Tory Spat Over EU

The recent reports on the spat within the Tory party over the EU referendum raise an interesting question about the Tories’ real agenda. Big business and the City, the latter now largely owned by US investment banks which view the UK as an important bridgehead into Europe, clearly want to retain access to the single market. But without the employment, health & safety and welfare protections secured by the labour movement. This suggests that much of the Tory dissension is decidedly disingenuous posturing, designed to negotiate repatriation of powers in these areas and take the sting out of the UKIP threat; or represents ‘Little Englander’ attempts to replace control of our economy by international monopoly capital with that of British monopoly capital, wedded to a continuation of austerity and deepening inequality.

But this shouldn’t obscure the very real progressive argument for leaving the EU. The EU Stability and Growth Pact outlaws Keynesian-style reflationary policies. Competition policy prevents state aid to strategic industries. The EU Services Directive forces privatisation of what remains of the public sector. EU rules prevent control over capital movements. And ECJ legal judgements undermine collective bargaining and wage levels. Social Europe is a con. The EU is inherently anti-democratic and anti-working class. The left needs to tackle the stranglehold that the rightwing media exercise on this issue and make the case for an alternative, progressive future outside the EU – where we have the right to self-determination, can re-balance the economy away from finance towards manufacturing, can re-orient our trade policy towards the developing world and can construct a society on explicitly democratic, socialist terms.

Chris Guiton

End Media Bias in Discussion of Tax

It was reported after last week’s budget that the Institute of Fiscal Studies had warned of potential tax rises of up to £9bn that might be imposed after the next general election to limit further cuts in public spending. It’s intructive to note that whenever the media report on these issues the assumption is usually made that such tax increases will take the form of rises in income tax or VAT.

But why not debate the role of corporation tax? We’re now heading for one of the lowest rates in the developed world. At its peak, in 1973, the rate was 52%. The United States still operates a rate of 40%. This ‘race to the bottom’ not only deprives the Exchequer of much-needed revenue, the further reduction of corportion tax to 20% in 2015 is expected to cost £750m, it also shifts the tax burden to those least able to afford it. Businesses rely on Government to provide the enabling factors which underpin their ability to operate, including a transparent legal framework; a healthy, skilled workforce; and an effective transport and communications infrastructure.

The recent cuts in corporation tax should be reversed for the biggest companies. And Labour should seriously consider reviewing its tax policy to consider how best to return to a more equitable, progressive tax system.

Chris Guiton

SPRING TERM GETS UNDER WAY WITH A CRITIQUE OF NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMICS

The Spring Term is dedicated to economics. The first class on Tuesday, 5 February took a critical look at neo-liberal economics. The class was introduced by Dr Martin Graham who, in addition to describing the fundamental theories and assumptions employed,  described how this type of economics served the interests of the rich and powerful and now dominated public policy, being essentially the only type of economics taught in our colleges and universities – this despite numerous theoretical shortcomings, dubious assumptions and a total failure to explain the actual economy  we observe in the 21st Century.

ROKE PRIMARY SCHOOL

Gove’s education policy on academies is all about ideology and nothing about improving our schools. Academies are outside local democratic control, lack transparency, increase exclusions, leave parents and students with fewer rights and undermine the rights of teachers and their trade unions. Sponsors gain almost absolute power once a school acquires academy status. They take control of public assets – the buildings and the land – and can be relied on to reward themselves accordingly.

Parents at Roke Primary School threatened with academy status recently received a copy of a letter about this threat from Lord Nash, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Schools, to Richard Ottaway, Tory MP for South Croydon. Wisely not expecting any help from Mr Ottaway, here is the robust and well argued response from the Save Roke Campaign Committee:

“Lord Nash’s letter casts Roke Primary as an ‘underperforming’ school, yet our school is not underperforming under any possible definition of the word and certainly not over a ‘long time’, which is specified in DfE’s own guidance for forced academies. The latest SAT results are above the national average and place the school in the top 20% of Croydon schools. Teaching is regarded by Ofsted, the Local Authority and parents as at least good. Let’s be clear forced academy at Roke is NOT about substandard education at Roke.

