to 16.1for males and from 18.9 to 19.2 for femalesin England as a whole. The figure rangedfrom 19.4 for males in Blackpool, the mostdeprived area on the 2015 classification, to10.3 years in Wokingham, the leastdeprived. For females the respective

figures were 21.8 and 14.8.Early child development matters hugely

for subsequent health and health equity.Good early child development is shaped bythe environment in which children grow.But in surveys on child wellbeing in “rich”countries, Britain comes 16th of 21. (TheUSA comes 21st.) A local authorityChildren’s Centre in Newham charged£850 a month for child care. By contrast, inSweden, where child care is subsidised,the most you pay a month is £113.

Children from “disadvantaged families”(the Department for Education’s terminol-

ogy) consistently achieved around 15 percent lower rates of “a good level of devel-opment” by the end of the reception year.

Between 2012-13 and 2013-14, theattainment of at least 5 GCSEs or equiva-lent (including English and Maths) fell from60.8 per cent to 56.8 per cent for all pupils.And it dropped from 38.1 per cent to 33.7per cent for pupils eligible for free schoolmeals. The gap in GCSE attainmentbetween all pupils and those eligible forfree school meals widened from 22.5 percent in 2011-12 to 23.1 per cent two yearslater.

Unemployment in England graduallyincreased from 2005 to 2011, anddecreased year on year to 2014. But thelatest rate, at 6.2 per cent, is still higherthan the 2008 level, 5.8 per cent. It washighest in Middlesbrough (12.5 per cent)and lowest in Hampshire (2.9 per cent).

shutterstock.com


‘The latest MarmotIndicators showthat more peopleare poor and ill.’

Early child development matters hugely for subsequent health.


There were 2.61 long-term Jobseeker’sAllowance claimants per 1,000 populationin 2008, up sharply to 7.1 in 2014. 15.9 percent of people aged 19-24 are not inemployment, education or training, morethan in 2008 (15.7 per cent).

Nations enjoy better health when every-body can access high-quality medical care,regardless of ability to pay, and when thereare good early child care and education,good working conditions, good conditionsfor older people and resilient communities.

Right to healthThe right to health entails rights to equity inthe social determinants of health. Theseare water and sanitation, food, housing,healthy occupational and environmentalconditions, health-related education andinformation, and available, accessible andgood-quality health care services.

The Nordic countries achieve high lev-els of good health because they have universal social policies, not targeted,means-tested selective policies; welfarestate redistribution policies; relatively nar-row income inequalities; a stress on equal-ity of opportunity and outcomes accordingto class and gender and for sociallyexcluded groups; a broad scope of ser-vices provided mainly by the public sectorat local level; and social spending andsocial protection.

But their achievements are not securewhile they allow capitalism to survive.Finland’s excellent education system isunder threat, as are the fine welfare ser-vices of Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

But why are people’s health conditionsso different? Why do some people livelonger than others? In his recent bookabout the health gap, Marmot tried toanswer these questions. His conclusionwas that relative social disadvantagemakes the great majority of us, other thanthe very richest, suffer worse health andlive shorter lives than we could. Marmotsummed up, “The more generous thesocial spending of a country, and the moreuniversal, the lower is the national mortalityrate.”

Spending and mortalityThe World Health Organization’s 2014 pub-lication Review of social determinants andthe health divide in the WHO EuropeanRegion agreed: “the greater the govern-ment social expenditure, the lower themortality.” The WHO’s Commission onSocial Determinants of Health affirmed inits 2008 report Closing the gap in a genera-tion: “Social injustice is killing people on agrand scale.” Lower welfare spendingmakes people’s health worse and causesunnecessarily early deaths.

Marmot noted that Norman Lamontwhen Chancellor of the Exchequer said,“Rising unemployment and the recession

have been the price that we have had topay to get inflation down. That price is wellworth paying.” Marmot commented thatLamont could have said, but didn’t, “Risingunemployment and the consequent dam-age to people’s health have been the pricethat we have had to pay to get inflationdown. That price is well worth paying.”

Overall economic policies directlyaffect our health. The IHE has shown, asMarmot observed, that “The idea thatunbridled free markets in everything (theso-called Washington Consensus) is theway for countries to grow, develop andensure better health and greater healthequity is contradicted by the evidence.”

Marmot further noted, “There is a seri-ous failure of global financial governancewhen the interests of hedge funds, legally ifnot morally, trump the ability of nations todecide their own future.” Capitalist inter-ests override national sovereignty anddemocracy. So nations need to control anddevelop their own resources and to over-ride capitalist interests. Capitalism’s drivefor profit overrides every human need. Wehave to reorder society so that the drive forprofit does not override every human need.

Social determinantsMarmot admitted that he had an ideology:that “avoidable health inequality, healthinequity, was the deepest injustice in oursociety.” Medicine, doctors, all of us,should deal with the conditions that causethis health inequity. What are these condi-tions, the social determinants of health?What causes the relative social disadvan-tage that damages our health?

The answer is clear: inequity in power,money and resources causes healthinequity. And what causes this inequity inpower, money and resources? The tinyminority capitalist class monopolisespower, money and resources in Britaintoday. The socio-economic system of capi-talism causes this inequity of power andresources and so causes health inequity.

To end this inequity and bring aboutthe health equity we want, we have to takepower away from this capitalist class. Andthat won’t happen without the workingclass taking responsibility for running society. ■


‘Unemployment andthe consequent damage to peoples’health have been theprice paid for gettinginflation down.’

THE FASCISTIC Trade Union Bill is currentlygoing through Parliament and will shortlybecome law. It represents the logical nextstep for capitalism in Britain, aimed as it is tosnuff out working class resistance to thegovernment’s agenda of driving down pay,smashing public services, and rolling backgains made over many decades of struggle.

