Cracking writing from Kevin Maguire in the Daily Mirror:
David Cameron’s fundamental problem is the stench of a loser.
The Prime Minister stinks of defeat, a weak Conservative leader on skid row. The overpowering smell of failure, incompetence and chaos is suffocating. Cameron’s difficulties started when he failed to win outright three years ago in what were good times for the Tories. The U-turns and incompetence, compromises of ConDem coalition, have drained away his authority.
The issue of Europe certainly makes strange bedfellows, and the cockles of Nigel Farage’s heart will have been warmed by Bob Crow’s statement yesterday:
RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said:
“RMT’s position is clear, not only should there be an early in/out referendum but also we are calling unequivocally for British withdrawal.
“Across Europe, and specifically in Spain and Greece which are at the eye of the storm, it is the working class who are suffering the most as democracy is ripped apart and the EU and the central bank demand cuts to jobs, wages and pensions and wholesale privatisation of public assets.
“RMT will not sit back and allow this debate to be dominated by UKIP and the right wing of the Tory Party. Ministers like Michael Gove are now only raising the issue of withdrawal out of pure political opportunism. He could not care less about the rates of youth unemployment across Europe, the only concern of these Tory “Johnny Come Lately’s” is saving their own political skins.
“RMT will continue to set out the left wing, pro-worker case for British withdrawal from the EU that puts jobs, standards of living, democracy and public services centre stage. The truth is that you cannot be pro-EU and anti-austerity when the whole structure of the European project is dominated by the interests of bankers and big business, the driving forces behind the imposition of austerity measures across the Continent.”
It is disingenuous for RMT to believe that a small union, however charismatic their General Secretary, can shape a debate which is being driven by rifts in the Conservative Party. Indeed the headline in Benedict Brogan’s Telegraph blog sums it up well: “The Tory party’s gone crazy over Europe, and it’s Cameron’s fault”
Ignore those who boast that at least this time it’s merely about tactics, not policy. They would like you to conclude that because the Tory party at Westminster favours an in/out referendum, the current spat is a mere bagatelle. They are wrong, in the same way that any Tory politician who justifies attacking the leadership in public in the name of ideological rectitude should not be trusted with the electoral spoons. The party is divided on an issue that scarcely one in 10 voters lists as a priority. The electorate will respond accordingly if this continues.
What are we to make of Tony Blair’s recent criticisms of Ed Miliband’s leadership and the current state of the Labour Party in his recent New Statesman article? And what significance should be attached to the timing of his comments, coming as they do in a week in which the establishment has sought to beatify Margaret Thatcher and in the process has engaged in the kind of revisionism that is an insult to the collective intelligence of the nation?
The sickening ritual of tribute to Thatcher which took place in parliament on 11 April, on the back of its unprecedented emergency recall by David Cameron, demonstrates the extent of the disconnect that exists between the political class and a significant section of the population in this country. Ed Miliband’s failure to contest Cameron’s request for a recall was evidence of weakness in the face of the unrelenting propaganda campaign unleashed by the Tories and their acolytes in the media in the wake of the former prime minister’s death. The objective of this campaign has not merely been to eulogize the woman, but also to burnish the political creed, Thatcherism, which bears her name. At a time when the most vicious Tory government since the one led by Thatcher is in the process of rolling back the frontiers of the welfare state, allowing the aforementioned to go unchallenged was a grievous mistake on the part of the Labour leadership.
Now we have Blair, supported by Mandelson and Alan Milburn, reminding us that Blairite’s don’t die, or even fade away after they’ve had their time in the political sun; they instead lurk in the background waiting for the opportunity to remind the nation of a time when Labour was the party of aspiration, enterprise, and business. Ed Miliband’s rebuke of Blair’s admonition that “Labour must keep out of its “comfort zone but on a centre ground that is ultimately both more satisfying and more productive for party and country” was at least welcome, but no one should be in any doubt that Blair’s intervention was timed to coincide with the deification of Thatcher as a moderniser and Thatcherism as a progressive antidote to the ‘bad old days’.
Click to continue reading
Julia Jones, who will have to live on just £53 a week, faces losing the home and garden where she scattered her husband’s ashes
Dear Mr Cameron
I heard you in Prime Minister’s Questions say you would look at individual cases on the bedroom tax. I am 59 years old, David (my husband) and I have both worked since we were 15, paid taxes, did our bit. We have never been well off but we both did worthwhile jobs.
Five years ago David got melanoma. He had excruciating treatment and, although still not well, returned to work as he thought it was his duty. Four years ago he got bowel cancer; he had an irreversible colostomy. Six months later he returned to work. Two years ago he got brain cancer. Seven weeks later he died.
Throughout all this I was advised I could get care allowance, but I rejected this: he was my husband, it was my duty to care for him. We lived off the little savings we had until we could return to work. When he had the colostomy we were allocated this home as David could not climb stairs any more and I struggled. His ashes are buried in the garden under the rose bushes that friends gave me instead of wreaths.