The reason the school is being forced to academy is that it was placed in an Ofsted category of ‘Notice to Improve’, mainly due to a lack of data caused by computer problems and leadership/management issues. The Ofsted report was published in mid June 2012. Areas for improvement were outlined and the school, LA and Riddlesdown (as partnering
school) sprung into action and made positive changes very quickly. Yet only 3 months later, in September the DfE informed the head governor that Roke would become an academy.

Factoring in the school summer holiday, the school was given less than 6 weeks to improve. There was no return visit by Ofsted to check on the improvements made and no chance to prove that they could be sustained. This action defeats the purpose of giving a school ‘Notice to improve’, if they are then denied the chance to demonstrate improvements made.

Lord Nash states that improvement is required in relation to leadership and management. This could happen without removing the school from Local Authority control. It does not need such drastic action as being forced, against the wishes of parents, governors and local community, to become an academy and to be sponsored by Harris.

It would be far more cost effective to simply replace the leadership. Let’s make no mistake this is about political ideology not standards.

Lord Nash omits the fact that the Ofsted monitoring visit happened in January 2013, the day after parents launched their campaign and a damning article appeared in The Guardian, stating that Oftsed had not visited before the decision was made. He also omits to make it clear that this was not a full Ofsted inspection and therefore it did not matter what rating for improvement was received it would not lift Roke out of the ‘Notice to Improve’ category. His letter reads like Roke somehow failed to improved enough to be reclassified which is untrue.

Furthermore, we have been told that the Ofsted inspector said on arrival before the monitoring inspection took place, that Roke would not get a rating better than ‘satisfactory’ because there was insufficient time between inspections to prove that improvements had been embedded or were sustainable. This is the real reason which, as Lord Nash writes, there is ‘limited evidence that (improvements) are secure and sustainable’. It has little to do with the school’s efforts but rather with the government failing to give the school enough time to achieve this within its’ own inspection frameworks, before rushing to turn the school to an academy.

Lord Nash says, ‘Harris has confirmed that it wishes to support notice to improve and bring about the improvement needed’ at Roke. Therein lies the crux of the matter. It is highly likely, if a full inspection was to take place today that the school would perform much better, and would come out of ‘Notice to Improve’ or its new equivalent category.

As it stands, Harris will simply come in and take all the credit for improvements that have already taken place. We believe that Roke may have been targeted as a school where, a relatively small nudge is needed to return us to our previous ‘outstanding’ status. This will give Harris and academy policy false credibility.

Lord Nash says that the government recognises the ‘importance of formal local consultation’ and that it is ‘a legal requirement before any school can open as an academy’. We suggest that his definition of ‘consultation’ is different to everyone else. His letter makes it clear that all decisions about Roke, its future as an academy and its sponsor have already been made. To suggest that consultation takes place after the fact is ludicrous. Moreover, to suggest that the consultation is most meaningful when it is run by the preferred Sponsor, in this case Harris, is also ludicrous and bordering on corrupt.

The consultation must be operated legally, and cannot be a presentation or a deliverance of a decision already made – it must be legally meaningful. It must be an actual consultation – you consult and decide as a result, not in advance.

As it stands key decisions about our school have been made behind closed doors before consultation has taken place. The DfE is withholding crucial information about the decision making process, as evidence by failure to disclose information requested by parents under the Freedom of Information act. The DfE has also flouted its own rules regarding forcing a school that is not actually failing. The DfE is not operating by the Principles set down by the Committee of Standards in Public Life (1985) particularly the principles of accountability, openness or honesty.

Put simply, our own British government is breaking all the democratic values that this country holds dear.”

We congratuate the Save Roke Campaign Commitee on their rejection of this further extension of academies into Croydon’s education and pledge our support for their campaign.