If the Bill is passed it could devastatemembership levels and therefore unionfinances. It will severely limit the ability ofunions to take effective and lawful industrialaction. It will further undermine health andsafety at work. And it will dramaticallyincrease the ability of the state to directlyinterfere in the affairs of the unions. Noorganised working class opposition is to betolerated. This is what fascism looks like.Except this time the thugs are in parliament,not on the streets.

The assault on membership and unionfinances is a particularly effective line ofattack. With many unions already in financialstraits, this Bill could prove fatal to some.

As a class and a trade union movementwe have thought we could live with capital-ism. We told the employers that unions weregood for capitalism, and many unions cameto believe this nonsense. It was a unilateralideological disarmament.

The disarmament was practical as well.One example: unions blissfully placed them-selves at the mercy of the employers byending the practice of having shop stewardscollect union dues in the workplace andmoving to check off (see Box 1, page 14).

Employers actually make a tidy profitfrom handling this workers’ money. Theycharge the unions for providing a subscrip-tion collection service – and often keep themoney back for months, earning interest onit before handing it over. And they quite liketo know who the union members are.

Unions that overcome the challenges totheir membership and money would also be

faced with massive difficulties in mountingany sort of effective lawful industrial action.

Industrial action will only be lawful ifmore than half those eligible to vote actuallydo so. There will be six specified sectors(“important public services”) in which specialprovisions will apply. For the ballot to belegal, 40 per cent of all members will need tovote in favour, with anyone not voting beingcounted as a vote against.

These are precisely the areas in whichrecent industrial action has been most

effective, such as the railways and theambulance service. And teachers will doubt-less reflect on the fact that they provide an“important public service”, somethingclearly not reflected in their pay.

And since the aim is to stop all industrialaction, how long will it be before the thresh-old is raised – to 60 per cent? 70 per cent?

Yet, many union ballot results have beenless than convincing. Industrial action held



Workers

‘This is what fascismlooks like. Except thistime the thugs are inparliament.’

How to defeat the Bill

With a new law attacking membership and finances,we need organisation – and clarity of thinking…

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady at the lobby of parliament on 2 November. Butstage-managed rallies and appeals to Westminster will not do the job.


CPBML/Workers

Public Meeting, LondonThursday 11 February, 7.30 pm

“The War on Workers: How to Turn the Tide”Brockway Room, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square,

London WC1R 4RL. Nearest tube Holborn. In the face of capitalism’s blitzkrieg on workers, our class needs to rad-ically change and refresh its thinking – to realise it can rejoin classstruggle and take Britain forward. Come and discuss how. All welcome.

on the back of very low turnouts has simplyplayed into the government’s hands.

The lack of genuine member participa-tion leads to rhetoric replacing thinking,

mechanistic tactics replacing strategy,empty gestures – and failure. There’s a clearlesson: any union that thinks it can start afight, and win it, with fewer than half itsmembers taking part in a ballot needs tocarry out a serious reality check.

Unlike now, unions will have to specifytheir intended action on the ballot paper.Unions will need to give 14 rather than 7days’ notice of industrial action, and themandate of the ballot will last for only fourmonths. All the employer will have to do isdrag out negotiations and force the union tore-ballot – a further massive cost. Andemployers will be able to draft in agencyworkers to substitute for striking staff.

Unions mounting pickets outside work-places will have to appoint “picket supervi-sors” who will be required to carry a letter ofauthorisation which must be presentedupon request to the police or “to any otherperson who reasonably asks to see it”. Theymust also be identifiable by wearing an arm-band or badge. Failure to comply will meancostly fines to the union. These provisionswill simply encourage those employers(aided by the police) that have blacklistedunion activists.

Facility timeThe paid “time off” or facility time given toshop stewards and union reps by publicsector employers is also under attack; it willbe strictly limited. “Time off” is a term that isseemingly designed to suggest to otherworkers that union reps and stewards arework-shy skivers. It will particularly affecthealth and safety representatives – andhence make workplaces more dangerous.

All public sector employers will have topublish information on the costs of time offfor reps, plus a breakdown of what the facil-ity time has been used for. More ammuni-tion for the likes of the so-called Taxpayers’


RAIL UNIONS learned just how vulnerabletheir finances were many years ago whenBritish Rail summarily ended the check-offfacility to RMT during a dispute in 1993,depriving that union of an income streamof £500,000 a month. As a result, evenafter the dispute ended and British Railresumed check off, the rail unions per-suaded many members to pay by directdebit instead (although many still paythrough check off).

But the warning went unheeded in thewider union movement. And since thegovernment ended check off in the civilservice earlier this year – as the employer,it needed no legislation – as part of itsattack on the main civil service union PCS,the consequences have been devastating.

Already weakened by ultra-leftism,division and poor workplace organisation,and already under heavy financial pres-sure, PCS was vulnerable. In the scrambleto retain members by switching them fromcheck-off to payment by direct debit, theunion has lost a third of its members in afew months. It is now barely able to func-tion, and cannot afford to fund its confer-

ence or internal elections.The Bill now seeks to extend this

assault to all of the public sector, andthereby attack all unions that organise inpublicly owned employers. It is no coinci-dence these are the areas with have by farthe highest density of union membership.

The NHS, councils, devolved govern-ments, schools, all would be affected. Itwould affect transport – Network Rail andLondon Underground are both public sec-tor companies, as are a number of buscompanies. And it is looking likely that theprovisions could be applied to the privatesector companies that run so many publicservices on a privatised or outsourcedbasis. The impact on unions such asUnison, NUT and UCU, not to mentionUnite and the GMB, can only be imagined.

