At Last: The Left has the right response to Islamic extremism and the English Defence League

I think my opinion of the far left might be about to alter.

On October 31st two groups will be protesting against each other in London:

• Islam4UK: This is an Islamist organisation descended from the illegal Al-Muhajiroun. They are marching for the imposition of Islamic law in the UK. Whenever it is applied, Islamic religious law means repression for women, homosexuals, national minorities and dissidents.
• English Defence League: The English Defence League claims to protest against Islamic fundamentalism, but it includes within its ranks several self-confessed football hooligans and others who espouse heavily generalised views of the Islamic community.

I can reveal that I have access to the EDL discussion boards, and therefore have some first-hand experience of the sort of people who support the movement. Many of the people who contribute to the discussion boards are not racists per se, and the language used is different from the 'traditional' ethnic minority bashing of the BNP. You get the feeling that the contributors are generally white working-class people who feel abandoned by mainstream politics.

The far left, under the guise of the SWP-inspired Unite Against Fascism, demonstrates against the EDL on a regular basis. Contributors to the EDL discussion boards criticise the UAF for siding with Islamic extremism against 'progressive' values. The EDL comprises people who feel threatened by militant Islam, however significant it is as a force in this country, and accuse the UAF of siding with them.

Against this background, the AWL have organised a third presence on 31st October. They want a 'working-class, anti-capitalist, anti-racist' presence that can present a positive case for common struggle against both the Islam4UK and the EDL.

I am glad that AWL will be taking a third position against both sides of this demonstration. It will show both the EDL and Islam4UK that the left supports a secular society and does not support any form of religious extremism. Furthermore, we can demonstrate against the potential influence of the EDL in white working-class communities.

I do not consider this to be a perfect response to the threat posed by both groups - I would also like to see more activism in local communities from AWL and other groups on the left to address the alienation felt in areas susceptible both to the BNP and to religious extremism. This is a good start, however. Well done, comrades!

Septidi, 7 Brumaire An CCXVIII

Compulsory trade union membership

Is it time for compulsory membership of a trade union for all workers to ensure equality and create social solidarity?

For the last three weeks there have been 48-hour strikes on National Express East Anglia, the railway company which controls most of the train routes within East Anglia. The walkout results from a dispute over a 2.5% pay increase demand for drivers, which the management deemed totally unrealistic in the present economic climate.

Hundreds of thousands of other workers, often with no Union representation, have been forced to cope with pay cuts or pay freezes as the true impact of the recession hits the economy. Many of these people are commuters who rely on the service run by NXEA to travel to and from London. In these circumstances, it is easy to criticise people who criticise the strikers as lacking 'solidarity' with fellow workers. Of course, the press never report comments by people who actually support the strikes or what they are fighting for. However, we must recognise that witnessing one group of workers with union representation getting better terms and conditions for their militancy while another group does not leads to feelings of anger and frustration - that is human nature. People wonder how the train drivers could possibly have the front to ask for a pay rise when the companies they work for are squeezing their monthly pay.

Two possible ways of ensuring that all workers have the best possible representation are to strengthen employment laws but also to introduce basic compulsory membership of a trade union. It is not good for social solidarity that one group of unionised workers should be in a position to demand better conditions than another group. It creates inequality and it means right-leaning governments and newspapers can use the division between unionised and non-unionised labour as a 'divide and rule' tactic.

26 Thermidor An CCXVII

Doing Constitutions the Irish Way

Should Britain follow the example of Ireland and establish a written constitution with provision for referenda to be held on amendments to it? Are the people of Ireland genuinely warming to the ideas set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, is the second referendum on the issue a cynical manipulation of the democratic process because Ireland did not come up with the 'correct' answer first time around?

Constitutional reform is not generally something which the Socialists concerns itself with in this country, and debate on such issues is generally the preserve of liberal commentators in the Guardian and the Independent. Furthermore, the issues surrounding the Treaty of Lisbon and the question of a national referendum on the issue feature mainly in the right-wing press with a predominantly nationalist and xenophobic colouring. However, we cannot escape the influence which our unwritten constitution has on the democratic process in this country, nor can we flee from the central influence of the European Union on our national laws. The left must have a position on the issues, so that it does not become the sole territory of the political right.