Martin Graham

Crisis in NHS Enters New Phase

The looming crisis in the NHS is rapidly becoming clearer for everyone as the secondary legislation laid by Jeremy Hunt works its way through Parliament. If passed, this will effectively signal the death knell for the NHS as it will force doctors to open up virtually all health services to competition. And, under EU competition rules, once this has happened it’s virtually impossible to reverse the position.

The NHS was founded on three basic principles: that it’s universal, comprehensive and free at the point of delivery. These have been abolished by the Health and Social Care Act. Primary care trusts are no longer obliged to secure treatment for you when you are ill; unelected local bodies now have the power to close unprofitable local services; and the third becomes irrelevant given the damage inflicted by the first two.

With the fight to save Lewisham Hospital reaching a new phase, the threat to health services in Croydon is plain for all to see. As the founder of the NHS, Nye Bevan, said: ‘the NHS will only last if there are folks left to defend it’. Please sign the petition organised by 38 Degrees:

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/nhs-section-75#petition

Chris Guiton

 

 

Con-Dem Trail of Destruction Through our Education System

Michael Rosen has an astute piece in today’s Guardian about some of the thinking behind the Government’s sustained assault on our state education system:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/feb/04/michael-rosen-letter-from-curious-parent

Linked, of course, to the blatant drive towards marketisation and privatisation of our schools. Do parents really need to know any more to fight back against this wretched Government?!

Chris Guiton

 

 

Croydon Council Sham Consultation

The Tory-led Croydon Council continue to get up to their old tricks. This time in connection with their recent sham budget consultation. As usual, a poisonous mixture of secrecy, incompetence and cynicism appears to characterise their activities. Sean Creighton has a good article on the exercise on the InsideCroydon site:

http://insidecroydon.com/2013/01/16/budget-consultation-condemned-as-just-meaningless-jargon/

But there’s an interesting question here for progressives, namely, how do local authorities challenge the outrageous spending reductions currently being forced on them by Government, with cuts of up to 8.8% to be implemented from 1 April, on top of the significant cuts already made. The challenges are huge. Vital local services are being eroded at a time when growing inequality, unemployment and poverty means people need them more. The very future of local government is under threat.

But we don’t simply have to sit here and passively absorb the punishment. Where Labour and other progressive forces are in control of councils they should be considering alternative mechanisms including use of reserves, sensible borrowing and production of a ‘needs budget’ to show what should be funded rather than adoption of Government-enforced cuts. Under local government legislation, the latter course clearly risks takeover of the budget process by a ‘Section 151′ officer (usually the local authority’s treasurer who has a number of statutory duties, including the duty to report any unlawful financial activity involving the authority, or failure to set or keep to a balanced budget), as well as sucharges and a ban on holding office for the councillors concerned.

The concern then might be that if this were to happen it would result in even harsher cuts than any planned by Labour councillors. But what if there was a nation-wide campaign on this front. Would Government have the stomach for such a fight? Particularly if it was linked to a coordinated local fightback. Clearly , this situation doesn’t currently apply to Croydon. But the council elections are due in 2014. And it will be interesting to see how Labour position themselves for the election  as well as how they challenge Croydon Council in the runup to that point.

In the meantime, let’s work locally to build a really strong coalition of resistance, which mobilises all sections of the community against the cuts. Many readers of this blog will remember Ted Knight, one-time leader of Lambeth Borough Council. He has some interesting observations on these issues, based on his experiences in the 1980s, in a recent post on the LRC site:

http://l-r-c.org.uk/features/story/we-need-a-coalition-of-resistance-against-local-council-cuts/

Chris Guiton

Dislike of Politicians

It’s reported that former journalist turned Labour MP Gloria de Piero has been trying to understand why so many people dislike politicians (The Guardian, 1 January 2013). She focuses predicably on issues around the MP expenses scandal and the boorish behaviour on show at prime ministers’ questions.