Anyone who believes that these provi-sions will not be extended to all unionseverywhere if successfully applied to thepublic services is living in cloud cuckooland. Without money, unions would beforced to rethink what they are for andhow to function. They shouldn’t wait to beforced. ■

1: Caught in the check off trap

Alliance to demand further curbs.The state will have unprecedented pow-

ers of intervention in union affairs throughthe Certification Officer – a role brought inby Thatcher (see Box 2, right). They will begiven powers to investigate unions andaccess membership databases even if noone has made a complaint. They canimpose fines on unions of up to £20,000.And unions will be charged for the privilege.

The response of the TUC has been apathetic “Defend the right to strike” cam-paign, which relies on convincing the Houseof Lords to water the Bill down. This showsjust how poor their understanding is of whatthis Bill is about.

There is no “right to strike”. Britishstatute and common law do not, and neverhave acknowledged such a right. A right isonly real when it is exercised, not when itexists in statute.

And neither will the EU come riding toour rescue. Not one piece of EU legislationprotects collective bargaining or strikeaction – the much vaunted EU Charter ofFundamental Rights refers to negotiationsand strikes, but only in accordance with“national laws and practices”. So much for“Social Europe”!

Our ruling class has knocked us downthrough the onslaught on industry, privatisa-tion and the fragmentation of work. Nowwe’re on the floor they are coming to kickus. Appeals to their better nature, lobbyingthem in their front room, the Palace ofWestminster, will not avail us.

Workplace organisation, assiduouslyapplied in pursuit of winnable and necessarydemands, remains our route to progress.The solution lies with workers, and withworkers alone.

As Workers said in the September/October issue, trade unions have to get offtheir knees and blow the dust out of theirheads. Unions are attacked because theyexist to make inroads into capitalism’s prof-its. The war between the employing classand the working class will not stop justbecause some in our movement wish to sur-render, or seek some futile compromise.

So shake off the ideological shackles.Renew our unions on the basis of realinvolvement, stop seeing the employers asconduits for union dues, re-assert our classinterests and get on with organising. Thatway lies the path to “Kill the Bill” – and to thesurvival of the working class. ■

“KILL THE BILL!” was the slogan adoptedby trade unions more than forty years ago,in opposition to the Industrial RelationsBill, a Bill which became an Act, andwhich came perilously close to beingaccepted in toto by British trade unions.The struggle against it was led by theAUEW, the Amalgamated Union ofEngineering Workers, whose fight was inturn led by the renowned Communist, andfounder of our Party, Reg Birch. (See“Workers against the state”, Workers,July/August issue.)

More than 40 years later the slogan israised again, this time applied to the TradeUnion Bill. But capitalism and its govern-ments have learned many lessons sincethen. And the world of work is a differentplace. In the 1970s there were more thantwice as many union members as now.

More importantly there were manymore active union members. In sum, thelevel of class consciousness was qualita-tively more advanced back then.

Capitalism’s attack was different too.It represented an attempt to establish acourt (the National Industrial RelationsCourt) which could directly intervene in therunning of unions. That this was such anaffront to organised workers shows howfar we have regressed. The very idea thatthe law of the land should be used as a

weapon in the employers’ hands againstunions was decried in almost all unionheadquarters. Now it is as equally widelyaccepted. But back then, the courts weredefeated.

Enter Thatcher. Her approach (espe-cially significant considering the fact thatshe was a lawyer) was not to use thecourts against the unions. Not in the firstinstance anyway. The blitzkrieg would bethe destruction of the industry in whichunions were based and had their strength.First steel, then pits, then docks, thenprint, then engineering and other forms ofmanufacture, were, literally, blitzed.

All the places with high union mem-bership were attacked. Then laws wereintroduced. Gradually the law of the (capi-talist) land encroached. The CertificationOfficer was introduced and strengthened;ballots were enforced, not just for theelection of union leaders, but in the con-duct of industrial action. Employers weregiven time to organise their response toaction, the workers’ blow beingtelegraphed like that of a bad boxer.

After the initial resistance (largely,aside from the NUM, putative) all weak-ness was pounced upon. As union mem-bership fell because of industrial destruc-tion, the noose tightened, the law madeever more draconian. ■


2: Half a century of attack

1974: Engineers ready to defend the AUEW headquarters in Peckham againstsequestration. Reg Birch is front, second from left.


SINCE 1945 Britain’s economy has regularlyseen economic upturn, boom, and thenmarket correction followed by recession.Many workers assumed that after the crisisof 2007 to 2008, we would see the samepattern. Seven years later there is nothingon the horizon resembling an upturn.

In fact Britain has been increasingly adebtor country for most of the last 30 years.Alongside the closure of our factories, it hasbeen deliberate government policy to run atrade deficit. Capitalist apologists since1979 have said that this didn’t matter. Theyclaimed that the monthly balance of tradeshortfall could be covered by importing for-eign capital, laughably described as “inwardinvestment”. What this meant was that toacquire manufactured imports to replacewhat we could no longer produce domesti-cally, Britain first had to borrow and importforeign capital. This was not investment forthe future.

Foreign creditForeign credit has not only been used topurchase imported goods, it has also beenused to finance domestic mortgages. Therise in British house prices over the yearshas had less to do with the demand andsupply of housing and more to do with thevolume of available credit.

Workers have been able to bid up theprice of housing. The worker with access tothe most credit (mortgage) can notionallysecure the particular house on offer.Subsequent mortgage repayments are thenrecycled back to the creditor country of ori-gin through British retail banks either actingas middlemen or as a part of a syndicate.

In effect international credit, whetherused to secure imports or to inflate houseprices, has fuelled a classless political fan-tasy in the minds of many British workers.All the while at the macro-economic levelour total consumption as a national workingclass has been greater than our totaldomestic production; as a class we have nogross savings. In the end making and pro-ducing things in a country which controls itsown resources does matter.

The credit card trick of apparently beingable to prop up living standards while de-industrialising Britain is now shown up as apathetic lie. But on his appointment in 2013Mark Carney, our Canadian Governor of theBank of England, said he believed our creditcards are not “maxed out yet”.