There is an important issue of constitutional law in this which might help us to understand the relationships between the European Union and its Member States. The need for Treaties to be incorporated by amendment to the Irish constitution began with Crotty v. An Taoiseach, a 1987 ruling of the Irish Supreme Court. This is an historical aspect of the Irish Constitution. The President has the power to decline to sign a Bill amending the constitution until the amendment is voted on by the people, if the amendment changes the whole constitution. Since 1941, every constitutional amendment passes through a two-stage process involving parliamentary debate and a public referendum.

Contrast this with Britain, which has no written constitution. There is no precedent in statute or in law necessitating a referendum to be held on any issue affecting the country. The 1975 referendum was an exception and the 1998 referenda for devolution in Scotland and Wales were established by statute. The main difference between the UK and the Irish Republic here is that they have a written constitution: we do not. Under our present constitutional system, we would need to enact a statute every time a referendum was proposed. However, this still gives complete discretion to Parliament as to if or when a referendum will be held. There is no automatic trigger as there is in Ireland. Issues of constitutional importance are too significant to be left to the whims of elected governments - especially when the trust in Members of Parliament has been called into question in such a way as it has now. A democratic constitution requires entrenchment of certain conventions such as the need to hold a referendum on such issues as international treaties with a prospective effect on national sovereignty. One way of achieving this is through a written set of rules. I find myself becoming convinced by the idea that the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, especially in the light of our Membership of the European Union. Provision for referenda on certain amendments could be incorporated into it.

According to an opinion poll carried out by Quantum Research in January and April 2009, 24% said they opposed the Lisbon Treaty against 37% in January. However, there was an increase in the number of respondents declaring 'not sure', from 8% in January to 22% in April. Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was quoted as saying that the economic downturn had highlighted the role of European institutions in the banking crisis (Ireland has the Euro as its currency). The increasing proportion of 'not sure' respondents would seem to suggest that while the financial crisis brought people closer to the EU, the aftermath has caused more indecision. According to an Irish Times poll on 18 June 2008, 40% of voters who rejected the Lisbon Treaty said they did not understand it enough to vote in favour of it. The same poll showed a small drop in support for the Treaty (from 55% to 54%) so we cannot take the support for granted. Is Europe doing enough to make sure people know what it is about? The Irish Government distributed literature to each of the 2.5 million households. A compendium of the two previous Treaties, one of which was the Constitutional Treaty rejected by France and the Netherlands, of which Lisbon is intended to be a series of amendments, was unavailable in Ireland. In the absence of the compendium, it has been argued that the Lisbon Treaty is incomprehensible. If citizens of a country are going to make an informed decision in a referendum, then governments must provide them with all the necessary information. Not to do so is a cynical act of political manipulation and shows contempt for democracy: by parties wishing to force an issue one way or another.

This is not the first time that Ireland has rejected an EC Treaty in a referendum. The Irish had two constitutional referenda on the Treaty of Nice in 2001 and 2002 respectively. In 2001 53.87% of voters rejected the incorporation of the Nice Treaty on a 35% turnout. The following year 62.89% of voters supported the Treaty on a 49% turnout. The main issue at stake was the question of Irish neutrality, which many voters in 2001 felt would be undermined by ratification.

The second referendum on Lisbon is not a cynical attempt to make the Irish vote in favour of the Treaty. It is a requirement of the Irish Constitution that every amendment must be preceded by a referendum. What is cynical is the way in which politicians are seeing the referendum as a mere formality for pushing through ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all Member States. A referendum is no formality: it is a chance for citizens to give their consent to something which will alter their national laws in a significant way. It is not a right-wing viewpoint to argue that the people of the United Kingdom should not get the chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty - the transformation of our society necessarily involves empowering the people, from the bottom up, to grant or withhold their consent to elected representatives making fundamental reforms to our laws through the use of a referendum within the context of a written constitution.