This is revealing in what it doesn’t say. The elephant in the room is, of course, the commitment by all three main parties to neoliberalism, a political ideology which, by definition, favours big business and the super-rich over ordinary people. This inevitably encourages apathy and disengagement. New Labour managerialism and its commitment to a slightly ‘gentler’ form of austerity is no solution. Anti-politics is not inevitable and people need to believe that they can fight for a better world.

Let’s hope that 2013 sees a step-change in the fightback against this vicious, cynical government and the promotion of a genuine socialist response by Labour to the class war that finance capitalism is waging against us.

Chris Guiton

Kurdish national question.

by John Eden.

The collapsing Assad regime in Syria is highlighting, the problems facing the whole region, and the course of future conflict there, of which the Kurdish national question is going to play a major central role. All the countries in the region who have a Kurdish population have one thing in common, although they may have major contradictions among themselves the Turks, the Iranians, the Iraqis and Syrian Arabs, one thing their politicians have in common, there will be no independent Kurdistan, below is an article from the Guardian, of the struggle the Kurds face in Syria, but it is a problem they face throughout the region.

Syria’s Kurds face uncertain future if Assad falls

The regime’s exit from Kurdish areas has sparked mistrust between the rebels and Syria’s second biggest ethnic group

Kurdish members of the FSA are seen on a tank stolen from the Syrian army in Fafeen village, north of Aleppo province. Photograph: Manu Brabo/AP

The quarrel began when a young Arab called Mohammad drove up to a Kurdish checkpoint. The Kurdish fighters manning it beat him up. Bruised, angry and humiliated, Mohammad gathered up a group of armed friends. There was a shootout; Mohammad, his brother and three others were killed. Three Kurds also died. Both sides agreed a truce. As part of the deal the Kurds abandoned the mountaintop checkpoint in the village of Qastal, seven miles from the town of Azaz in northern Syria, and retreated down the road.

The violent clashes last month are indicative of the tensions that have surfaced in the wake of Syria’s uprising. The Kurds are the second biggest group in Syria’s delicate ethnic mosaic: 3 million in a country of 23 million. Long discriminated against by successive Arab regimes in Damascus, and often denied citizenship, they are now staking a claim to self-determination. It’s unclear, however, whether their lot will be any better in a post-revolutionary Syria with President Bashar al-Assad gone.

The Kurds live predominantly in the mountains of the north, next to the Turkish border. Their informal “capital” is the north-east frontier town of Qamishli. In July the Democratic Union party (PYD) – the biggest Kurdish political group – seized control of many Kurdish towns and enclaves. The PYD set up checkpoints and hoisted the party’s once forbidden flag. It now flutters above rugged Kurdish hamlets set among Byzantine ruins, and in tidy villages of tractors, concrete houses and chickens.

Over the summer the Syrian military effectively withdrew from Kurdish areas. Assad seems to have made a strategic calculation. The PYD is closely allied to the outlawed Turkish militant group the PKK, which has been battling Ankara for decades.

Turkey is now Assad’s biggest regional foe.

Whatever Assad’s motives, the withdrawal has sparked mistrust between the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the main rebel armed movement, and the Kurdish leadership. FSA commanders bitterly accuse the Kurds of being stooges of the regime. “Why didn’t they join the revolution?” Sheikh Omar, a commander in the rebel-held town of El Bab asked. Omar said he was opposed to Kurdish demands for federalism in the new Syria. “What they really mean is independence,” he asserted.

Jihadist groups, meanwhile, such as Jabhat al-Nusra, view the Kurds, who have traditionally taken a laid-back approach to Islam, as infidels. Two weeks ago an alliance of FSA units, including fighters from Omar’s al-Tawhid brigade, and jihadists, fought with Kurdish militias in the town of Ras el Ain. They pushed the Kurds from the border crossing with Turkey.