So what happened in 2007-08? Beforethe crisis, credit in Britain had reached theequivalent of five times our annual GDP andbank interest rates had risen to around 5.25per cent. The fantasy that all it needed tobalance the books was the continuousimport of capital just fell apart. The erosionof national production and our industrialbase was a problem after all, although gov-ernment and capitalist apologists will neveracknowledge it.

A large slice of what had becomeunsustainable debt in 2007 has since beentransferred from the private banking sectorto the government’s public accounts. Nowlabelled National Debt, it has increasedmore than threefold since the crisis. In 2007that debt was £442 billion; it rose to £1,033billion in 2011 and £1,427 billion in 2015.

SwitchedThat implies almost £1 trillion of mostly pri-vate sector banking debt (£1,427 billion less£442 billion) has so far been switched to thepublic using various devices.

The annual gross domestic product forthe whole of the UK is in the region of £2.8trillion. In other words, about one-third of thetotal production of goods and services cre-ated by workers in one year has been usedto acquire bank debts.

Yet parliamentarians have thrown up anausterity smokescreen. They say that ourever increasing National Debt is unsustain-able and by implication that our public ser-vices are unsustainable too.

Another revealing feature is the way theNational Debt is broken down. About £418billion of the current £1,427 billion total isprovided by foreign concerns.

Does this matter? Of course it does,because it means those foreign creditorscan have first pickings of whatever is offeredup by the government for privatisation.Recent examples have been the Post Office,the Scottish Rail network (sponsored by theSNP but with the connivance of

Cash machines, Poultry, in the City of London. The c

Linda Steward/iStockphoto.com

Why the deficit is being

Deliberate policies from successive governments have tur to finance imports and mortgages.

‘The credit card trickof apparentlypropping up livingstandards while de-industrialisingBritain is shown upas a pathetic lie.’


Westminster) and the selling off of govern-ment owned property in Central London.

Those creditor countries and foreignconcerns which have put up the credit arenot named in public records. They haveproxy accounts instead. The reason for thelack of transparency is the influence theyexert on British government policy.Beneficiaries of privatisation at knockdownprices would be easy to identify if the credi-tor organisations were named in public.

This concealment no doubt explains therecent bizarre decision by the BBC to onlyconsider bids to provide weather forecastingservices from a Dutch-connected privateequity concern or from the New ZealandMet Office, at the exclusion of the BritishMet Office. The government’s involvementin the BBC seems to be at the behest ofDutch and New Zealand interests.

Of the balance of National Debt, £375billion has been covered by printing money,

courtesy of the Bank of England. Theremaining £634 billion is held by institutionsacting as custodians for British workers’savings in pensions for example. In effectthe assets that back workers pensions havebeen earmarked as expendable. Events inother debtor countries such as Greece showhow this can be done in Britain at a conve-nient date in the future.

All the while corporation tax paid bylarge companies on their declared profitshas fallen. Since 2007 the government hascut the rate from 28 per cent to 20 per cent.This is a long-term policy. Over the past 36years the corporate tax rate has fallen from52 per cent and is planned to drop to 18 percent over the next five years.

The government says it wants to “paydown the deficit”. In reality it seeks to dumpits problems on to workers and call it auster-ity. Is the theory of austerity new? And if nothas it ever reversed capitalist decline? Theshort answer to both questions is “No”. Itisn’t new, and it exacerbates decline. Thehistorical experience from the period 1914to 1945 is that austerity is a precursor to warand revolutions.

Purchasing powerWhat the gospel of austerity tries to overlookis that it is the purchasing power of theworking class in the form of wages that setsthe limit to what capitalism can sell. But aus-terity, in an attempt to prop up dwindlingprofits, seeks to lower the wages of theworking class while maintaining or increas-ing prices. This further reduces the amountthat capitalism can sell, causing the slumpto deepen.

Attempts to solve the capitalist crisisthrough austerity are similar to the handlingof many other economic problems in Britain.These result in a host of contradictory out-comes all designed to politically oppress theworking class.

This cycle will continue until workersstop looking at the surface appearance ofthings and instead start to look at what liesbelow the surface and the benefits gainedby bringing things to the fore. At present weas workers are free to sell our labourpower – and we are free of any other meansof gaining wealth. In a recession that doesnot feel like freedom. ■

continuous import of capital is not the way to rebuild Britain.

dumped on us

rned Britain into a debtor country, with foreign credit used


IN OCTOBER two leading Cuban com-munists and trade unionists visitedBritain – Rosita Fonseca, a foundermember of the Cuban Women’sFederation, and Pedro Ross, formerGeneral Secretary of the CTC, the CubanWorkers Central Union Federation (theequivalent of our TUC). Both veterans ofthe Cuban revolution, they found time inbetween speaking engagements at theTUC International Forum in Newcastleand Unison in London to talk to Workers.What they said provided a fascinatinginsight into the operation of workers’democracy in Cuba, the future now thatdiplomatic relations have been restoredwith the US, and how Cuba sees theEuropean Union. These responses aremainly from Pedro Ross.

Is this your first visit to Britain – and howhave you found it?

This is not our first visit. But this visit inparticular has helped us to meet peoplefrom sectors such as the trade unions,such as the CPBML, other sectors ofBritish society, and to have a contact withthe society on the streets. It has sur-passed our expectations, including con-tact with the leadership of the CommunistParty, via the Chairman. We have also metother comrades and union leaders. Wehave met young people, people con-cerned with the problems of today and theproblems of the future. And we have alsospoken to senior citizens who are stillactive such as [former NUPE general sec-retary] Rodney Bickerstaffe.

It has been very much a working holi-day. For us as communists, these are thekind of holidays we have – contactingpeople, exchanging ideas, outside of thecontext in which we live this has been thebest vacation.

What do you see as the role of tradeunions in Cuba?