Mr Cameron, my husband and I were the hard workers you claim to support, we never asked for anything.
I would give everything if this had not happened to us. Because we were on benefit and sick, you and your government said hateful words against us. Words that made acquaintances look at us with contempt.
The most powerful men in the country imply we are scum so we must be scum. You and your government call us scroungers, next door go to work while our bedroom curtains are still drawn.
My curtains were still drawn at 11am as the light made David scream with pain.
Do you not consider that I would give everything for my husband to be alive, me to not have incapacitating pain and we could both be the hard workers we once were? I live in small 1 1/2 bed bungalow that was built for older people. It is supported elderly living so I feel safe. It could not house a family as under 55s are not allowed.
You now want to take my home from me. The home that literally made my fingers bleed cleaning as it had been neglected for 20 years when we moved here. You want me to leave my husband’s ashes, my neighbours who take me shopping and give me some form of social life? I have no family, we could not have children.
I am living without heating at present so how can I pay what I do not have to stay in my home? Have you any idea how that affects my fibromyalgia?
I eat one meal a day and am in constant pain which is exacerbated by the cold. I may get Discretionary Housing Benefit. But we both know that is only for 13 weeks at a time and when the pot is empty, it is empty. I have considered moving but the only property available is far from shops and bus stops and costs £98 per month more than where I am at present. I would be living in isolation.
You say you are building more social housing, but it is too little too late for many of us. You may blame the Labour policies, but it was your government who introduced this law so I have to hold you responsible.
Mr Cameron, I do not believe you or your MPs are evil men at heart, I believe this is an ill-thought-out plan and you did not understand the consequence of your action.
I ask you to take a step back and look at this again.
THE ABOVE IS JUST PLAIN CRUEL…I AM ASHAMED TO BE BRITISH.
Yours, Julia Jones
This is a guest post by Andrew Burgin
Britain’s swing to Labour mirrors electoral results across Europe as people seek to oppose brutal austerity policies. In many places this is the first real opportunity for those facing such measures to make themselves heard at an electoral level. Those responsible for implementing these policies have been punished.
In France, the presidential election looks set to be won by the Socialist party candidate Francois Hollande. He is campaigning on a programme opposing the austerity policies of the right under Sarkozy, and for creating jobs and growth through investment with some limited proposals to tax the rich. He has been pushed to the left by the vibrant campaign of the Front de Gauche headed by Jean-Luc Melenchon and this has given him that extra sustainable edge over the incumbent.
In the Greek elections, the perpetrators of austerity will be punished – in this case the social democratic PASOK is likely to take the biggest hit – with anti-austerity parties of the far left expected to make large gains. Anger and disenchantment at the continued collapse of the economy and drive to further cut wages and increase unemployment are finding their reflection at the ballot box.
In Britain, Labour advances indicate strong dissatisfaction with coalition policies as Labour won back more than 800 council seats. The party strengthened its position across the country, reasserting itself in former Labour heartlands in Wales and England and holding its position in traditional working class areas in Scotland. It took overall control of Glasgow city council which it was widely expected to lose. This, together with setbacks for Plaid Cymru, may have put a brake on the advance of the nationalist parties. Revelations of Alex Salmond’s close links with Rupert Murdoch may have limited the SNP’s progress.
However, Labour’s advance came with little enthusiasm from the voters. Whereas in France, 80% turned out to vote for their president, actual turnout in Britain was reduced to just over 30%. Whatever the differing levels of interest displayed at state and local level, this cannot mask the collapse of voter participation. Even at this time of economic crisis where political decisions massively affect people’s everyday lives and livelihoods, the majority of people just could not be bothered to turn out and vote, even against government parties. Explanations for this abound, not least disenchantment with the major parties and a feeling that whatever the outcome there will be more of the same. And of course the first past the post system contributes to this assessment. But one of the striking factors in these elections is that even in spite of the obstacles presented by the electoral system, people have voted for alternatives and some of those alternatives have made progress, sometimes strikingly so.
The success of the Green Party in London is not surprising, given their track record in the city, strong anti-austerity policies and increased national profile with Caroline Lucas now in Parliament. And Jenny Jones’ third place for London Mayor is a breakthrough as Lib Dem candidate Brian Paddick fell to a paltry fourth place, punished for his party’s disgraceful role in propping up the Tories in government. No doubt they will face a serious threat to their future as a national political organisation should they continue to play that role.
Other anti-austerity forces also did well. In Bradford the resurgent Respect Party took five seats and ousted the council leader. With Labour the largest group in the council, yet without overall control, a crucial test for Respect will be the pressure they can bring to bear to move council policies to the left. This has been the mark of successful left parties in Europe – making advances for the working class where they have political clout and can influence social democracy to the left. In Preston, independent socialist Michael Lavalette, who was endorsed by Respect, regained his seat.