13 Messidor An CCXVII

Milliband in the Guardian

I agree with some aspects of David Milliband's article in the Guardian today but I have some fundamental points of disagreement with it. I agree that we should stop debating 'personalities' and that we should expose the Tory's claims on the progressive agenda for what they are. However, there needs to be a radical shift in Labour Party policy if we are to re-engage traditional Labour voters and the growing population of people on middle incomes. Overall, Milliband's article reads more like a manifesto to succeed Gordon Brown than an attempt to re-direct the party.

As long as we continue to debate personalities, we will not face down the criticisms of Labour's achievements in government since 1997. Whether or not Gordon Brown lacks charisma is not the main issue for the next general election: we have an economic crisis which threatens to become a recession, a shortage of affordable homes and a rising cost of living. The next general election, whenever that takes place, will come down to the response of different parties to the current difficulties. Milliband is right to point out the inconsistency in Conservative policies on the 'progressive agenda'. While the Tories say that they favour social justice, they 'insist on traditional Tory means'. For example, rather than putting more money into education and social services, the Tories would prefer to rely on charitable organizations and philanthropy. Instead of enforcing improvements in workers' rights through legislation, they would prefer to rely on the innovations of employers - most likely without a role for trade unions and employees. As Milliband points out, the Tories opposed the windfall tax on privatized utilities and the extension of maternity leave rights.

Unfortunately Milliband does not see the need for a radical shift in Labour Party policy needed in order to engage people who have become disillusioned with New Labour. He says we needed better planning for peace in Iraq, but he does not recognize the fact that many long-standing Labour Party voters felt betrayed by our involvement in the US-led invasion of that country in 2003. The Labour Party should make Britain independent of America in terms of its foreign policy without being hostile to the world's only superpower. Milliband says we should have reformed the NHS sooner - what does he mean by this? More private finance? More outsourcing of hospital services? Milliband says correctly that people want protection from a downturn made in Wall Street. However, he goes on to intimate that Britain needs to compete with countries like China and India in terms of service industries. If he is implying that we should sacrifice working conditions in favour of a more 'flexible labour market', then he should think again: we need an alternative economic system which distributes wealth more equally and protects people in the long-term.

Milliband is right to talk about distributing more power to citizens over education and health care but people also want more control over their working lives and in employment. In government, Labour should encourage more co-operative forms of organization in all workplaces. This means working with trade unions to help ordinary people get more control at work. Legislation to this effect will be important, but action from the bottom up always leads to more democratic outcomes than top-down reforms.

If we are going to make life better for the 'despised' people of Glasgow East and other areas which have deserted Labour, then the party needs radical change.

Revenge of the Despised

Labour's betrayal of the working class provoked a massive electoral disaster early this morning. Margaret Curran lost the Glasgow East by-election to the SNP by 365 votes. The Scottish Nationalists overturned a huge Labour majority of 13,507 in the twenty-fifth safest seat in Britain.

Many people will now be calling for Gordon Brown to resign as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party. However, if this defeat were translated into a general election result, even the Prime Minister himself might lose his seat as well. Labour would be reduced to a small group in parliament and the Tories would have an enormous majority: something they would only be too pleased to manipulate to their advantage. The Conservatives would bulldoze through regressive policies in the same way that they have been able to do on Tory-dominated local authorities.

This was the day when the inner-city working class got its own back on New Labour. People living in the East End of Glasgow might have tolerated Labour's rightward drift for the sake of remaining in government, but they are completely fed up with it now. Why are they fed up? They are fed up with rising food prices, the continuing housing shortage and a party which patronizes the poor instead of helping them. In a typical display of New Labour arrogance, Brown is expected to reject Union and grassroots demands for taxes to be raised on those earning more than £100,000. This will be rejected as 'Old Labour' and 'sending out the wrong message about aspirations'. Everyone has aspirations, and everyone works hard, but not everyone earns more than £100,000. The rich have a moral responsibility to pay more tax in order to improve education, housing and other public services.