For the first time in history, the unions inCuba have been beside the governmentand the people. It is a working class gov-ernment, and for the first time unions inCuba have been empowered.

Before the revolution, in different peri-ods, when the unions had some legal sta-tus, there were trade unionists who werecommunists, who had people elected asmayors, members of parliament and inother posts. But it was intermittent andrare. Now, since the revolution, we haveunion members who at the same time aremembers of parl iament, elected l ikeeveryone else. For example, I was an MPfor 30 years, elected in various places andconstituencies, including when I wasambassador in Angola (I was elected for amunicipality in Cuba called San Miguel delPadron, in Havana).

We trade unionists have been electedbecause of the rights and will of the work-ers. The Communist Party does not nomi-nate candidates [for parliament, etc].Candidates are nominated by the massorganisations such as the trade unions,the Cuban Women’s Federation, theCommittees for the Defence of theRevolution, the National Association ofFarmers, the Federation of UniversityStudents, the Federation of Middle LevelStudents…

The party does not present candidatesfor elections in the unions either. We haveopen floor meetings, with direct elections.

Elections to our parliament begin atthe level of the constituencies. The neigh-bours get together and have an openmeeting [where they] will propose candi-dates. But the candidates must belong toand live in that constituency. Then they goto a direct secret ballot. Delegates to themunicipal posts are also elected accord-ing to that process. Half of the nationalparliament is proposed directly by theconstituencies, and each of the organisa-tions previously mentioned will nominatethe remainder.

Trade union representatives [who are

elected to parliament] have a twofold mis-sion: to represent the workers, and to rep-resent those who elected them to the par-liament. So as an MP they would periodi-cally have to render account of their work– not to the trade unionists but to thosewho elected.

In Cuba, not all the trade union leadersare party members. But they are veryprestigious individuals in the working col-lective, and they are revolutionaries. I’ll tellyou a small story. When I was elected asthe Secretary General of the CTC on 28January 1990, I addressed the Congress

‘The party does notpresent candidatesfor elections in theunions.’

EXCLUSIVE Cuba, the union

In an exclusive interview with Workers, two veteran Cuban a country where the working class is in command…

Workers

Rosita Fonseca and Pedro Ross with Rodney Bick room in which Lenin produced the revolutionary j belonged to Georgy Dimitrov, leader of the Comm


[which had 2,450 delegates, and about1,000 foreign guests]. In my report I saidthe following: “Not all those who are hereas a delegate are communists” – trying toexplain that the congress was not madeup of trade union leaders who are com-munists.

Fidel [Castro] made the final summingup, and he was mainly addressing the for-eign guests here, and he said, “I must rec-tify something that Pedro said in hisreport: not all the delegates attending herebelong to the Communist Party, but all ofthem however are communists because of

the way they act and because of theirconduct and behaviour towards the revo-lution.”

With the restoration of diplomatic rela-tions with the USA, how do you thinkthings will change for Cuba?

In the first place, we are not even halfway[to normal diplomatic relations], we arejust taking the first steps. As the Cubanrevolutionary government has said, thereis no normalisation of relations as long asthere is a blockade. Very faint steps havebeen taken. There is a lot of internationalnoise. Some people even say that theblockade is over. But the blockade is stillthere – it has not been moved one inch.

If there were to be normal relations,the United States should return the terri-tory that they have occupied illegallyagainst the will of the Cuban people – ille-gal because it is against the people andthe government. We are talking about theGuantanamo naval base.

We will not normalise relations as longas the Cuban Adjustment Act is in place, alaw that says that any Cuban who arrives– sailing, swimming, by any means – tothe coast of the US and sets foot onAmerican soil immediately will receive res-idence. It is a law intended to subvertCuba, to create contradictions on theisland, and to encourage people to fleethe country by i l legal means, whichendangers their lives.

Cubans who defect from the island tothe US are the only ones in the world whoenjoy such privi leges. Think for oneminute if the Americans did this for theMexicans, or the Haitians, or the peoplefrom the Dominican Republic – or theSyrians.

How does Cuba see the role of theEuropean Union?

In terms of the EU and the world, theEuropean Union has joined the adventuresof the US in invading Iraq and Libya, sothey have created a disaster in the adven-tures of the Bush administration, andObama has also participated…Europeantroops have been engaged, NATO has

participated and has provided support.With regard to the exodus of migrant

people, the European countries have notagreed how to handle the situation…andthe exodus has to do with the imbalancescreated by imperialism and the appear-ance of the extremist forces and IslamicState. This has created imbalances in theworld.

However, in spite of the joint positionof the European Union, when you go tothe UN and to the vote in the GeneralAssembly, the countries comprising theEuropean Union have voted in favour ofCuba. And the EU has been changing itsattitude towards Cuba. For example theMinisters of Foreign Relations of severalcountries, including the French andSpanish foreign ministers, have recentlyvisited Cuba, and high-ranking officialsfrom the EU [as well].

The US and the EU are allies in all theiractions. In my understanding this alliancebetween the US and the EU goes againstthe interest of the Europeans, becausethey have been joining the adventures ofthe US, using the resources of theEuropeans, of the people, of the taxpayer.

Finally, the blockade, which is veryimportant. The US…believes that themethod that it has been using for promot-ing changes in Cuba has failed for thepast 55 years, and that it should derailCuba by other means. We are and willalways be aware of the purposes of theUS and we know that they have notchanged.

Any final words?

Greetings to all who read your magazine!We express gratitude towards the workersby way of Unison and the TUC, CubaSolidarity Campaign and the CPBML andother people in politics and society for thesolidarity provided to us in difficult times.■

‘No normalisation ofrelations while thereis a blockade.’

ns, and the world

n communists give a fascinating insight into the view from

kerstaffe in the Marx Memorial Library – in the journal Iskra. (The coat in the background

munist International in the 1930s.)