The BNP did not benefit from the turn away from mainstream parties. This is a tribute to the consistent work of the anti-fascist left and one that should be noted across Europe. The BNP took none of the seats that they contested. Whereas UKIP advanced, taking on average 13% in the 700 seats where they stood, Griffin’s attempted ‘modernisation’ of his party failed to convince the voters and they also lost their seat on the London Assembly. But this should not lead to complacency about the far right threat, as other parties have exploited racism and Islamophobia to scape-goat these communities for the economic ills imposed on us by the free market policies of our ruling class.
The biggest setback for the anti-austerity movement in these elections was the narrow defeat of Ken Livingstone in London. Livingstone’s programme included cutting fares on public transport, the reintroduction of EMA for young students and the creation of new low cost housing. A vicious personal campaign was waged against Livingstone by the Evening Standard and the Murdoch corporation. Boris Johnson’s campaign was masterminded by ‘attack dog’ Lynton Crosby. Johnson played little part in his own campaign – which was remarkably devoid of concrete policies for London. He was surrounded by minders who kept him away from ordinary Londoners who will now pay the price for this despicable anti-political campaign. The loss of Ken Livingstone from the political scene is much to be regretted.
The lessons of these elections are clear: there is massive popular dissatisfaction with the policies of the coalition government – sharply exposed by the recent budget and the ‘omnishambles’ that has followed. But there is also frustration with the mainstream parties and an increasing understanding that they do not offer a way out of the political and economic crisis that we are in. For many this means, in essence, political abstention through no show at the polls. For others this means a turn to political alternatives including anti-austerity parties of the left. The challenge for the anti-austerity movement is to strengthen the case for alternatives to the neo-liberal orthodoxy which is devastating our society and communities, whether through driving Labour’s policies to the left to meet the needs of its constituents or through posing clear political alternatives that give people genuine electoral representation. Both of these will be strengthened and advanced by the continuing and growing work of the Coalition of Resistance. We are now at the beginning of the campaign to build the largest possible anti-austerity demonstration this autumn, working hand in hand with the trade unions which will lead this vital initiative. The building of a mass campaign against the cuts, on the streets and in our communities, is the clearest way to ensure that the limited gains reflected in these election results will translate into real and permanent economic and political change.
from the BBC
Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, has accused the prime minister of acting immorally by favouring the rich ahead of ordinary citizens affected by the recession. The cardinal also denounced David Cameron’s opposition to a “Robin Hood tax” on financial institutions. And he urged Mr Cameron not just to help “your very rich colleagues”.
Mr Cameron said that he understood how difficult things were for families and that more jobs were needed. The prime minister told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “I understand how tough it is for people in our country right now, if you’re trying to make the household budget work out, if you’ve got petrol and diesel at the prices that they are now.
“I understand how difficult it is when you’ve got job losses in the public sector and you need the private sector to expand faster – we need more jobs. I understand those difficulties, that is what fires me up, that is what gets me out of bed to work hard to do the right thing for my country and it’s got to be about the long term.”
The cardinal also said it was immoral “just to ignore” those who were suffering as a result of recent financial disasters.
In a BBC Scotland interview, he said: “My message to David Cameron, as the head of our government, is to seriously think again about this Robin Hood tax, the tax to help the poor by taking a little bit from the rich.
“The poor have suffered tremendously from the financial disasters of recent years and nothing, really, has been done by the very rich people to help them. And I am saying to the prime minister, look, don’t just protect your very rich colleagues in the financial industry, consider the moral obligation to help the poor of our country.”
It is not moral just to ignore them and to say ‘struggle along’, while the rich can go sailing along in their own sweet way
The UK government has opposed the unilateral introduction of the “Robin Hood” tax, which would impose a small tax levy on large transactions of currencies, bonds and shares. It argues jobs and investment would be lost overseas.
But the cardinal said he believes that position is immoral because, he maintains, it overlooks the needs of the poorest in society and those of the less well-off.
He said: “When I say poor, I don’t mean (only) the abject poverty we see sometimes in our streets. I mean people who would have considered themselves reasonably well-off. People who have saved for their pensions and now realise their pension funds are no more. People who are considering giving up their retirement homes that they have been saving for, poverty affecting young couples and so on and so on. It is these people who have had to suffer because of the financial disasters of recent years and it is immoral. It is not moral, just to ignore them and to say ‘struggle along’, while the rich can go sailing along in their own sweet way.”
The cardinal was speaking in support of a campaign by the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund (SCIAF) which says the billions of pounds raised by levying a financial transaction tax in the UK could be spent helping the poor and vulnerable at home and abroad.
The aid agency estimates a tax of 0.05% on major financial transactions, such as the trading of stocks, bonds and derivatives, would raise £20bn each year in the UK alone.