Of course, the worst thing for Labour to do at the moment is to tear itself up between Left and Right. It would be wrong for the Left to break away from Labour because such a party would not have grassroots support which has been built up over the last 100 years. We have to remain one party. We need to regain the trust of our core supporters, from all social backgrounds, who believe in a classless society and social justice.

Everyone needs to look hard at themselves: not just New Labour 'modernizers', but also the hard left, trade unions and Socialist societies too.

I keep thinking of the episode of Cracker with Robert Carlyle as an angry young man called Albie Kinsella. He embarks on a killing spree motivated by revenge for the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989, the death of his father and, more importantly to the present discussion, disaffection with the left. "One day this country's gonna blow" he says "and people like me will light the fuse".

References:
The Unofficial Guide to Cracker [Online]. Available from: http://www.crackertv.co.uk

Personal Debt Crisis

Investigations by Save the Children and the Council of Mortgage Lenders reveal the vulnerability of working class families to the turbulence of the housing market and the debt trap. The Council of Mortgage Lenders found that first-time buyers are spending an average of 20.6% of their total income on mortgages which is the highest level seen since 1991.

At the same time, Save the Children found that as many as 2.3 million families are taking out loans from door-to-door credit salesmen for basic essentials such as gas and water. The initial loans are often paid back with triple figure interest. High street lenders are often unwilling to lend money to people with poor credit histories.

Employers and governments have failed to deal with the debt crisis and must take part of the responsibility for the rise in unscrupulous lenders and dangerously high mortgages.

The regulations outlined in the government's green paper on housing are not enough to protect working families from the fluctuating house market. The Green Paper proposes more long-term fixed rate mortgages to protect first-time buyers. The report from mortgage lenders has said that such mortgages are in decline, which contradicts the desire of the government to encourage them. Long-term fixed rate mortgages sound like a good idea in principle, though they do not free people from the limitations of the free market: lenders are unlikely to be willing to accept fixed-rate mortgages if their returns were reduced in a housing boom.

The best solution for a Socialist government is to free people from the burden of home ownership by giving people the choice of subsidised housing. There must be no top-down paternalistic approach to this since many people aspire to own their own home as a lifelong investment. The government should allow people to sell their homes to local authorities if they so desire so that they can rent them back at a lower cost than they would do on the free market. The Conservatives' right-to-buy policy in the 1980s drastically reduced the council housing stock. It would now be very difficult to increase the stock without building new homes (e.g. councils acquiring private homes). The dilemma over building on the Green Belt looms on the political horizon if we are going to deal with the housing crisis.

Communities must report loan sharks to the police and the government should aim to clamp down harder on renegade lenders. However, Socialists must tackle the root causes of debt as a priority. This involves getting a fairer deal for working class families who pay a significant proportion of their income on utility bills through the tighter regulation of utility companies.

21 Frimaire An CCXIII

Off The Rails

National Express has recently taken over the franchise for the Great Northeastern line which links London with York, Newcastle and Edinburgh. According to the Guardian, train operators are arguing that the government's regulation of rail companies is too stringent: they should be given longer franchises to allow them 'to innovate and invest'.

It is a joke for train companies to say they ought to be given more freedom. Rail privatisation has been a disaster and the answer is not more deregulation. Train operators have increased fares to cope with rising demand for services when the cost could be better served through the public purse. As people become more conscious of their carbon footprints and move from the road onto the rail, rush-hour use of trains is becoming unsustainable yet the rail companies cannot cope with the demand.

All transport should be run as a public enterprise in the interest of the public and people who provide the service. Since 1994 the rail companies have demonstrated that they cannot work outside purely commercial interests, leading to disasters such as the accidents at Ladbroke Grove in 1999 and Potters Bar in 2002.

Even a significantly bigger public stake in the railways would not work and we only have to look at the part-privatisation of Royal Mail for an explanation. Despite being the main shareholder in the national post office network, the government has refused to intervene in the aggressive management claiming that this falls outside its role as a 'shareholder'. Much more government control is needed combined with the political desire to run public transport in the public's interest.

In the interests of safety, the government must bring the railways into democratic public control.

20 Frimaire An CCXIII