WE HAVE the expertise to produce low- andno-carbon energy in large quantities safelyfrom our own resources underground. Sosays Paul Younger, Professor of EnergyEngineering at Glasgow University, inter-viewed* by Jim al-Khalili at the Free ThinkingFestival held at Sage Gateshead inNovember.

Speaking in the same week as the gov-ernment announced the closure of all coal-fired power stations, Professor Younger hasa better-informed, longer-term and at thesame time more urgent approach to whathappens next. Urgent he says because thelights may go out if we have a harsh winterdue to the “crazy way we've organised theregulation of our energy”, allowing electricitygenerating capacity to drop dramatically.

Professor Younger is more than an aca-demic. In 1992 Michael Heseltine wanted toclose the whole northern coalfield within twoweeks. Using his knowledge of hydrology

and extensive experience, Younger lookedinto it and advised that would cause the“single greatest incident of acidic minedrainage in history”. He has been consultedworldwide on preventing contaminationfrom mine closures.

Now Professor Younger concentrateson new sources of energy “hidden away outof sight”, as he puts it. Our need for heatshould be urgently addressed as it takes 40per cent of the energy we use. At greatdepth every miner knows how hot it is. Thisgeothermal energy, if developed, wouldmake a significant low carbon contribution.It could be captured in many parts of thecountry by use of hydraulics and geochem-istry and used to heat buildings. Younger’sprojects in Britain were halted through a lackof funding after the global financial collapse.

Coal without miningProfessor Younger is also an expert onunderground coal gasification. Coal at greatdepths can be accessed without mining byusing boreholes, partially oxidising it on siteand piping the gas taken to a refinery tomake the petrochemicals required for

industry. There are “hundreds and hundredsof years worth” of it under the North Sea,very deep where no water ever seeped in.

Asked whether this has ever been tried,Younger said with a chuckle, “Like most ofthe great things it was invented in the north-east of England.” Sir William Ramsay wasdeveloping the idea in Durham in 1912. Warstopped his work, but it was noted by Lenin,then in exile here and taken up in the SovietUnion.

From what we know about the geologyand the amount of coal that would beremoved during gasification, almost all theCO2 produced can be put back into thegreat voids that would be created. ProfessorYounger says this process could be eco-nomical when oil prices go up. There arestart up costs, and this is no panacea for ourenergy problems, but it could make a signifi-cant contribution for many years.

Professor Younger says it is a big mis-take to ignore the breadth and depth ofexpertise that we have in Britain, which willdisappear without employment. “We have aproud century of mining up to 15 miles outunder the North Sea without ever a singlecase of sea water entering a mine.” As forengineering the use of new energyresources, “people who safely operatedmines under the sea and the oil and gasindustry in the North Sea” can do it. Hewants to re-purpose those skills while we'vestill got them.

But he is not so optimistic aboutwhether we'll have the sense to do it: “we'llprobably throw in the towel on it as withmost other British inventions, and buy,eventually, the products from this back fromthe Chinese.” Will lights still be on in 50years? Yes, in Africa, he says. Here, proba-bly – but not before they would have beenoff “for a canny while”. ■

20 WORKERS LIFE AND SOUL JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016Si-take at ja.wikipedia

Matsukawa geothermal station in Japan. Projects on geothermal power in Britain cameto a halt after the global financial crisis of 2008.

‘It is a big mistaketo ignore theexpertise that wehave in Britain.’

Energy: we know how

A talk at the Free Thinking Festival in Gateshead showswe can use low-carbon energy to keep the lights on…

* The interview for The Life Scientific onBBC Radio 4 is available as a podcast athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06pb54j

IN THE EARLY 1970s teaching staff turnoverin London schools was running at a record30 per cent annually – higher in certainareas. Young teachers were finding it nearlyimpossible to live in the capital. Living costswere huge and the burden of housing costsand fares was crippling.

House prices and rents were especiallyprohibitive for young teachers, who were thebulk of the teaching force. Houses inLondon cost 50 per cent more than in theprovinces. Rents were equally high. Manyyoung teachers were leaving the capital,resulting in teacher shortages and difficultiesin running schools properly.

The London Allowance had beenunchanged since 1970, and inflation washigh. In May 1972, an arbitration tribunalsaid the allowance should rise on 1November. But then the Conservative gov-ernment imposed a wage freeze from that

month.At the time teachers still enjoyed collec-

tive bargaining through the BurnhamCommittee, which brought together repre-sentatives of the employers and the teacherunions. When teachers put their case for a£300 allowance (up from £112), the leader ofthe management panel said they were sub-stantially in agreement with the arguments.

InterventionEveryone seemed confident an agreementwould have been made. But the Secretary ofState intervened, dictating a paltry offer inkeeping with the wage freeze. Teachersknew that the government had deliberatelymanoeuvred negotiations into the period ofthe wage freeze.

The NUT Action Committee called for ahalf-day strike of all London teachers on 23November against the government’s deci-

sion to prevent the Burnham Committeefrom making a realistic offer for the LondonAllowance.

At a meeting at Westminster Central Hallcalled jointly by London NUT bodies, morethan 1,000 London teachers had over-whelmingly voted in favour of the strike indefence of their living standards, theirschools and the children in their care. It waswell supported. Despite a train strike, morethan 12,000 teachers marched on the day.

On 3 February 1973, the NUT Executivecalled further strikes in London schools.They aimed to persuade the government toallow free negotiations and to exclude theLondon Allowance from the national salarycap. London teachers were not prepared toaccept an increase at the expense of theircolleagues throughout the country. They

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 HISTORIC NOTES WORKERS 21Keystone Pictures USA/Alamy Stock Photos

29 April 1974: London teachers on the march for a London Allowance.

1972–1974: The LondonAllowance campaign

Astronomic rises in house prices and rents, youngteachers unable to live in the capital, a staffing crisis inthe schools. Sounds familiar?