In other parts of Syria, however, Kurds and Arabs co-exist in harmony. Qabbasin, north of Aleppo, is a model of inter-ethnic co-operation. The town has a permanent population of 18,000, split equally between Arabs and Kurds. The flag of Kurdistan – red, white, green with an orange sun in the middle – hangs in the town square next to the Syrian rebel tricolour. The walls of the local council office were repainted last week with friendly slogans in Kurdish and Arabic: “Kurd-Arab one heart.”

“We are brothers,” the Kurdish mayor Bashar Muslim said, pointing out that his deputy is an Arab. “There are no differences between us.” But what about the violent clashes in Ifrin, Ras el Ain and Aleppo? These disputes began after Jabhat al-Nusra fighters erected checkpoints in Aleppo’s al-Ashrafiya district; the Kurds, fearing that the regime would start shelling them, drove the jihadists out, with several killed. “It’s nothing. We can sort it out,” the mayor said.

Sitting over a cup of strong, black, sugary tea, a group of Kurds discussed Syria’s future – and the Kurds’ place in it.

Abu Khalil, a 52-year-old farm worker, said he supported the PYD, but his son did not. His son was disappointed by the PYD’s seemingly unenthusiastic attitude to Syria’s revolution, he said. What would happen to the Kurds once Assad was overthrown? “Maybe things will be worse for us,” Khalil answered.

The PYD’s leader, Salih Muslim, rejects the charge his party is a collaborationist fifth column. Muslim points out that it was the Kurds who first revolted against Assad – with a bloody uprising in 2004 in Qamishli – and that before the revolution the regime jailed many of his supporters. Kurdish volunteers, meanwhile, have fought alongside the FSA and died in the battle for Aleppo; ordinary Kurds have held anti-Assad protests. Thousands of displaced Arabs have moved to the comparative safety of Kurdish areas.

But there are many obstacles in the way of Kurdish autonomy. The Kurds are not only at odds with the current regime – and its likely replacement – but also with each other. There is a rival political alliance of 12 Kurdish political parties, the Kurdish National Council (KNC). It enjoys the support of Masoud Barzani, the influential president of Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish north.

Turkey backs the KNC and pro-Barzani factions, perceiving them as posing less of a threat than the PYD.

In July, Barzani convened a peace conference in the Iraqi town of Irbil; all Kurdish political groups took part. They agreed to set aside their differences and to participate in a new supreme Kurdish body. But this deal to share power and hold joint patrols appears to be working badly on the ground. The PYD still controls most checkpoints, and has a network of armed fighters; critics complain its structures are less than democratic.

All Kurdish factions agree on what they want: self-determination within a united, sovereign Syria. But this vision appears too much for the Syrian Arab opposition leaders as they inch closer to power.

This week the US recognised the Islamist-dominated opposition council as the country’s legitimate authority. Earlier this year the KNC stormed out of a meeting with the council’s predecessor after it refused to include wordings about the rights of Kurds. In particular, the Kurds want to drop the word “Arab” from Syria’s official Ba’athist name – the Syrian Arab Republic.

One FSA fighter who fought in last month’s clashes in Qastal, near Ifrin, a Kurdish stronghold, said he was deeply suspicious of Kurdish intentions. “The new Syria has to be a single entity,” Abu Ahmed insisted, recounting how several of his comrades had perished in the shootout. He added: “It’s impossible to make a Kurdistan in Syria like in Iraq. We want one Syria. We don’t want parts of Syria.”

Perhaps the hopeful slogans on Qabbasin’s walls will prevail. Kurds and Arabs have lived side by side for centuries, together with Armenians, Turkmens, Circassians and other ethnic groups. Optimists hope they can patch up their differences and agree a post-Assad political solution. But pessimists predict that once once Assad is gone, the rival forces inside Syria will embark on a new war – with Arabs, nationalists, jihadists, loyalists and Kurds all scrapping with each other.

Back in the coffee shop, Khalil shrugged. “We will have a new conflict, and then we will see who emerges as champion,” he predicted.

• This article was amended on 15 December 2012. The original described Kurds