Despite the action and the worseningsituation in schools, the government wouldnot give ground. The NUT waited for a deci-sion from the Pay Board.

The Council of the Inner LondonTeachers Association called on the NUT tosupport members who refused to carry outextra duties because of staff shortage. Thiswas about to worsen in the 1973 autumnterm because the school leaving age hadjust been raised to 16. Soon this tacticbecame an NUT national instruction tomembers and London schools were intro-ducing part-time education for 20,000 stu-dents. The education service in London wasnearing breakdown.

No mentionWhen the Pay Board report finally appearedin late September, it failed to mention theLondon Allowance at all. Two governmentministers had earlier advised the NUT to goto the Pay Board in the hope that theallowance would be treated as an anomalyto be rectified. Teachers were incensed. Thegovernment then asked the Pay Board tocarry out an enquiry into all aspects ofLondon Allowances for all public employees.But those findings were not due until theend of June 1974.

In October the teachers’ side andemployers’ side of the Burnham Committeejointly asked Education Secretary MargaretThatcher to introduce a special change tothe Pay Code in view of the crisis in Londonschools. They pressed for an immediate andsubstantial increase in the teachers’ LondonAllowance. But Thatcher was intransigent;she had cast herself in the role of Nero, fid-dling while London burned.

By the beginning of January 1974, abouta third of inner London secondary schoolswere sending children home. The NUT wasnot prepared to accept the teacher shortagein London and continued refusing to coverunfilled vacancies. By the beginning ofFebruary, 31,000 children were being senthome each week. Leaflets were prepared forparents to explain why.

A Labour government took over inMarch 1974 but the new Cabinet had nowillingness to solve the dispute.Employment Secretary Michael Footaddressing the NUT directly said, “I can’t

22 WORKERS HISTORIC NOTES JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

make an exception to you regarding theinterim payment.”

At the NUT Easter Conference,Education Secretary Reg Prentice said,“London strikes will not move me”. AnExecutive motion called for a referendum ofLondon members to find out for how longthey were prepared to go on strike in sup-port of the London Allowance claim. On 29April London NUT members struck for a halfday and lobbied parliament. 15,000 Londonteachers were on the march. Prentice didnot meet with teachers at the lobby.TheNUT referendum showed considerable will-ingness to take further action. But the NUTAction Committee reserved the possibility ofaction until after the release of the PayBoard Report at the end of June. By thistime nearly 23,000 London teachers hadalready resigned their posts for the followingacademic year. The outflow of teachers andsubsequent staff shortages showed no signof easing.

At last, the Pay Board suggested two

knew the government was hoping to splitLondon teachers from their colleagues.

A series of 3-day strikes took place inthree waves during February and March1973. The choice of participating schoolswas made according to the strongest resultsand returns in the ballots. Teachers rushedto join the NUT.

In the first wave, 1,360 teachers werewithdrawn from 97 schools in outer Londonboroughs, who had balloted 91 per cent infavour; 79 schools were closed. The secondwave focused on inner London, involving agreater number of teachers and schools.Strikes were staggered for maximumimpact. Striking teachers took part in localcampaigns to gain maximum publicity.

The third wave was held back to see ifprogress was made in talks. When nothingmaterialised, it went ahead at the beginningof March. 2,775 teachers came out in 212schools affecting more than 83,500 children.All over London local marches and strikemeetings were held and leaflets distributed.More than 2,500 striking teachers marchedthrough central London.

Pay freezePrime Minister Heath told the NUT theLondon Allowance must be subject to thepay freeze. In response, the NUT called aone-day strike of all London teachers on 22March – involving 36,000 Inner Londonteachers, plus those outer London boroughscovered by the London Allowance payment.More than 20,000 teachers marchedthrough central London in the biggest marchof London teachers ever, before lobbyingparliament. Nearly 1,500,000 children wereaffected. In the Inner London EducationAuthority area alone, 271 schools wereclosed and 291 were partially closed.

‘The educationservice in Londonwas nearingbreakdown.’

NUT journal The Teacher documentedthe struggle.


JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

London Allowance payments: £400 in innerLondon; £200 in outer London. But the innerLondon payment was restricted to within a 4mile radius from Charing Cross, whichwould have excluded lots of teachers work-ing for the Inner London EducationAuthority. Prentice on behalf of the govern-ment stipulated that any further negotiationat the Burnham Committee on the PayBoard’s London Allowance recommenda-tions must be on the basis of the “kitty prin-ciple”. This outcome did not satisfy the NUT.In July another half day strike and lobby ofparliament was held, with the threat of moreindustrial action in the autumn.

The teachers’ panel of the BurnhamCommittee rejected the government “kitty”restriction and the NUT Action Committeeprepared another referendum of Londonmembers to test the willingness to proceed.

Offer at lastAt a meeting of the Burnham Committee inSeptember, the employers’ side offered athree-tier London Allowance. This was £351for 45,000 teachers working in the Londoncore – all of the area in the Inner LondonEducation Authority as well as teachersworking in the six outer London boroughs ofBarking, Brent, Ealing, Haringey, Merton,Newham; £261 for 36,500 teachers in theother outer London boroughs and £141 for23,000 teachers working in fringe areasaround the edge of London (this was a newarea for the payment).

This offer broke the government’s “kittyprinciple” by £8 million. It was a hugeincrease in the allowance – up to 300 percent and over 200 per cent for the mainareas.

Although the NUT referendum results foraction had been promising, the NUTExecutive called a Special SalariesConference for 28 September. This voted toaccept this offer and the new allowanceswere backdated. The two-year campaign ofLondon teachers undoubtedly also affectednational salary negotiations and the size ofthe 1975 Houghton review award.

Can teachers and others facing a similardilemma today learn anything from this epicstruggle? Many things have changed, butwhere the workforce is united surely some-thing could be learned about good tactics. ■

Our country is under attack. Every single institution is in decline. Theonly growth is in unemployment, poverty and war. There is a crisis – ofthought, and of deed. The Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninistheld its 16th Congress in November 2012, a coming together of the Partyto consider the state of Britain and what needs to happen in the future.Here we set out briefly six Calls to Action for the British working class –for a deeper explanation, see www.cpbml.org.uk.

1: Out of the European Union, enemy to our survivalThe European Union represents the dictatorship of finance capital, foreigndomination. The British working class must declare our intention to leave the EU.

2: No to the breakup of Britain, defend our nationalsovereigntyDevolution, and now the threats of separation and regionalism, are all products ofonly one thing: de-industrialisation.

3: Rebuild workplace trade union organisationUnions exist as working members in real workplaces or they become something elseentirely – something wholly negative. Take responsibility for your own unions.

4: Fight for pay, vital class battlegroundThe fight for pay is central to our survival as a class, and must be central to theagenda of our trade unions.

5: Regenerate industry, key to an independent futureThe regeneration of industry in Britain is essential to the future of our nation. Ourgrand-parents, and theirs, knew this. We must now reassert it at the centre of classthinking.

6: Build the PartyThe task of the Party is singular: to change the ideology of the British working class inorder that they make revolution here.

Interested in these ideas?• Go along to meetings in your part of the country, or join in study to help pushforward the thinking of our class. Get in touch to find out how to take part.• Send an A5 sae to the address below for a list of publications, or email us.• Subscribe to Workers, our bimonthly magazine, either online at workers.org.uk or bysending £12 for a year’s issues (cheques payable to Workers) to the address below.• Sign up for our free email newsletter – see the form at www.cpbml.org.uk• Follow us on Twitter.

Worried about the future ofBritain? Join the CPBML.66 SIX CALLS

TO ACTION

CPBML78 Seymour Avenue, London N17 9EB

email [email protected]@cpbml

www.cpbml.org.ukphone 020 8801 9543

‘There is noeasy formula forkeeping Britainsafe. But we doknow whatmakes for aunited workingclass...’

What makes us safeIN THE “war against terror”, Britishgovernments have wilfully ignored the bestways of fighting it. It won’t be defeated bysmart missiles or drones. It won’t bedefeated by toppling secular governments. Since the shootings in Paris and San

Bernardino, bizarre claims have been madeabout what sort of actions will make us safe.In the USA we have heard the gun lobby’scall for even more guns, and from the Britishparliament, the claim that bombing Syria willmake us “safer on the streets of Britain”. Those making these claims suffer from a

unique form of blindness which preventsthem seeing that the bombers who attackedthe London transport network in 2005, orthose doing the shooting in Paris and SanBernardino in 2015, were almost exclusivelyhome grown. The London bombers wereyoung Britons.There is no easy formula for keeping

Britain safe. But we do know what makesfor a united working class. Workers get toknow and understand each other in theworkplace and build friendships. This meansthat joining with fellow workers in a tradeunion, and fighting for the defence of jobsand the right to work also make us safer. The fight for conditions such as the right

to breaks and to keep the canteen open isalso a route to shared understandings.Eating lunch “al desko”, or worse, a cultureof not taking a break at all in the workingday, damages individual and social health.And we must ensure that English is the

language of the workplace. 2015 sawaccidents at work and at least one fatality inthe construction industry, due to poorcomprehension of English. In health and social care disciplinary

action was taken against workers speakinganother language amongst themselves, thus

excluding patients, colleagues and students.The revised Code of Conduct for nurses andmidwives published in 2015 has had toinclude, for the first time ever, a clause thatit is a professional requirement to “be ableto communicate clearly and effectively inEnglish”.“Speaking a common language” is not

just a turn of phrase. It is fundamental tosafety and understanding each other. Thismeans that every fight for adult literacycourses, English language courses,education in prisons or access to acomprehensive public library system, alsocontributes to our safety and mutualunderstanding.We must stop and reverse the trend

towards religious schools, which leads tosegregation of children into separate tribesfrom early years to adulthood. This can take the form of unregistered

schools with poor environmental conditions,unqualified teachers and a narrow daily dietof rote learning, as in the case of the Islamicschools recently exposed in Birmingham,fundamentalist Christian schools, andsimilar reports of their Jewish equivalents inNorth London. But the publicly funded state religious

schools and the well equipped privatereligious schools are also part of thissegregation. Their growth began under theBlair government and has accelerated andproduced a degree of segregation not seenin the British education system in moderntimes. Children do not see difference, why

should adults impose it on them? Working together, sharing a lunchbreak

together, talking together, learning andplaying together are building blocks of classunity. ■

Subscriptions

Take a regular copy of the bimonthly full-colour WORKERS. Six issues (one year)delivered direct to you costs £12 includingpostage. Subscribe online at cpbml.org.uk/subscribe,or by post (send a cheque payable to“WORKERS”, along with your name andaddress to WORKERS, 78 SeymourAvenue, London N17 9EB).

Name

Address

Postcode

BADGES OF PRIDEGet your full-colour badges celebrating May Day(2 cm wide, enamelled in black, red, gold andblue) and the Red Flag (1.2 cm wide, enamelledin Red and Gold).

The badges are available now. Buy them onlineat cpbml.org.uk/shop or by post from BellmanBooks, 78 Seymour Avenue, London N17 9EB,price £2 for the May Day badge and £1 for theRed Flag badge. Postage free up to 5 badges.For orders over 5 please add £1 for postage(make cheques payable to “WORKERS”).

WEAR THEM – SHARE THEM

May Day badge, £2

Red Flag badge, £1

workers...london allowance campaign of 1972–1974, p21 workers is published by the communist party...

Documents